January 3, 2011

New Year's Revelation

My "New Year's Revelation" has been a real eye opener for me. It has changed much of what I have believed in the past, and now future, for the better.

In the past, I could not justify the disregard for the Old Testament, the supposed dispensational
structure of God's revelation and dealings believed in dispensationalism, and went on a journey to find that Biblical justification for such positions. I am hungry for truth, after all.

That quest had lead me to various discussions with Christians, and Atheists, about my beliefs and justification for them. The battles won, in part, was because my beliefs were Biblically grounded and my counterparts could not justify their reasoning behind their beliefs. Without boring you with entirety of my very lengthy past discussions, although interesting they (Shea and Moose) were, I want to just point to the conclusions.

Just recently, the beginnings of this revelation came from reading a book by Dr. Greg Bahnsen called "No Other Standard" and Bahnsen argues against some positions taken against the subject of Theonomic Ethics. A term that I never heard of before reading that book, but it was a free book offered written by Dr. Bahnsen, so I was in. It turns out, it delt with this exact subject that I was having with the Christian, Shea, a believer in  dispensationalism, but I didn't know it at the time. Our views clashed and could not come to a common agreement which kept me searching as to why what I know as truth, was so radically different from what I thought was the beliefs of the most common Christian Community.

Many of you know my positions about my limited governments, free markets, and of course Presuppositionalism and so on. I also have many controversial positions held about dietary laws, holidays, etc. Its not the normal positions held by many, if not most, Christians out there. In fact, many Atheists agree with me on many things with one glaring exception, of course.

In my search, (read 'research') I found another term I was unfamiliar with until, literally, this year. Admittedly, it was a little comforting to place a label of what my core beliefs are.

I understand that there are controversial positions within this label, and we will flush them out in future posts. I am satisfied with what I believe in and will explore them more in relation to these labels. I find it quite compelling that I come to my beliefs before this revealed term before it was even known. We must be on to something here.

If I had to make one, my new year's resolution would be to continue my research and post about these things in the future, but I am in bliss, relieved, and at peace as to this new found term for myself, and my core beliefs.

I am simply, an advocate and a believer in a Christian Theonomy but man can't do it alone. We NEED the 2nd coming for that fruition. 

101 comments:

  1. Dan, thankfully you're not a Muslim. If they believed in the same principles then we'd all be real scared.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan:

         As much as you say that others don't "account for their beliefs," you don't either. You just presuppose them. You are applying a double-standard.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pvb,

    >>As much as you say that others don't "account for their beliefs," you don't either. You just presuppose them. You are applying a double-standard.

    Never said I, or they, didn't presuppose anything. We all do. Can you show me an instance
    of accounting for something, without presupposing anything? But that is NOT the argument here at all. I may have said they "cannot account" for their worldview, which means an account with the clarification of intelligibility. Example: How do you account for ANY absolutes in your worldview? Atheists could say "pink coins" is their account for absolutes, but that does not follow logic. What we are dealing with is intelligibility of that account, does it fit logic and reason in a non-viciously circular fashion that is a justified true belief? Your worldview does not, where mine does.

    On what do you base the certainty that gravity will not change? What I am looking for is an account, or a justified true belief. How do you know it doesn't degrade or increase? Do you have an answer? If not, that is when I/we come back with "you cannot account for gravity not changing" I can account for gravity not changing and even have verses as more evidence to back up my reasoning. (Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3)

    I know with certainty that gravity is constant and will not change.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How is TAG not an example of circular reasoning?
    How is your world view not an example of non-viciously circular reasoning, Dan?

    ReplyDelete
  5. >>"continue my research"
    you mean read the bible some more

    Poor Dan, It must be hard to believe absurdities to have to go to such extreme lengths to deny facts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. >>How do you account for ANY absolutes in your worldview?<<

    Absolute (fragrance), a fragrance substance produced via solvent extraction
    Absolute (philosophy), a concept in philosophy
    Absolute (production team), a pop music writing and production team
    Absolute (record compilation), a brand of compilation albums from EVA Records
    Absolute (Aion album) by Japanese metal band Aion
    Absolute (Time-Life album), an R&B compilation album
    Absolute construction, a grammatical construction used in certain languages.
    Absolut Vodka, a brand of Swedish vodka
    Absolute Entertainment, a video game publisher
    Absolute magnitude, the brightness of a star
    Absolute Radio, (formerly Virgin Radio), one of the UK's three Independent National Radio stations.


    >>On what do you base the certainty that gravity will not change?<<


    >>"I know with certainty that gravity is constant and will not change."

    Have you ever experienced gravity change? NO...well there you go, until your experience of gravity changes then you'll continue to know that it is constant.

    I know for certainty that the non-existence of supernatural is constant and will not change. Until my experience non-existence of supernatural changes then I'll continue to know that it is constant.

    ReplyDelete
  7. >>I can account for gravity not changing and even have verses as more evidence to back up my reasoning.<<

    Dans home school Science text book says:

    Gravity is constant because god says so.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan says:
    "I can account for gravity not changing and even have verses as more evidence to back up my reasoning.

    And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

    ...and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high"

    This is not an account of why gravity is constant. This is not evidence that gravity is constant.

    ReplyDelete
  9. JC,

    >> How is TAG not an example of circular reasoning?

    Never said it wasn't circular, but it is not viciously circular as your position is.

    >>How is your world view not an example of non-viciously circular reasoning, Dan?

    Because I appeal to a different plane then you do. Problem is JC, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular. To make things worse you have no basis for assuming that your reasoning is valid. We, on the other hand, appeal to the eternal plane for our reasoning, not this same temporal plane as you. My reasoning is not viciously circular, as an atheistic worldview is.

    Greg Bahnsen writes: ”In the Christian worldview, however, the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. We appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible… … The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises.” ~ (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ant,

    >>you mean read the bible some more

    You got me, but that is not the only way God reveals Himself.

    >>Poor Dan, It must be hard to believe absurdities to have to go to such extreme lengths to deny facts.

    You want to back up those bare assertions with some evidence? Explain yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "...as your position is."

    And what is my position?

    Problem is JC, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular|.

    As opposed to you not using reasoning to test your reasoning?
    Have you ever thought about your position?

    We, on the other hand, appeal to the eternal plane for our reasoning, not this same temporal plane as you. My reasoning is not viciously circular...

    I want to get this part right;
    You are claiming that your reasoning is ball-shaped not circular?
    A ball being a three dimension circular shape instead of a two dimension circle.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ant,

    Are you certain pronouns with the label of "absolute" exists? If so, how?

    :7)

    >>Have you ever experienced gravity change? NO...well there you go, until your experience of gravity changes then you'll continue to know that it is constant.

    With that logic, you have just proven that I am immortal. You see Ant, every day that I’ve been alive, I haven’t died, therefore I will never die. You are begging the question. Please try again.

    >>I know for certainty that the non-existence of supernatural is constant and will not change. Until my experience non-existence of supernatural changes then I'll continue to know that it is constant.

    How do you know this for certain? You are consistent alright, but not the way you want us to believe. You are consistent in denying God's existence. A dedication to truth, would be healthier for you. Your worldview is getting in the way of that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. HAHAHAHAHA [seriously Dan stop, my sides hurt from laughing so hard]

    It not 'circluar reasoning' it's 'when in doubt insert magic reasoning'

    ReplyDelete
  14. >>With that logic, you have just proven that I am immortal.<<

    No. I have proven that you will be alive untill your dead.

    ReplyDelete
  15. >>I know for certainty that the non-existence of supernatural is constant and will not change. Until my experience non-existence of supernatural changes then I'll continue to know that it is constant.

    >>How do you know this for certain?

    Do you want me to learn then explain brain chemistry to you?

    ... let me guess... you going to accuse me of avoidance!

    Yes Dan I'm going to avoid learning brain chemistry. Perhapts you could try and learn about it yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  16. It never ceases to amaze me when people assert something along the lines of God is necessary to explain “X” because why “X” exsist can’t be accounted for yet on the basis of scientific laws.
    What? Do those 'gods necessary' laws account for their own existence and properties? Now that’s a neat trick.

    “God of gaps” yawn!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ant,

    You are nothing new or special here. Remember there were Atheists in the very beginnings of Biblical times. "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

    Here is a great point for you, "If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable." Plantinga

    ReplyDelete
  18. >>You are nothing new or special here. Remember there were Atheists in the very beginnings of Biblical times<<

    Yes, there were atheists before the publication of the Historical Fiction novel called, The Holy Bible.

    So what...?

    Dan you are nothing special here, there were superstitious Homogenus aswell.

    http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kxk5813E9N1qzewk6o1_500.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  19. I put it to you, Dan, that there was a time before you knew about Presuppositionalism.

    I also put it to you, Dan, that you thought about Presuppositionalism.

    Now you can do the math.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan, you're still at this?! Please just give it up. I've been lurking on and off for a while since my last visit and its obvious you still haven't learned anything from the many hours you're wasted trying to make claims that have been repeatedly been shown to be at the least incorrect and the worst so flawed the points aren't even an argument.

    I'll just point out one that I have repeatedly done in the past.

    Dan, you said, "you use your reasoning to test your reasoning... the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. "

    First of all though in my opinion a circular argument and viciously circular argument are one in the same, I won't bother to get into that since it really doesn't matter since your entire claim is flawed.

    You say that an Atheist/Rationalist start by using his reasoning to test his reasoning and since you do not, and instead just start at accepting god or god’s word to be your foundation, you are starting at another plane or something of sorts you really never explain. What you are forgetting is that before you can choose to accept god or his word, you have to use your reasoning to conclude that god or his word is real/correct and reliable place to work from. Also, before you do that, you have to conclude you reasoning is reliable, and you can trust that your conclusion to use god as your tool to analyze your world is correct. So, you are making two assumptions before you get started.

    Those who so choose to use reasoning, and I can't speak for all, start by concluding that their ability to reason is reliable, because we need to just get started as you did. The next step is to admit that we cannot be sure are abilities or methods Are 100% reliable and find ways to test our conclusions so that anyone repeating these same test will see that same results that confirm them.

    So Mr. Dan, as you can see, we both start at the same assumption but you choose to trust it and make yet another assumption. You can claim to be using a circular argument orbiting in some plane or reality that might only exist in your mind, but that doesn’t mean anything to anyone but you. You then proceed on after making those first two bold assumptions (Your reasoning & god) blindly believe that all that follows in 100% correct. I find it hard to understand how you can trust your world view at all.

    A rationalist makes one assumption and doesn't even trust it. He constantly finds ways to test and verify the conclusion he reaches. You can say that a rationalist’s world view is circular, but at least it starts with just one. You on the other hand have so many layers of assumptions orbiting your world view it looks like the solar system.

    If you believe my point is incorrect, I can clarify it for you. If you understand my point and still think I am incorrect, please show me how you know that you world view is correct and not just due to you brain being addled due to a being hit in the head by a rock.

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  21. Gimi wrote the following: So Mr. Dan, as you can see, we both start at the same assumption but you choose to trust it and make yet another assumption

    Bingo. Dan tries to equate the trusting of our senses with the acceptance of the biblical deity. He does it badly, too.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Atomic Gimi,

    >>If you believe my point is incorrect, I can clarify it for you. If you understand my point and still think I am incorrect, please show me how you know that you world view is correct and not just due to you brain being addled due to a being hit in the head by a rock.

    I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them.

    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, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dan is not just trying to attack someone's reasoning, he's trying to destroy reason itself.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well articulated Atomic Chimop!

    Dan,
    I am sure you would concede that human imagination created an idea of a omniscient, omnipotent being.

    Can imagination reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ant,

    >>Can imagination reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    No, you are confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty. One cannot BE certain of something which is not true.

    ReplyDelete
  26. >>Can imagination reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    "No, you are confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty."<<

    So how do know which is which?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dan,
    I am sure you would concede that human imagination created an idea of a omniscient, omnipotent being.


    Yes or No?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan 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, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity."

    Dan you still have to assume your senses, you ability to observe are reliable before you can then evaluate the claimed things that were revealed to you. Even if there was a god that did reveal these things to you Dan, After you assume you can rely on your senses, you also need to assume your ability to evaluate what you see, hear, smell etc is also reliable. As I said before, you have to make the same assumptions we do. The difference is that you not only assume you can rely on them, you seem to believe they are 100% reliable and your conclusions are 100% correct. You never test your observations and conclusions, as we would, and instead you blindly follow the will of an unverifiable being. When you are asked to show support for your claims and beliefs, you regurgitate this flawed BS and claim victory though you actually are shooting yourself in your own foot.

    So Dan, how can you trust you brain that has been addled due to being hit by a rock?

    ~Atomic Chimp

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dan:

         You can only lay claim to feeling certain.

    ReplyDelete
  30. ...feeling of certainty with actual certainty.

    Certainty IS a feeling according to the dictionary.

    Anyhoo, there are a few questions of mine that you ignored because they completely undermine your attack of reason.

    The first one being: Was there a period of time before you knew of Presuppositionalism?

    -------
    And

    When you said: "I can account for gravity not changing and even have verses as more evidence to back up my reasoning."

    And gave these Bible verses: "And he is before all things, and by him all things consist."
    and
    "...and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."

    It is clear that these are not "accounts" or "evidence" for the consistency of gravity AND if gravity wasn't constant you would still use these verses.

    It is also clear that you are using "presup" as a way of avoiding questions.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Reading Gimi's comment has made me see that Dan is trying to attack the testimony of his own senses (and not just reason) in an effort to lever a god into reality.

    But being certain of something does not make it so. Believing an "account" is consistent does not make it true.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Pvb,

    >>You can only lay claim to feeling certain.

    Hmm, another knowledge claim...

    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, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity.

    Are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if so, how are you certain of this?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ant,

    "No, you are confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty."

    >>So how do know which is which?

    Same way I can be certain of anything, Revelation. How am I certain that the revelation is valid? Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it.

    >>I am sure you would concede that human imagination created an idea of a omniscient, omnipotent being.

    No, you have it backwards.

    If you were to ask: I am sure you would concede that omniscient, omnipotent being created human imagination.

    Then I would say Yes.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Atomic Gimi,

    >>So Dan, how can you trust you brain that has been addled due to being hit by a rock?

    We addressed this long ago but I will repeat for your convenience:

    'I haven't given much thought to Law's postulation but I have heard it used here before. So I took a moment to conclude that the fact that you are, attempting, to engage me in a conversation about logic cogitates that you believe that I am a rational logical being capable of a reasonable conversation. The evidence is within you already, thus I don't have to respond to any of Stephen Law garbage. Also, his whole argument is a Relativist Fallacy.'

    So this fallacious line of questioning does not have to be addressed.

    ReplyDelete
  35. JC,

    >> Was there a period of time before you knew of Presuppositionalism?

    Yes, much like there was a time I knew of the term Reconstructionism. Point?

    >>if gravity wasn't constant you would still use these verses.

    Was this a question or a knowledge claim? If the latter, how are you certain of this? If the former, then the answer is no, If God says he keeps things constant, and things like gravity or your denial of God were not constant, then I would not use those verses.

    >>It is also clear that you are using "presup" as a way of avoiding questions.

    Not at all, evidenced by addressing this point right here. :7)

    If you would just address the questions the presup poses, we would get farther along in a conversation. So, on what do you base the certainty that gravity will not change? An honest justified true answer would be appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  36. JC,

    >>Believing an "account" is consistent does not make it true.

    And Bingo was his name-o!

    So how, in your worldview, did you arrive at certainty about this or anything? Could you be wrong with the knowledge claim that "believing an "account" is consistent does not make it true"?

    ReplyDelete
  37. If there was a time before you heard of Presuppositionalism, you must have both used your senses and reason to evaluate it.
    So you've tumbled into the same "trap" that you tried to set for me a few days ago.

    Could you be wrong with the knowledge claim that "believing an "account" is consistent does not make it true"?

    Soon your questions are going to reach the level of "how do you know you're not a brain in a jar?"

    You've already admitted you are using circular reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  38. JC,

    >>Soon your questions are going to reach the level of "how do you know you're not a brain in a jar?"

    Already addressed by Sye: "Yes. If we were all just brains in vats, then the Bible would be false. If the Bible were false, you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical."

    >>You've already admitted you are using circular reasoning.

    Yes, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Yes, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is.

    Your view IS viciously circular.

    Do you deny that you used your senses and reasoning to evaluate Presuppositionalism when you heard of it?

    ReplyDelete
  40. JC,

    >>Your view IS viciously circular.

    No it isn't. The difference is the ability to justify rationality as opposed to the destruction of it. The Christian worldview is circular, yes, but not viciously circular like the Atheistic worldview. Test it.

    >>Do you deny that you used your senses and reasoning to evaluate Presuppositionalism when you heard of it?

    No, I knew it was the truth when I heard it, since it met logically with my core knowledge of God. Its sound argumentation, and it actually strengthened what I ALREADY KNEW of God.

    Now, you may not like the presuppositional argument, but please tell me how you know that your reasoning about anything, let alone presuppositional argumentation, is valid? Without presupposing God, the position of the atheist is reduced to absurdity.

    I don't expect you to like what I write. Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Do you deny that you used your senses and reasoning to evaluate Presuppositionalism when you heard of it?

    No
    ...

    And there you go!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dan,

    >>Same way I can be certain of anything, Revelation. How am I certain that the revelation is valid? Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it.<<

    How do you know the difference between claimed god-based thoughts and non-god based thoughts?


    >>I am sure you would concede that human imagination created an idea of a omniscient, omnipotent being.

    No, you have it backwards.<<

    HAHAHAHAHAHA.... HAHAHAHAHAH
    funny stuff, your best work Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dan,
    I didn't ask you where imagination came from.
    I asked if it were possible for imagination to create an idea of a omniscient, omnipotent being.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ant,

    >>I asked if it were possible for imagination to create an idea of a omniscient, omnipotent being.

    Well it goes without saying, imagination is, after all, the ability to form mental images of things or events. So yes the gift of imagination can create an idea of an omniscient, omnipotent being. Point?

    ReplyDelete
  45. No point required the anwserd question is a point enough. Cheers

    How do you know the difference between claimed god-based thoughts and non-god based thoughts?

    And under what circumstances did you FIRST become to be able to tell these differences?

    ReplyDelete
  46. In other words when/how did you have your first 'relevation' that wasn't imagination, and how did you tell the difference?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Ant,

    >>How do you know the difference between claimed god-based thoughts and non-god based thoughts?

    Again, revelation (natural and special).

    >>And under what circumstances did you FIRST become to be able to tell these differences?

    Good question, I would say the moment I started to read the entire Bible, as an Atheist. I was being pulled in. Life was certainly different after that. Difficult to articulate though. In retrospect though, I realized and noticed God's hand on/in my life since the beginning, even when I was an angry Atheist. I was just too angry to notice, so the exact moment is hard. I guess I always knew, I just denied it for so long until I was given an opportunity to be humble with a broken, and contrite, heart. It was that moment that clarified things, actually everything.

    ReplyDelete
  48.      The bible is a work made by people and the world we see does not obviously imply a creation. (If it is a creation, it is not obvious as there is legitimate dispute.) Dan has still not identified any source of revelation "such that we can be certain." But advocates of Presuppositional Baloney have to be vague about that because they know there is no such revelation.
         It's not enough for PB'ers to ask if it is possible for an omnipotent being to "reveal things in a way that you can be certain." An omnipotent being could "reveal" lies such that you would say you were certain they were true.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Well..well...the gang's all here!

    PBS-

    "The bible is a work made by people and the world we see does not obviously imply a creation."

    Can you prove that?

    ReplyDelete
  50.      If the world we see obviously implied a creation, there would be no dispute. There is a dispute over the matter. Therefore, if the world implies a creation, it is non-obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  51. There was a dispute over whether or not Bill Clinton had sex in the Oval Office too.

    A small eeny weenie teeny tiny bit, thought that he didn't.
    -snicker-

    The minority was wrong- and the debate didn't change that.

    But listen- the day you can shake up some dust from the ground and create a person....I'll listen to you.
    And I'll even sing Happy Birthday on your birthday and bake you a cake!

    We'll discuss how you can be saved through Jesus Christ over some coffee and cake.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Rhomphaia:

         "the day you can shake up some dust from the ground and create a person..."
         Hey, if you can ever do that, I will accept that as a reasonable explanation for how people came to be.
         As for the world being a creation, I don't know of anyone who believes that without first having been indoctrinated with that belief as a child. In short, no one seems to come up with that belief on his own. So, tell me (if you have children) do you tell them that the world's a creation, or do you let them figure it out for themselves? If you have to drill it into them from age two, it's not obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Pvb,

    >> Therefore, if the world implies a creation, it is non-obvious.

    You are just begging for that cartoon.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Pvb,

    >>As for the world being a creation, I don't know of anyone who believes that without first having been indoctrinated with that belief as a child.

    Well there goes that theory out the window. Many people, including myself, grow up to believe we come from apes. Certainly whoever went to public schools, like myself. I thought I came from apes all the way up until I was 23. So, if your theory is right then the kids that are being indoctrinated are in the public school systems, as the humanist John Dunphy pointed out.

    So thanks for the pseudo admittance that kids are being indoctrinated and that the perceived war begins at a young age. Although it isn't true.

    I am a great example that indoctrination of false doctrines do not ruin the truth. Once the truth is heard, people will flock to the light. I certainly do not throw my kids to the wolves though. Secular Humanists are targeting my kids, after all. Although, I am not worried, because God will guide them towards the truth, I am protective of them.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Dan claims to have had a funny feeling after years of alcohol abuse while reading a book, now he convinced himself it ok to have his childern under house arrest.


    "Secular Humanists are targeting my kids"

    Sound like Dan is read from the book of David Koresh. scary!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Dan:

         Your post would have been a lot more useful if I had been claiming that evolution was "obviously true." I understand there are people who make that claim. My criticism applies against them as well. However, are you telling me that your parents never told you about "creation" and that you just figured it out for yourself?
         Now it's certainly true that people will move into other beliefs that they like better, despite previous indoctrination. This can be for different reasons. For some, observations suggest the new belief is true. For others, the new belief is somehow comforting. I'm sure the thought of a free ticket into heaven is very comforting to you.
         I am convinced that actual observations did not convince you that the world was created or that christianity is true. If they had, you would be discussing how to reproduce those observations. The fact that you keep using Presuppositional Baloney tells me that you have no evidence and you know it. That doesn't mean I think you don't believe your god is real. I'm sure you do. You just know you can't back the claim up with evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  57. How do you tell the difference between revelation and imagination?

    Please show me how you know that you worldview is correct and not just due to you brain being addled due to damage from alcohol abuse?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Pvb,

    >> However, are you telling me that your parents never told you about "creation" and that you just figured it out for yourself?

    Nope, NEVER! After asking who this Jesus was my Dad said and can almost quote, 'Some wise men made a story up to control the people, Jesus was an invention.' Or something to that effect. I was around 10 years old. My Dad was, and still is, a naturalist and a materialist, he is an Atheist. My Mom was a hippie, who believed in the zodiac signs mumbo jumbo. She never mentioned the word Jesus, or God, to me once her entire life. I never sought after God until I turned 23, at which point I read the Bible cover to cover and remained a believer until I was finally saved many, many, years later.

    >>The fact that you keep using Presuppositional Baloney tells me that you have no evidence and you know it.

    Quite the opposite, all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence. That point is driven home by the Presuppositional argument. Its solid and truth. Who doesn't like truth? Oh yea, that's right, I forgot who I was talking to for a moment.

    >>You just know you can't back the claim up with evidence.

    Are you certain of that? If so, how is it that you can be certain of this, or anything?

    Resume ducking - with obfuscation. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  59. Ant,

    >>Dan claims to have had a funny feeling after years of alcohol abuse while reading a book...

    You are committing the fallacy of a “hasty generalization.” Also, to claim that senses can never be reliable because they sometimes are not reliable is a logical fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Ant,

    >>Please show me how you know that you worldview is correct and not just due to you brain being addled due to damage from alcohol abuse?

    Your whole argument is a 'Relativist Fallacy' and does not require a response. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  61.      "Resume ducking - with obfuscation."
         That's a reasonable description of how Presuppositional Baloney operates.
         Evidence is something that tends to distinguish possibilities. When you say "all evidence is evidence of god" you demonstrate that you cannot think of anything that distinguishes a god condition from a no-god condition. It also strongly suggests you don't understand what evidence is.
         "'You just know you can't back the claim up with evidence.'
         "Are you certain of that?"
         I'm reasonably sure. It's possible that you've been holding out on me. But... I really don't think that's the case. Here, let me make this simple for you. If you can back up your claim with evidence, then do so. Don't pull games like "how can you know anything for certain?" or "all evidence is evidence of god." Those are things I expect from someone who has no evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Pvb,

    >>If you can back up your claim with evidence, then do so.

    I have many times, God's collective natural and special revelation. Its all the evidence that is needed.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "God's collective natural and special revelation."
    AKA

    A.I.D.S.
    (alcohol induced dizzy spells)


    >>Also, to claim that senses can never be reliable because they sometimes are not reliable is a logical fallacy.<<

    How do you know which senses are reliable or not?

    How do you know your 'revelation' sense is on of the reliable ones?

    How do you know this for sure?

    Do you concede that years of alcohol abuse can cause brain damage can be the cause of heighten emotional response to imagination (revelation)?

    How do know this isn't the case for you?

    you claim
    >>natural and special revelation<<

    We know that different parts of the brain you different functions. Where is the 'God revelation function, senses filter' in the brain?

    Has anyone has a MRI while reading the bible? ;7

    ReplyDelete
  64. Pvb,

    I forgot to mention that your entire reasoning,

    >>As for the world being a creation, I don't know of anyone who believes that without first having been indoctrinated with that belief as a child.

    is what is called a Genetic Fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Ant,

    >>A.I.D.S. (alcohol induced dizzy spells)

    More fallacious argumentation from you? This time its twofold, an Appeal to Ridicule and Poisoning the Well. You're getting sloppy.

    >>How do you know which senses are reliable or not?

    You really are not getting this revelation thingy, are you? It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain.

    >>Do you concede that years of alcohol abuse can cause brain damage can be the cause of heighten emotional response to imagination (revelation)?

    Nope.

    >>How do know this isn't the case for you?

    Same way I can be certain of anything R E V E L A T I O N.

    >>We know that different parts of the brain you [use?] different functions.

    Really? You know? It is impossible to know anything absent certainty. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?

    >>Where is the 'God revelation function, senses filter' in the brain?

    Well, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that. You see, without such an account you can't justify knowing that I have not already answered all of your questions.

    ReplyDelete
  66. So Dan,
    You have had a revelations that your revelations are real. How is that not circluar?

    I've always been sloppy ;7 sorry.
    in other words-

    There is evidence that the human brain functions by different areas of the brain being reponcible for different individual functions.
    If God is revealing things to us to to be real, that would suggest that in the human brain there would be a section that would interact with God, to filter our life experiences so that God could show us what is reliable or not.
    Where (location) in the brain does this happen. e.g. answers: Front,back, top, I don't know.

    >>Do you concede that years of alcohol abuse can cause brain damage can be the cause of heighten emotional response to imagination? NOPE<<

    So you're saying there is no such thing as alcohol induced brain damage? Ingorence much?

    I've never once claimed to know anything for absolute certain.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dan:

         An obvious conclusion is one which people can be expected to come up with on their own. If, for example, only one person in a thousand, can have the insight to see something without being told, it is not obvious. Nobody, or nearly nobody, sees the world as a creation or as a "natural revelation" without being told. Therefore it is not obvious. Contrary to your assertions, that is not a genetic fallacy.
         "You really are not getting this revelation thingy, are you? It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim [revelation as an answer to any hard questions.}"
         There, I fixed it for you. Your attempt to "justify" revelation with revelation is viciously circular.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Dan, I note you have taken to ignoring the calls for you to show how your worldview is correct and not just the consequence of your brain being addled after serious head trauma by claiming the questioners are committing a 'relativist fallacy'.

    Can you please demonstrate how you feel the question commits the fallacy? After all they are not saying that it's true for you (and, conversely, not for them) they are saying it is true about you.

    ReplyDelete
  69. FD,

    >>Can you please demonstrate how you feel the question commits the [relativist] fallacy?

    I will try,

    The original fallacy is this:

    # Claim X is presented.
    # Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
    # Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.

    But that is to not know what claim X is, as it is about the validity about person D. So applied, its this:


    # Claim X is presented about Person D.
    # Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
    # Therefore A is justified in rejecting claims from Person D, because of [barely asserted] claim X.


    So applied it looks like this,


    # Claim that Dan's brain is possibly addled after serious head trauma is presented.
    # Person A(NTZILLA) [or the original Stephen Law] asserts that addled brains after serious head trauma may be true for Dan but is not true for him/her.
    # Therefore A is justified in rejecting Dan's claims because of claim of his addled brain.

    Its also a fallacious bare assertion along with a relativist fallacy. Its sound. If you want to call this the "Law fallacy" I will be fine with that. :7)

    In fact that is what I will call it in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  70. >># Claim that Dan's brain is possibly addled after serious head trauma is presented.
    # Person A(NTZILLA) [or the original Stephen Law] asserts that addled brains after serious head trauma may be true for Dan but is not true for him/her.
    # Therefore A is justified in rejecting Dan's claims because of claim of his addled brain.<<


    Ok let me give you my point of view.

    a)
    Who is Stephen Law?
    b)
    Your claim some sort of 'revelation' has what you think is correct.
    One type of thinking you could say, is imagination. I want to know what the difference between imagination and this revelation is.
    c)
    I'm assuming you don't beleive all your imaginations.
    So using the anwser from (b) how does that give to the impression it actually real.
    d) You have admitted, years of personal alchol abuse. When you had your first 'revelation' (what ever that is) were you sceptical of your own emotional reponce? Did/have you conciderd that 'revelation' could be your indivdual highten emotional responce to what you thought was a good story. Much like a 12yo girl reading Twilight?
    e) Your a liar. There is no feeling of revelation. Just a neat circluar/avoidance arguement with no substance.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Dan +†+ said...

    FD,

    >>Can you please demonstrate how you feel the question commits the [relativist] fallacy?

    I will try,

    Thank you.

    The original fallacy is this:

    # Claim X is presented.
    # Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
    # Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.

    But that is to not know what claim X is, as it is about the validity about person D. So applied, its this:

    # Claim X is presented about Person D.
    # Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
    # Therefore A is justified in rejecting claims from Person D, because of [barely asserted] claim X.

    So applied it looks like this,

    # Claim that Dan's brain is possibly addled after serious head trauma is presented.
    # Person A(NTZILLA) [or the original Stephen Law] asserts that addled brains after serious head trauma may be true for Dan but is not true for him/her.
    # Therefore A is justified in rejecting Dan's claims because of claim of his addled brain.


    The part I have highlighted in bold, where is anyone making the claim that addled brains after serious head trauma is true for others (i.e. you) but not for them? IMO you have set up a strawman here.

    Its also a fallacious bare assertion along with a relativist fallacy. Its sound. If you want to call this the "Law fallacy" I will be fine with that. :7)
    In fact that is what I will call it in the future.


    So far you've failed to show the relativist fallacy is being committed but I'll grant you that the claim you have addled brains due to head trauma could be a bare assertion ... although how would you know? what with you having addled brains as a result of serious head trauma ;-)

    It's a device, nothing more. An attempt to get you to recognise that the presupp position you, or rather Sye, holds to, does the exact same thing. When Sye claims the 'impossibility of the contrary' he's basically saying that any attempt to prove him wrong automatically proves him right - he never explains why this is, he will simply ask you justify your ability to reason to his satisfaction. Of course the only way to do that was to accept his claim. The 'addled brain' scenario was Law's parody. Does it ever prove you've been hit on the head? of course not, but you have no way of proving you can reason without first accepting that you have - at which point you have no argument.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Dan's hungry for validation, not truth.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Ant,

    >>So you're saying there is no such thing as alcohol induced brain damage?

    Not at all, there may indeed be an example of alcohol induced brain damage. But that red herring, or irrelevant thesis, has nothing to do with God's Revelations.

    >>I've never once claimed to know anything for absolute certain.

    Then its possible that you are wrong about everything. Great, then you have no argument about ANYTHING. Thanks for admitting that.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Ant,

    a)The original person who posed the fallacious addled brain thingy.

    b) Its not what I think is correct (subjective) its what IS correct (objective). Huge difference. The difference is one is God's revelation and the other is merely someone's imagination. The Bible is one of God's revelations. Get it? Now if you wish to pose the position that I "imagined" the Bible then please put that forward. Otherwise, I think that puts your point to bed. I have now even tucked it in for you.

    c) God gives us the ability to realize His revelations.

    d) >>When you had your first 'revelation' (what ever that is) were you [skeptical] of your own emotional [response]?

    Sure, until God revealed to me His truth. Then no.

    >>[H]ave you [considered] that 'revelation' could be your [individual] ]heightened] emotional [response] to what you thought was a good story.

    Yes, I considered that, all the way up until the evidence was verified.

    e) Wow, very harsh words you have for me.

    >>There is no feeling of revelation.

    I agree. Please show where I said that to you! Otherwise apologize for calling me a liar for saying that. You may be confusing our conversation here with a past post years ago. But that was before you came into the picture, so I doubt that.

    >> Just a neat [circular]/avoidance [argument] with no substance.

    OK genius. Show how God's revelation, of His Word called the Bible, is merely a collective figment of billions of peoples imagination. Do all of those billions of people have "alcohol induced brain damage"? Your logic is simply, absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Imagination is used to say/feel that the book, The Holy Bible or anything is a Revelation (message from a God).

    >>[H]ave you [considered] that 'revelation' could be your [individual] ]heightened] emotional [response] to what you thought was a good story.

    Yes, I considered that, all the way up until the evidence was verified.<<

    What evidence? and how was it verified?

    >>OK genius. Show how God's revelation, of His Word called the Bible, is merely a collective figment of billions of peoples imagination.<<

    LOL, it's not a collective figment of billions of imagination, just the authors Peter, Matthew etc.

    Millions of people use there imagination when reading it, yes.
    Some of them may have alcohol induced or other brain damage that could cause a dilution that what the imagine/read is reality. Like an imageless hallucination.

    or they are liars and don't actully believe what they say they believe (the bible is a message from a god)

    c) God gives us the ability to realize His revelations.

    HOW?

    ReplyDelete
  76. "Then its possible that you are wrong about everything."

    Yep I could be.
    So what are the conciquences here.

    I'm wrong - When I die I go to hell.
    (one person, me)

    You/your kind (religious) are wrong - Your childern are being miss treated, Pollution is real and everyone is stuffed. etc,etc. (countless people suffer)

    ReplyDelete
  77. Ant,

    >>What evidence? and how was it verified?

    God exists. God reveals that immediately in nature, in His Word, and innately. I received it (and continue to receive it) in all 3 forms by the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. In nature and innately constantly, and when I read His Word. I do not know the mechanism by which the Holy Spirit does His revealing but He does it such that I can be certain of it.

    Again, I do not know how God does what He does, nor do I feel a need to know. ”"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. ~ Isaiah 55:8

    >>So what are the [consequences] here.

    Plenty, for everyone denying Him and the freely offered gift.

    >>You/your kind (religious) are wrong - Your [children] are being miss treated, Pollution is real and everyone is stuffed. etc,etc. (countless people suffer)

    Children mistreated? How dare you make such a wild and unfounded bigoted assumption. Your presupposition, that believing in God is bad, is really getting in the way of your logic here.

    >>I'm wrong - When I die I go to hell.
    (one person, me)

    Yea, one person unless you get it in your head that you only have death to worry about as the 'great equalizer' and go on a shooting spree, but one is too many and unnecessary.

    [Ref, "countless people suffer"]

    Even if its an evolutionary thing, a belief in God is a good thing. The evidence certainly points to that. In that mindset, the ONLY great equalizer perceived is death, and if Atheists named Eric Harris (wrote “NATURAL SELECTION. Kill the retards.” on the walls in Columbine High School), Eric Auvinen ("Humanity is overrated"), and most recently Jared Loughner feels that they can live any way they want and murder people on a whim. Only to die in the end like the rest of humanity, insights pandemonium. We have heard all the Atheistic justifications for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pot, Ill, Castro, and 45 million unborn and counting, and other atheist regimes. "That's what leads Hitler to try and breed humans and apes to try to create an oversized warrior or to send expeditions to Tibet to find a pure, Aryan race" So logically followed through, on a pure naturalistic plane, a belief in God is necessary for mankind "evolution". Yet you rial against it. Its quite telling. Again, your atheistic worldview is inconsistent and absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Dan:

         "God reveals that immediately in nature, in [h]is [w]ord, and innately."
         I can see nature and I see no such revelation. I am inclined to think that you imagine it is there. More to the point, I think you had to believe in your god before you saw any of these supposed "revelations." Certainly, you have to believe your god exists before you take anything to be "his word." Otherwise, like me, you will determine that it is the words of men.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Pvb,

    >> More to the point, I think you had to believe in your god before you saw any of these supposed "revelations."

    You may have an indirect point. We all know the existence of God. Some just deny it, like I was doing for those many years. So yes, as an Atheist, I knew God.

    >>Otherwise, like me, you will determine that it is the words of men.

    As I did. All the way I stopped denying the truth. That, in itself, was a miracle to me.

    ReplyDelete
  80. >>We have heard all the Atheistic justifications for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pot, Ill, Castro,<<

    Again so what about these nutjobs!!!

    I, like 99.9999% of the people in the world are nothing like them.

    Have we not learned from these mistakes?

    Just like we have learned the mistakes of theism?
    "remember Uganda"

    How is brainwashing your child with the Bible not child abuse if in the end you are wrong!

    >>Again, your atheistic worldview is inconsistent<<

    Of course my worldview is going to be inconsistent, just like the real world is. You can only account for [anything] based on that [anythings] individual properties.

    Again with your Christian love child Hitler... who cares!

    Oh remember your post on the Environment? If your worldview is wrong then, what message would you leave for your childern?

    Believe what ever you want just think of OTHERS when you put beliefs into actions.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Ant,

    >>How is brainwashing your child with the Bible not child abuse if in the end you are wrong!

    I have said the same thing about your death camps. At the very least my kids will live a wholesome life. At the very least yours grow up to gain the world, only to lose their souls. Sad.

    I cold easily just say "insert Pascal's wager here" but it goes beyond that. I would rather live a life knowing there is a God, and die to find out there isn't one. (I would still be glad I attempted to conduct myself in a righteous manner.) Then to live a life knowing there is no God, only to find out I was horribly wrong.

    >>Oh remember your post on the Environment? If your worldview is wrong then, what message would you leave for your [children]?

    I teach my kids to be good stewards of the land. To not depend on man, but look to God for wisdom. The closer to natural, or raw(foods), the closer to God.

    >>Believe what ever you want just think of OTHERS when you [sic] put beliefs into actions.

    I do! That is why I started "Debunking Atheists" :7)

    ReplyDelete
  82. Dan,
    Our disscussion/s remind me of this:

    http://www.venganza.org/2010/12/an-emerging-trend/

    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  83. If two people both claim to have revelations that contradict each other how do you verify which or any revelation is real?

    ReplyDelete
  84. Ant,

    >>If two people both claim to have revelations that contradict each other how do you verify which or any revelation is real?

    You should ask yourself that one too. I refer to the AUTHORITY. Now, the one that is wrong has the wrong ultimate authority.

    Before you ask. Yes, there is an Absolute Authority

    ReplyDelete
  85. OK what if both people claim to follow the same Absolute Authority
    yet their revelations contradict each other how do you verify which or any of their revelations is real?

    ReplyDelete
  86. Ant,

    >>OK what if both people claim to follow the same Absolute Authority
    yet their revelations contradict each other how do you verify which or any of their revelations is real?

    There is someone always on the wrong side of truth. Truth is absolute. There are no contradictions with absolute authority. Hence the name. Atheists depend on "self" as their authority and can be, and are, wrong. Do not lie, because I (God) don't lie. You cannot get more absolute authority then God.

    Fly planes into buildings, because Allah says to, is not absolute. It violates God's Law, do not murder (6th Commandment).

    ReplyDelete
  87. >>There is someone always on the wrong side of truth. Truth is absolute...blah,blah,blah<<

    How do you/anyone/everyone verify which or any of their revelations is real?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Ant,

    >>How do you/anyone/everyone verify which or any of their revelations is real?

    First, do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Yes, Ok for the sake of discussion we are speaking from your worldview...

    OK start again...

    There are two (doesn’t really matter how many) people, they all claim the same omniscient, omnipotent being revealed things to them all in such a way that they could be certain of them.

    Now, the things that were claimed to revealed to the people were contradictory.

    How do they/you/anyone/everyone verify which or any of their revelations is real?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Ant,

    >>How do they/you/anyone/everyone verify which or any of their revelations is real?

    I am cracking up at this but...

    Does this thing proven have to follow absolute laws of logic?

    Now I am laughing cause I can see you throwing your keyboard across the room, but before you do...

    I ask this because the Bible does not contradict itself. So, if two people are arguing about God's revelation. Then its possible one is using an eisegesis method of interpretation instead of a more proper Exegesis method. Context is key.

    Now, I suspect that you mean God speaking to people in an audible voice. If that is the case, then I'm out. I do not hear voices, so I cannot relate. Somehow, Moses, and everyone around him, KNEW it was God. That is because God has that ability.

    ReplyDelete
  91. ... [after retrieving my keyboard]

    There is two people, one KNOWS they have revelation that they should both only eat bananas for breakfast, the other KNOWS they have a revelation that they should both only eat toast for breakfast.

    How do they/you/anyone/everyone verify which or any of their revelations is real?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Ant,

    >>There is two people, one KNOWS they have revelation that they should both only eat bananas for breakfast, the other KNOWS they have a revelation that they should both only eat toast for breakfast.

    Neither is wrong per se. (Romans 14:2-3) But both need to be warned. (1 Timothy 4:1-4)

    ReplyDelete
  93. Dan,
    While I am entertained at your question evasion skills...

    They both claim to have had revelations.
    These revelations contradict each other.

    So again

    How do they/you/anyone/everyone verify which or any of their revelations is real?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Ant,

    >>These revelations contradict each other.

    Not if we have an ultimate authority on the matter. God's Word. God has not, and cannot, contradict Himself.

    ReplyDelete
  95. OK... *sigh*

    God doesn't contradict himself.

    By this logic, one or both of the people are not having a (real) revelation, yet they still claim to KNOW they are.

    How do they/you/anyone/everyone verify which or any of their revelations is real?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Ant,

    >>By this logic, one or both of the people are not having a (real) revelation, yet they still claim to KNOW they are.

    You are confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty. One cannot BE certain of something which is not true. Since you admit that one can BE certain, then that some feel certain does not defeat actual certainty.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Dan.

    Q1
    How do they/you/anyone/everyone verify which or any of their revelations is real?

    Q1a
    How do they/you/anyone/everyone verify, which one has the feeling of certainty and the one with actual certainty?

    [these questions may become the ANTZILLA checkmate] :7

    ReplyDelete
  98. Ant,

    ref: "checkmate" Questions.

    You can tell if the revelation is of God by its fruit. False things do not come from God.

    "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.' And if you say in your heart, 'How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?'— when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him." ~Deuteronomy 18:20-22

    "So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." Matthew 7:17-19

    ReplyDelete
  99. OK.
    But the actions from the revelations (eating of breakfast) have not been done yet.
    Also both claimed revelations don't seem to be good/bad/indifferent.

    How do they/you/anyone/everyone verify which or any of their revelations is real?


    Are you suggesting that the only way to verify which or any revelation is real, is by acting out said claimed revelations and see what happens?

    OK then the two people can't both act there revelations because they contradic each other, ie they both can't only eat bananas for breakfast and at the same time both only eat toast for breakfast.

    So [Checkmate]

    How do they/you/anyone/everyone verify which or any of their revelations is real?
    Oh and how do you verify there not tricks?




    Let me guess *crickets*

    ReplyDelete

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