I was wondering what it would be like if all of us all got together to eat some BBQ and enjoy some good conversation. Well, I got a glimpse of that today, join me. Also, if you ever wondered how a baby from Sye and Ray would turn out, I give you Chad!
[Embeded has been disabled by owner Chad, for some reason]
Just sit back and enjoy. Mike also confirms this quote, "If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable." ~Plantinga
I also noticed that Yaeger's Law was confirmed, yet again.
hey Dan, can u do me a solid bro? how bout, tell CHAD to respond to my video response on his "atheist logic" vid. you knw one thing I dont understand with you presuppers, is, God, Van Til, and Bahnsen ( the holy trinity of presuppers ) preach and preach about "throwing down the gauntlet and challenge the atheist to a duel of life or death" to quote van til, but its only when its amateur hour. when someone does "bring an A game" a REAL "A-theist" game, u guys run to the hills like an Iron Maiden hit. I think someone needs to rewrite Van Til and call it "Defense Of Faith...of course only when up against someone not familiar with presuppositionalist fallacious traps". its really a sorry display of cowardice.
ReplyDeletelet me tap into my faith based psychic god powers and predict Dan's response through revelation...
ReplyDelete"how can you be certain?"
lol what a joke
AJ,
ReplyDelete>>[W]hen someone does "bring an A game" a REAL "A-theist" game, u guys run to the hills like an Iron Maiden hit.
If you do not repent of your professed worldview then it is you who will know Eddie face to face. (another Maiden ref.)
You have yet to be able to account for the very same things Mike cannot. Unless you're ready to try again. Remember that Ann Ryan, or Dawson, still cannot account for the laws of the universe either.
The Atheists professed worldviews simply do not comport with universal, abstract, invariant entities such as the laws of logic. They are doing something, which, if their worldview were true, would be impossible for them to do, and THAT is the contradiction as perfectly displayed in this conversation between Chad and Mike.
Of course by "cannot" I do mean you cannot provide a justified true belief. You do not have the ability to justify rationality as opposed to the destruction of it. So bring your "A" game if you feel ready.
you know Dan, I just have to say...THANK YOU...for not blocking me on your blog and your youtube, like Chad Williams did.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate that even though you know that what you believe is a complete fantasy, and that its not real, and that presuppositionalism is a complete fallacy, and that all the miracles in the bible are impossible, and that you know that Jesus isnt real, and that you know that heaven and hell arent real, you know that evolution is fact but wont admit it, you know the book of revelation makes no sense whatsoever, you know that Dawson Bethrick would make Van Til and Greg Bahnsen cry, you know Sye Ten Bruggencate is scared of Dawson, yet... you still dont block my, or anyone else's comments. ( as far as I know )
Thanks man! at least you got the free speech thing right! ugh but all that religious mess, dude. come on, you dont really believe it. the muslims, they take it seriously, they still stone women, but the Christians, they dont really believe it, thats why you guys dont kill gay people, you just dream about killing them and sending them straight to hell! lol j/k
Sincere Thanks
think about it Dan, in the days of thor, skeptics of thor, could not "account" for lightning, did that mean that thor existed?
ReplyDelete...nope. out of the thousands of gods, not a single one has ever been the answer to a mystery of any kind...ever...in the history of the world...EVER!
Dan, give it up, You still haven't explained how you justify your blind trust in your senses and your ability to reason. Also you need to show what objected evidence was revealed to you by this unknown being to lead you to conclude he exists.
ReplyDeleteOne other thing I wanted to point out again is that there are no 'Laws of logic'. These are just the things humans recorded concerning how they saw things operate. There is nothing that says they cannot be incorrect. Quantum Physics has show that in all cases these 'Laws' are not correct anyway. So in the end you have nothing to stand on. Logic is not the absolute, universal, abstract, invariant entities you hope they would be.
Dan, all you have is wishful thinking and a very limited knowledge of what you try to hold up as your argument to support you imaginary being.
Finally, how can you trust your brain that has been addled due to having been hit in the head with a rock?
~Atomic Chimp
Game,set,match.
ReplyDeleteGentlemen, round 2 of the debate between myself and Sye is scheduled for early Feb 2011 on Premier Christian Radio.
ReplyDeleteLet's see if the parlour trick still works shall we ?
Dan, you didn't respond to my post about your comment on my blog.
Paul Im very interested to hear you debate Sye. do you know the station? or is there a pod cast or something?
ReplyDeleteAtomic Gimi,
ReplyDelete>>Logic is not the absolute, universal, abstract, invariant entities you hope they would be.
Are you certain of this Atomic Gimi? If so, how are you certain of it? If not, you have no argument.
>>Finally, how can you trust your brain that has been addled due to having been hit in the head with a rock?
I don't have to address a fallacious line of questioning. Approach me with a question, other then with a relativist fallacy, and then we can talk. BTW, you have some BBQ on your face. Have a nice day.
AJ,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kindness. I am not afraid of truth. I will, and have, fight to the death for your freedoms that God gave us.
It takes far more love to confront then to ignore the situation. Thanks for showing me love, at least from your worldview's standpoint. I hope you understand that I also love you, enough to tell you the truth.
If so, how are you certain of it? If not, you have no argument.
ReplyDeleteAnd here's yet another way to avoid questions!
PBaird
ReplyDelete"Gentlemen, round 2 of the debate between myself and Sye is scheduled for early Feb 2011 on Premier Christian Radio.
Let's see if the parlour trick still works shall we ?"
Gee Paul, love tells the truth as Dan noted.
So, frankly Paul here's some truth:
After wasting much time attempting to reason with you, and after watching anthropologist "pogo" from http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/ waste as much or more time, I see no reason why any intelligent theist or even deist should even pay attention to you.
All you do is avoid, deny, assert w/o support, falsely accuse, divert, mock, and verbalize endlessly over definitions of terms while quite visibly trying to squirm out of any candid & honest answer.
You have no credibility. Not even within your own empty "nothing created everything and nothing ultimately matters" world view.
Sye (or Dan or whoever) owns you before you even start because you know you cannot answer simple questions without revealing how empty and meaningless your current life is.
Only God can define meaning to life.
You spend most of your time defending a bankrupt, zero evidenced world view that intrinsically means that life has no meaning, there is no good, no evil, no purpose!
Unreal to say the least once one examines the bitter & vehement passion with which atheists try to defend their "all is ultimately futile" view.
Yet you're still here!; acting as though it does have meaning!
Indeed, your very presence here requires an inference that you really do think there are absolutes and thus meaning!
Atheists are like the kid with chocolate all over his face, attempting to hide the cookie behind his back, that denies having been into the cookies.
They're very presence all over the web infers their belief in absolutes and the existence of ultimate truth. Otherwise why bother? Nothing is really true or false and nothing is really bad or good.
You, like all atheists, are a walking self contradiction.
JC,
ReplyDeleteIf so, how are you certain of it? If not, you have no argument.
>>And here's yet another way to avoid questions!
And here's yet another way to avoid the certainty question!
That right J.C. Dan refuses to deal with how you refute what you last said, and then moves to another question.
ReplyDeleteDan, Up to you old flawed games. I don't see what my level of certainty has to do with my last post. You made a claim, and I pointed out something that refutes it. 'Nuff Said.
Dan, I do not need to show that nothing can be absolute nor do I show that everything had to be absolute or not absolute. All I need to do is provide a reasonable amount of evidence to show your claim that 'The Laws of Logic', a human construct, are not the 'absolute, universal, abstract, invariant entities' as you claimed. If you like I can point out some physics citation to back up my statement.
Now its your turn Dan, if my evidence is incorrect, please show me what support you have for your claim concerning the 'Laws of Logic'. No talking in circle and changing the subject.
While you're at it, If these Laws are as you claim, please explain how that support you Christian god. At best, if I were to entertain your argument, it could support many gods. Thor, zeus, The great spirit or maybe a group of gods. It could also apply to a spiteful god, and selfish god or a god who really does care anymore. So explain how you see it leads to your god only.
Also, on the previous post you said, "It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain." You forgot to include that it is just as possible he could revel something you would think is absolutely certain but is not at all. Also you could just be experiencing a hallucination that makes you feel absolutely certain about something. Explain how you distinguish what you feel you are experiencing to be what you claim not the other equally valid options.
Last but not least, My question was no more fallacious than yours. Please explain to me how you can trust your addled mind that was caused by the rock I saw hit you in the head.
Good Day Sir.
~AC
Dan, while I wait for your response, I thought I’d add this into the mix.
ReplyDeleteDan you said, ” Are you certain of this Atomic Gimi? If so, how are you certain of it? If not, you have no argument.”
Dan, please explain to me why I would have no argument if I am not certain, or absolutely certain as I’m sure you actually mean
While you think about that, since I know you like to quote people here are a few to chew on. They do not prove anything but still are very wise words from wise people.
------
”As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
~Albert Einstein
"There's always an element of chance and you must be willing to live with that element. If you insist on certainty, you will paralyze yourself." - J.P. Getty
And my favorite that I think applies well to our discussion:
”Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.” ... ~Albert Einstein
Dan, while I wait for your response, I thought I’d add this into the mix.
ReplyDeleteDan you said, ” Are you certain of this Atomic Gimi? If so, how are you certain of it? If not, you have no argument.”
Dan, please explain to me why I would have no argument if I am not certain, or absolutely certain as I’m sure you actually mean
While you think about that, since I know you like to quote people here are a few to chew on. They do not prove anything but still are very wise words from wise people.
------
”As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
~Albert Einstein
"There's always an element of chance and you must be willing to live with that element. If you insist on certainty, you will paralyze yourself." - J.P. Getty
And my favorite that I think applies well to our discussion:
”Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.” ... ~Albert Einstein
*shudder* Why would anyone willing watch a video featuring Chad.
ReplyDeleteBathtub,
ReplyDelete>>Why would anyone willing watch a video featuring Chad.
Don't you mean, why would any Atheist be willing to seek truth? *shudder
Again as has been discussed you have no way showing that anything you say (or the dishonest hacks at living waters) is 'the truth'.
ReplyDeleteOh except for word games and running away from questions. That's real convincing Dan.
hey Dan if Im the "truth suppressor" then why did "christian apologist" Chad williams block me from his youtube and his blog? can you ask him why he is not "defending the faith" ? come u guys are supposed to "throw down the gauntlet and attack head on" not "throw down the gauntlet and run home crying to mama."
ReplyDeleteBathtub,
ReplyDelete>>Again as has been discussed you have no way showing that anything you say (or the dishonest hacks at living waters) is 'the truth'.
So that goes for everyone? I hope this is not a special pleading speech. Anyway, thanks for admitting that no one has an avenue to the truth by themselves. Plus, it would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain.
So the ONLY avenue to certainty is through God, and God alone. So, once again, thanks for understanding that the ONLY way to knowledge is through God. You do understand our argument perfectly.
>>That's real convincing Dan.
Once again, our argument is not intended to be convincing, we are merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of our hands.
AJ,
ReplyDelete>>hey Dan if Im the "truth suppressor" then why did "christian apologist" Chad williams block me from his youtube and his blog?
Probibly for the same reason I was persecuted at the "The Signs of Persecution" Webinar by Ray Comfort's group, how Ironic. They banned me for posting a URL.
Also, you do understand that is why I had to start this blog years ago because most of the Atheists out there kicked and banned me from posting comments in their yards too. They are all human.
What does the Bible say about it? Well, plenty:
"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his opinion."~ Proverbs 18:2
Dan, you still haven't responded to my last posts. You seem to just be pretending I never refuted your claims. Why is that?
ReplyDeleteAlso, you once again revealed your flawed and selective reason by saying,"Plus, it would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain."
Its intellectually dishonest of you to forget the other options I pointed out that are just as valid, 'Your assumed god could reveal something you would think is absolutely certain but is not at all. Also you could just be experiencing a hallucination (or delusion) that makes you feel absolutely certain about something.' If I put my mind to it I could come up with more valid options too. Please explain how you can distinguish where your experience falls.
You also say,"So the ONLY avenue to certainty is through God, and God alone." yet you have yet to show support for the claim that things you speak of are as certain as you believe, and that there are no other ways to gain absolute certainty unless YOU posses absolute knowledge. Please don't claim that god possess it so by default you have it too, you still need to validate your experience of said god.
Dan, after all the time I've frequented your blog, have you not learned anything from the many discussion you've had with the people who post here?
~Atomic Chimp
Atomic Gime,
ReplyDelete>>All I need to do is provide a reasonable amount of evidence to show your claim that 'The Laws of Logic', a human construct, are not the 'absolute, universal, abstract, invariant entities' as you claimed.
Well that would be a refreshing change because that is what has been asked this entire time.
>>Now its your turn Dan, if my evidence is incorrect, please show me what support you have for your claim concerning the 'Laws of Logic'. No talking in circle and changing the subject.
I will be more then happy too. Just as soon as you provide this "evidence" that logic is not 'absolute, universal, abstract, invariant entities'
>>While you're at it, If these Laws are as you claim, please explain how that support you Christian [G]od.
They provide even more evidence to God's existence, and renders your worldview absurd.
>>At best, if I were to entertain your argument, it could support many gods. Thor, zeus, The great spirit or maybe a group of gods.
Is that your worldview then? I have evidence for God's existence, do you have evidence for your now belief in Polytheism? If so, I would like to hear it.
>>You forgot to include that it is just as possible he could revel something you would think is absolutely certain but is not at all.
Once again, mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Mere assertion of a mere logical possibility. If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions.
This is not to say God is able to lie, He isn't. I am merely pointing the flaw in your reasoning. Its impossible for God to deceive or lie. He cannot do things against his nature. That would be like saying that you will will now go live in the bottom of the ocean, breathing water is against your nature. Its illogical to say you can, as you are trying to do in this situation. Once again, your points are absurd.
>> Please explain to me how you can trust your addled mind that was caused by the rock I saw hit you in the head.
You saw? Really? Any evidence for this bare assertion? Anyway, what you are doing is using a fallacious argument, 'Relativist Fallacy'. It does not require a response. The same goes for what I said to Ant, and that is after this many times saying this to you, and yet you keep repeating the same question, makes me wonder about your own mental faculties and your cognitive functions. Please try again, yet again.
Atomic Gime,
ReplyDelete>>Dan, please explain to me why I would have no argument if I am not certain, or absolutely certain as I’m sure you actually mean
They are one in the same as it is impossible to know anything absent certainty. Tell me one thing that you know, absent certainty?
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.
How can you account for something that is a justified true belief within your worldview?
>>While you think about that, since I know you like to quote people here are a few to chew on. They do not prove anything but still are very wise words from wise people.
I perfectly agree with those very good quotes. It shows the honesty in their worldviews. You, on the other hand, resist that honesty.
Its worth pointing out that J.P. Getty's grandson was kidnapped and he did not give into the demands of the kidnappers because he said "I contend that acceding to the demands of criminals and terrorists merely guarantees the continuing increase and spread of lawlessness, violence and such outrages as terror-bombings, "skyjackings" and the slaughter of hostages that plague our present-day world."
Sure sounds like he was certain that not giving in was the right thing to do. He did not give into the "element of chance" to get his grandson back. A bit inconsistent worldview. He stood on my worldview, to make such a claim.
We all understand Einstein's beliefs. He cannot arrive to certainty within his worldview. He was at least consistent.
>>”Education is the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.” ... ~Albert Einstein
So the farther from God you get, the more uncertain things will be. I agree. When man further his dependence on "self" then uncertainty will ensue. There is no other alternative, no other avenue. Einstein was wise to understand that. Education, in this sense, was man teaching man...they had another term for that. The blind leading the blind.
Atomic Gimi,
ReplyDelete>>Dan, you still haven't responded to my last posts. You seem to just be pretending I never refuted your claims. Why is that?
Because I have a life. Your lack of patience is noted, and quite telling.
>>Dan, after all the time I've frequented your blog, have you not learned anything from the many discussion you've had with the people who post here?
That fallacious comment was completely unfounded. I am sure you want the audience to believe that I haven't learned anything but actually I have, quite a bit. Now lets talk about your repetitive positions. So this relativist fallacy is quite telling when the very same thing can be said about you. "After all the time you've frequented this blog, have you not learned anything from the many discussion you've had with the people who post here?"
Dan, Its up to you to show support for your claim. All you have done is use assumption after assumption to support your original assumptions. You're not helping your case at all.
ReplyDeleteYour comment about Einstein's quote is very telling. The way I read it is that you see education as the enemy of god. That really doesn't surprise me.
Dan, you still need to show support for you claims. I'll do a quick list of what comes to mind right now.
* 'Laws of logic' are absolute
* Your god experience is not one of the other valid options I've provided (delusion, other god, etc)
* You know the mind of your claimed god
* Why can the world not function using other world views?
* Why logic or anything needs to be justified for a world view to be valid?
* There are no non-religious explanation for logic?
* How can the laws of logic be absolute yet your god can break them?
* explain how quantum physics can contradict your world view....
Thats good for now.
As for your definitions Dan, I never claimed that nothing can be absolutely certain nor everything is absolutely certain. You nor I can make either claim. My point is that your claim the the 'Laws of Logic' are absolute. I also then said I do not need to be absolutely certain they are not. It is you who need to support your claim. The fact that things like the casimir effect, virtual particles, double slit experiments do not follow your claimed absolute laws of logic supports the idea that they are not universal nor absolute.
Whether I can or can't account/justify or explain logic is irrelevant. It is you who claimed that it is and that you have the answer. You need to sure that up with evidence Dan which you have yet to do. Bold assertions repeated over and over do not count as evidence.
As for certainty, if we need to be absolutely certain to have an argument, then why is it you only need to be beyond a reasonable doubt in a court to put a man in prisoned for life or to death.
When someone tells me they are certain, my understanding is that an educated yet modest person means that are as certain as possible based on thier current knowledge and understanding.
Dan I have been very patient with you over the past few years. In the past you have not responded to many posts others here and I have made concerning this same discussion. The most I ever seem to get out of you a bunch of unsupported assertions and pretzel logic before you disappear into another post. It would be nice for a change for you to actually give a valid response.
There are so many holes in your last few posts, I have no idea where to start. I think its just best to leave it as it is. I think you've done a better job the I could have to illustrate how vacuous your pretzel logic is.
~Atomic Chimp
Some definitions corrections/updates for you:
ReplyDeleteKnowledge: is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as (i) expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject; (ii) what is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information; or (iii) awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation. Philosophical debates in general start with Plato's formulation of knowledge as "justified true belief."[citation needed] There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one, and there remain numerous competing theories. Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association and reasoning. The term knowledge is also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject with the ability to use it for a specific purpose if appropriate.
Dan said...
ReplyDeleteOnce again, mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x).
Shame you never seem to apply this to your claim of 'revelation'. The mere possibility of such a revelation is no adequate justification that such as actually happened.
Well said, ANTZILLA & freddies_dead.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I forgot to mention Dan is that you said,"Now lets talk about your repetitive positions. So this relativist fallacy is quite telling...". What is very telling is you seem to miss that the the fallacy, applies only to objective facts. My statement that the "laws of Logic" you believe are universal and absolute appear not to be is based on objective empirical data. If you ask me if I am confident that logic is very reliable and in most if not all cases I apply it it will function the same, I would say yes, but I would never claim to be absolutely certain of that, especially since data shows in certain conditions it does not operate as we might expect. My job rests on the reliability of logic but I don't know of any of my associates who would ever claim they are absolute. We operate on the premise that claims made are tentative and open to change as new data appears.
You on the other hand Dan make many subjective claims you assume are objective. You also contradict yourself when you assert that logic is absolute and universal, yet you use it to support the claim of your god who is not bound to these universal laws. Your shooting yourself in your own foot Dan. If your god can break the laws, then they are no universal and absolute.
~Atomic Chimp
Hey Gary, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"So, frankly Paul here's some truth:
After wasting much time attempting to reason with you, and after watching anthropologist "pogo" from http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/ waste as much or more time, I see no reason why any intelligent theist or even deist should even pay attention to you."
Yeah, he had a sort of coherent argument - you might try it sometime.
Have you given up on both of your blogs now ?
BTW I'm starting a podcast over skype in Feb, I'll happily debate you in an open-ended format and you can record it yourself, same for Dan or anyone who wants to chat.
Or are you just a Don Quixote tilting at windmills ?
Dan, Dan, Dan. Putting your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to the contrary argument does not make it go away.
ReplyDeleteI've posted a response to your absolutes line on my blog (and to Syes too).
Hey - big cluestick, read this and this.
How is that possible if the law of non-contradiction is an absolute ? And if you are going to refute it then that refutation will need to really, really good.
Found a great site call Flame Warriors.com
ReplyDeleteDan is-
Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.
That seems to be a pretty accurate description, Ant...
ReplyDeleteAtomic Gimi,
ReplyDelete>>You nor I can make either claim.
Wrong. I can make the claim that the laws of logic are absolute, as they are and truthful. Just the same as you can claim they are not, as you do, but its not truthful and illogical. One of us is right, I think you are frightened as to who. Moving on.
Besides, is it true that the Causality is accepted as a universal truth by Atheists, and is the basis for science, which, in turn, somehow lead people to Atheism? If so, then its a bit inconsistent to your worldview since there are no such a thing as Natural laws in your worldview.
>>My point is that your claim the the 'Laws of Logic' are absolute. I also then said I do not need to be absolutely certain they are not. It is you who need to support your claim.
Stop being a slippery eel here. Man up, stand on your conviction. Your claim is that the laws are NOT absolute. Your worldview cannot allow for it at all. If absolute logic exists and is true, it has significant impact on your worldview. You will have no avenue to wiggle out of things. You would be FORCED to admit that you MUST borrow from my worldview to make sense of things. That is because my worldview is the ONLY worldview that makes epistemological sense. Its also the ONLY worldview that addresses things epistemologically. That is the truth, and you are fully aware of it. You know God exists, by the 'impossibility of the contrary'.
>>The fact that things like the casimir effect, virtual particles, double slit experiments do not follow your claimed absolute laws of logic supports the idea that they are not universal nor absolute.
Actually they do. All of those do not violate the laws. Double slit, as an example, shows when the factor of observation (variable) is added then the state of the particle changes. No violation there, but it says buckets full of an existence of God. If particles change state, by mere observation, that is evidence of a Creator. Randomness, materialism, and naturalism would not get those results. If its predetermined before minds exist, that minds would effect particle movement then that is fully compliant with my worldview, certainly not yours.
>>Whether I can or can't account/justify or explain logic is irrelevant.
Its absolutely relevant. You cannot even account for your own reasoning. Care to try?
Is the principle of Cause and Effect accepted as a universal truth?
>> It is you who claimed that it is and that you have the answer.
Yes, my worldview makes epistemological sense. Yours? Not so much. Care to try? Otherwise, its reduced to absurd, and delusional.
>> You need to sure that up with evidence Dan which you have yet to do.
Complete hogwash. Once again, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging. You know, after this many times saying this to you, and yet you keep repeating the same statement of not providing evidence, makes me wonder about your own mental faculties and your cognitive functions. Please try again, yet again.
[To be cont'd]
[Atomic Gimi 2 cont'd]
ReplyDelete>>As for certainty, if we need to be absolutely certain to have an argument, then why is it you only need to be beyond a reasonable doubt in a court to put a man in [prison] for life or to death[?]
Because there are laws, that say things are not allowed. What if there was a law that said you cannot rape, unless you rape, do you get sentenced to death? Do laws of logic only need to be close, or good enough, or have to make sense? Are logical laws on the same plane, in the same way, as civil court laws? If you place an innocent man to death then the laws themselves would not necessary break down, because is that really breaking the laws? No. If you violate the laws of non contradictions, then contradictions are allowed, and logic would itself, breaks down.
A corrupt judge would ruin the laws, but not violate them. If contradictions are allowed, as you claim they are, then you have NO ARGUMENT. If rape is allowed then you cannot put a man to death for rape. I don't need to "shore that up with evidence" at all, for anything if that is the case. Again, you are inconsistent in your worldview.
>>Dan I have been very patient with you over the past few years.
To that I say, touché my friend.
>> In the past you have not responded to many posts others here and I have made concerning this same discussion.
Any evidence for that? Or are bare assertions allowed in your worldview?
>>The most I ever seem to get out of you a bunch of unsupported assertions and pretzel logic before you disappear into another post.
That coming from someone that believes that contradictions are allowed since nothing is absolute, and there is no such thing as natural laws. Besides, evidence against your reasoning is that every single post of mine is NEVER closed off and I get emails, sometimes daily, from older posts. Some that are many years old. So that throws egg into the face of your point that I "disappear into another post." You have no logical reasoning behind that accusation, but that certainly does comport with your professed worldview.
>>There are so many holes in your last few posts, I have no idea where to start.
You cannot start anywhere! You cannot argue against contradictions, if your worldview allows for contradictions, as an example. Wrong can be right, in your worldview! Once again, I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
>>I think its just best to leave it as it is.
As that is more consistent with that worldview of yours. Good job.
>> I think you've done a better job the I could have to illustrate how vacuous your pretzel logic is.
Is vacuous pretzel logic wrong? If so, how do you account for wrong within your worldview? Speaking of vacuous pretzel logic. *pshaw
Side note: I love "Pretzel Logic", one of the best Steely Dan albums ever. Let the quote mining begin.
Dan +†+ said... (to the Atomic Chimp)
ReplyDeleteI can make the claim that the laws of logic are absolute, as they are and truthful.
Of course you can make the claim, the only problem is that presuppositionalism has no argument to support it - instead you simply try to shift the burden of proof by saying we must prove you wrong. Why don't you give us the argument that proves your claim in principle.
Your claim is that the laws are NOT absolute.
I won't speak for AC but personally I have no idea whether absolutes exist or not. We have, however, asked you to demonstrate that the Laws of Logic are - as per your claim. As yet we're still waiting...
Your worldview cannot allow for it at all.
This is flat out wrong. You were given an atheist friendly account for absolute, univeral, immaterial laws of logic which demonstrates that it is perfectly allowable in the atheist worldview, you may disagree with the account but cannot claim that their isn't one.
You would be FORCED to admit that you MUST borrow from my worldview to make sense of things.
Lol, there is definitely someone committing the fallacy of the stolen concept here, unfortunately for you it's not the atheists.
You know God exists, by the 'impossibility of the contrary'.
And we also know your brains are addled as a result of serious head trauma ;-)
If particles change state, by mere observation, that is evidence of a Creator.
What a leap! I hope you're in the US Olympic team for 2012 Dan because you'd be a shoo-in for the long jump, triple jump and high jump. State change of particles under observation is only evidence that observation can affect particle state.
If its predetermined before minds exist, that minds would effect particle movement then that is fully compliant with my worldview, certainly not yours.
Here you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge concerning the mechanism of observation - the particles aren't observed by a mind so it is not the mind affecting the particles.
You also undermine your own worldview in the process - how can anything in your worldview be 'predetermined before minds exist'? you simply demonstrate that you must borrow form the atheist worldview (primacy of existence) in order to prop up your own absurd worldview based on the primacy of conciousness.
Once again, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
Strawman, my stance is that the Bible is not evidence for God because there's no evidence to support divine direction in it's authorship. It's an exercise in circular reasoning: the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it's the Word of God. The Bible is simply a book, it's very popular and has been around for a long time but it's only really evidence that people once wrote a book.
If you violate the laws of non contradictions, then contradictions are allowed, and logic would itself, breaks down.
Lol, this from a man who believes that his deity is 3 entities all of whom exist in the same way at the same time - your worldview actively laughs at the law of non-contradiction. As for whether logic breaks down if you find something that doesn't conform, well that's just ridiculous. Most people realise that logic is descriptive, not prescriptive and if some parts of reality don't fit the usual descriptions you merely find a description that better describes those parts of reality, you don't suddenly throw out all descriptions which work just fine for the rest of reality.
Dan +†+ said... (to the Atomic Chimp)
ReplyDeleteI can make the claim that the laws of logic are absolute, as they are and truthful.
Of course you can make the claim, the only problem is that presuppositionalism has no argument to support it. Instead you simply try to shift the burden of proof by saying we must prove you wrong. Why don't you give us the argument that proves your claim in principle.
Your claim is that the laws are NOT absolute.
I won't speak for AC but personally I have no idea whether absolutes exist or not. We have, however, asked you to demonstrate that the Laws of Logic are absolute - as per your claim. As yet we're still waiting...
Your worldview cannot allow for it at all.
This is flat out wrong. You were given an atheist friendly account for absolute, universal, immaterial laws of logic which demonstrates that it is allowable in the atheist worldview, you may disagree with the account but cannot claim that their isn't one.
You would be FORCED to admit that you MUST borrow from my worldview to make sense of things.
Lol, there is definitely someone committing the fallacy of the stolen concept here, unfortunately for you it's not the atheists.
You know God exists, by the 'impossibility of the contrary'.
And we know your brains are addled as a result of serious head trauma - go on, prove us wrong ;-)
If particles change state, by mere observation, that is evidence of a Creator.
What a leap! I hope you're in the US Olympic team for 2012 Dan because you'd be a shoo-in for the long jump, triple jump and high jump. State change of particles under observation is only evidence that observation can affect particle state.
If its predetermined before minds exist, that minds would effect particle movement then that is fully compliant with my worldview, certainly not yours.
Here you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge concerning the mechanism of observation - the particles aren't observed by a mind so it is not the mind affecting the particles.
You also undermine your own worldview in the process - how can anything in your worldview be 'predetermined before minds exist'? you simply demonstrate that you must borrow from the atheist worldview (which rests on the primacy of existence) in order to prop up your own absurd worldview (based on the primacy of conciousness).
cont'd...
cont'd...
ReplyDeleteOnce again, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
Strawman, my stance is that the Bible is not evidence for God because there's no evidence to support divine direction in it's authorship beyond the circular claim that the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says it's the Word of God.
As such it's simply a book, it's very popular and has been around for a long time but it's still just a book.
If you violate the laws of non contradictions, then contradictions are allowed, and logic would itself, breaks down.
Lol, this from a man who believes that his deity is 3 entities all of whom exist in the same way at the same time. Dan, your worldview actively laughs at the law of non-contradiction. As for whether logic breaks down if you find something that doesn't conform, well that's just ridiculous. Most people realise that logic is descriptive, not prescriptive, and if some parts of reality don't fit the usual descriptions you merely find a description that better describes those parts of reality - you don't suddenly throw out all descriptions which work just fine for the rest of reality.
Ant,
ReplyDeleteI try to be gentle with many atheists here, even you. :7)
p.s. I like that, very clever, site too. We have had some laughs with it in the past.
Freddies Dead,
ReplyDelete>> you simply demonstrate that you must borrow form the atheist worldview (primacy of existence) in order to prop up your own absurd worldview based on the primacy of [consciousness].
Yea right. Sure looks like I will have competition in the 2012 Olympics with that claim of yours. Existentialism is still bound up in the feigned existence of human autonomy. By definition, if human beings are autonomous, have no Creator to be accountable. If human beings are products of chance, then there is no possibility of knowing anything to be true.
Even Charles Darwin knew this and in a letter he wrote: “The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
>>Most people realise that logic is descriptive, not prescriptive and if some parts of reality don't fit the usual descriptions you merely find a description that better describes those parts of reality, you don't suddenly throw out all descriptions which work just fine for the rest of reality.
Do you wake up in the morning and assume that logic has changed? Of course not, so what is your basis is for assuming that logic has not changed? How would you know if logic changed if it had? Was logic used in understanding the observations which were used in the formulation of logical laws?
Also, what observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way? You see, just the definition of that law implies prescriptiveness – (CANNOT BE, not ISN’T)
Your logic is, once again, absurd.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies Dead,
>> you simply demonstrate that you must borrow from the atheist worldview (primacy of existence) in order to prop up your own absurd worldview (based on the primacy of consciousness).
Yea right. Sure looks like I will have competition in the 2012 Olympics with that claim of yours. Existentialism is still bound up in the feigned existence of human autonomy. By definition, if human beings are autonomous, have no Creator to be accountable. If human beings are products of chance, then there is no possibility of knowing anything to be true.
Lol, your appeal to authority (Van Til) is duly dismissed. Maybe you could try and support his assertions with some evidence?
Even Charles Darwin knew this and in a letter he wrote: “The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”
Another appeal to authority (this time Darwin). Also if Darwin was wrong about evolution (as you claim) why should I accept his musings about this?
>>Most people realise that logic is descriptive, not prescriptive and if some parts of reality don't fit the usual descriptions you merely find a description that better describes those parts of reality, you don't suddenly throw out all descriptions which work just fine for the rest of reality.
Do you wake up in the morning and assume that logic has changed?
No, is there some reason why I should? Has your God changed the underlying reality that logic describes perhaps? It is, after all, your position that He's capable of this, not mine.
Of course not, so what is your basis is for assuming that logic has not changed?
Experience. You will claim revelation is your basis - but of course your revelation needs an infinite regress of revelations in order to continue being your basis.
How would you know if logic changed if it had?
Because our understanding of reality would have changed first and we would need a new description that better describes our newfound understanding.
Was logic used in understanding the observations which were used in the formulation of logical laws?
Logic describes the process by which we understand the observations - it isn't the process itself.
Also, what observation has led you to believe that “A” CANNOT BE both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same way?
Here you're asking me to give a proof for a law I suspect may not actually be absolute, lol. We don't see things being what they are and something else at the same time and in the same way, hence the description. If we ever do find something that is itself and something else we will need another description to describe it (in it's own context of course) until then we stick with the generality.
You see, just the definition of that law implies prescriptiveness – (CANNOT BE, not ISN’T)
So now it's language that decides whether logic conforms to reality or reality conforms to logic? lol, this just gets better and better...
Your logic is, once again, absurd.
Your continued reification of logic is what is absurd here - the description is not the thing Dan.
Hi Dan, I continued the discussion on the ‘Arbitrary Atheists’ post.
ReplyDeletefreddies_dead, I agree with you, I too have no idea whether absolutes exist or not. Having said that, it appears that recent research has shown evidence that they might not be absolute, or our understanding of them is not 100% correct yet. Either way, Dan can claim whatever he wants, but for his claim of absolutes, he needs to show support for it. Unfortunately for him it would require that he has absolute knowledge to claim an absolute.
So Dan the best you can do is to show your claim is well supported, but remember you need to account for the evidence against it I have already mentioned, and how your god can contradict these absolutes yet they are absolute and universal.
~Atomic Chimp