This blog has been created, not with the purpose of debunking Atheists, but proclaiming truth. Atheists have already debunked themselves the very moment they declare their Atheistic Worldview. So with respect, we reveal the Gospel, Biblically. We are Christians, ministers, theologians, and apologists for the Christian faith. We seek our eyes dry for these lost. We depend on "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. ... grief, crying, and pain will exist no longer,..." ~Revelation 21:4
Ha! That’s funny Dan. They make the unsupported assertion that nobody can deny god, therefore god.
Dan, you cannot deny that I am god. If you do then you are claiming you know all, therefore, I am god!
Hey Dan, you cannot deny I’ve been to Mars. If you do you are claiming to you know everything I’ve have and haven’t done, therefore, I’m a Martian.
I like this game.
Ignorance is not evidence Dan. Saying that you cannot deny that there is an all knowing being who is giving you access to knowledge you are absolutely certain of that is a complete lie too. I can see how this video would convince someone who has already chosen to believe. This guys faith has obviously blinded him of all the holes in his arguments.
Dan, this video blew out my irony meter and gave me a severe migraine, so I couldn’t watch the either thing. Still though, I think I went down a few points in IQ form just watching the first few minutes. It will take months of re-education, mental therapy and a month on only a liquid diet to regain my strength.
Nice internal refutation there - if god didn't exist, god wouldn't exist. Great.
Can you demonstrate the necessity of an independent, knowing mind, in order for anything else to exist? Thought not. Also, can you demonstrate that any 'knower' claims certainty, apart from yourself?
Again, thought not. Certainty is an illusion, unless you believe you already know everything.
And the dopey surfer/stoner dude narration doesn't really help your case, I have to say...
Dan said,"We say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence. "
I say that all evidence is evidence there is no god. I also say that all the lack of evidence for a god is also evidence there is no god!
Check and Mate! Hey, with your world view, bare assertions seem are good enough to make it true. Why should I waste my time delivering a well thought response supported by empirical evidence?
Dan,"even one's very ability to reason about evidence."
You consider your barren reasoning skill set, evidence for your god Dan? You seem to keep forgetting that many others and I have demonstrated the gapping holes in you claims.
So, is the unnecessary suffering of the Canaanite children order to be killed by your god, and those young girls who watch their family violently killed and were taken as possessions by the invading army, which your god gave them complete permission to do, as evidence of your god?
>>I say that all evidence is evidence there is no god. I also say that all the lack of evidence for a god is also evidence there is no god!
>>Check and Mate!
Not so fast. You know full well we always say that assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
If you concede to the mere EXISTENCE of the Bible then you MUST concede to evidence for God. Rejected evidence does not negate evidence. If that is the case I reject you existence. Does that make it true? Of course not. Your fallacious argumentation (relative fallacy) is getting in the way of your logic and reasoning.
>>Are you still using that circular reasoning crap?
Is that wrong? If so, how is this or anything wrong within your worldview?
>>Can you even attempt to justify that?
Sure. God is presupposed in order to make sense of reason, and one's ability to do so, and logic. Otherwise things are reduced to the absurd.
>>We say that all evidence is evidence of Asmodeus, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.
Does that (mere claim) make it true?
>>Prove me wrong using your uh, "reasoning".
I don't have to, it falls apart by its own merits and evidence. Look, the point is that you can only depend on fallible human things that deal with possibilities and probabilities. You cannot be certain of anything. We are certain of things, therefore....
Scripture itself proves God. The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true and then proceeds to effectively prove itself internally. The self consistency and accuracy of the scriptures that speaks of God and His existence is sufficient. Believers base their assurance and knowledge on things OTHER then fallible human things. Nobody know the Father without the Son Jesus Christ. Period. (Matthew 11:27)
God's revelation is sufficient to know things, as we do. Without it, you cannot know anything. Hence the post title and claim.
>> Sure. God is presupposed in order to make sense of reason, and one's ability to do so, and logic. Otherwise things are reduced to the absurd.
So, for argument’s sake – according to your beliefs - god gave us logic and the ability to reason. Thanks to our ability to logic and reason we realized there’s no evidence that supports his existence (since he didn’t show himself to us. So your god is responsible for the atheists to exist. Unless your god is some sort of prankster who gave us the ability to logic and reason just to send us to hell if we use that ability to doubt his existence.
>> Does that (mere claim) make it true?
If all evidence is evidence of god, does that mere claim make it true?
>> I don't have to, it falls apart by its own merits and evidence. Look, the point is that you can only depend on fallible human things that deal with possibilities and probabilities. You cannot be certain of anything. We are certain of things, therefore....
D.A.N, what makes you so certain of things? God? Really? That’s question begging…
We never claimed to be 100% sure of everything, because nobody is (that includes you). But the difference between us and you is that when we know something we bring evidence that backs up what are we saying and you don’t. You use baseless circular reasoning.
>> Scripture itself proves God. The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true and then proceeds to effectively prove itself internally. The self consistency and accuracy of the scriptures that speaks of God and His existence is sufficient. Believers base their assurance and knowledge on things OTHER then fallible human things. Nobody know the Father without the Son Jesus Christ. Period.
The bible is true because is the word of god therefore bible itself is the definitive proof of god. See? Baseless circular reasoning.
>> God's revelation is sufficient to know things, as we do. Without it, you cannot know anything. Hence the post title and claim.
What is that god revelation? Can you share it with us (without mentioning the bible)?
The only “revelations” I had reading the bible is that this book fails in the morality subject (so much for moral guidance, right?) and that the god portrayed in it is far from being a merciful and loving father. Besides the contradictions and all the other nonsense stuff shown in there.
>>So, for argument’s sake – according to your beliefs - god gave us logic and the ability to reason.
Yes. To know Him.
>> Thanks to our ability to logic and reason we realized there’s no evidence that supports his existence (since he didn’t show himself to us. So your god is responsible for the atheists to exist.
Not so fast again. You obviously have not read the last part of Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
He gave you knowledge of Him to know Him. So you do. You choose to deny Him. That you have done ALL on your own. You are responsible for your atheism.
>>What is that god revelation? Can you share it with us (without mentioning the bible)?
Did you just ask me to reveal the revelation without revealing the revelation? Wow, you're absurd.
While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.
>>Besides the contradictions and all the other nonsense stuff shown in there.
Thanks for revealing that you're assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists. Which is question begging of course.
>> Not so fast again. You obviously have not read the last part of Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
The keyword here is invisible. How something can be clearly seen if it’s invisible? It’s like the Invisible Pink Unicorn…how do you know the unicorn is pink if you can’t see him?
If your god’s qualities, his eternal power and divine nature are invisible, how do you know there are such qualities, power and nature if you can’t see them? Your entire belief system is based on faith – which is basically “I don’t have to see to belief”.
But that’s not me. For me to consider something to be true, to be real there has to be some evidence. If there isn’t an evidence or any evidence that someone gives to me is refuted by reason, well…I don’t believe then.
>> He gave you knowledge of Him to know Him. So you do. You choose to deny Him. That you have done ALL on your own. You are responsible for your atheism. How come we deny something we don’t believe in and there’s no evidence whatsoever to prove this something’s existence? It’s like saying: “D.A.N doesn’t believe in elves therefore he denies their existence.”
>> Did you just ask me to reveal the revelation without revealing the revelation? Wow, you're absurd.
Circular reasoning once again Wow!!!
>> While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.
Funny, I’ve read in some of your comments that our senses are not reliable. How come is that? Only Christians have 100% reliable senses? Are they some sort of super humans, like Spiderman with his spider sense or Super Man with his x-ray vision and super hearing?)
You see D.A.N, you contradict yourself all the time. You say things that are convenient for you (like claiming our “atheist senses” are not reliable because the revelation of god is all around us and we didn’t see it.) You have to make your mind up D.A.N: or everybody’s senses are totally reliable or they are not.
I trust what I see and feel about the natural world. My senses can be wrong? Yes. But I automatically jump to the conclusion that must be a supernatural force running the game without any evidence to support this conclusion? NO.
>> Thanks for revealing that you're assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists. Which is question begging of course.
Saying the bible is the ultimate evidence for god because is your “ultimate authority” and because you believe in god is also question begging.
You've noticed no doubt, that now Dan just makes a shitload of assumptions without providing evidence for them. For instance, his claim that his god is necessary for logic, and that we can't know anything without first assuming that his god exists...sure would come as a surprise to a lot of the ancient Greeks for instance...
He admits in the first minute that the SSK "cannot be independently verified." I quit watching right there, since nothing else beyond that point is salient to proposition of claiming evidence for the existence of God.
Dan said,” Not so fast. You know full well we always say that assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.”
We Dan? No Dan, it’s you who always says this. I don’t know of anyone else I currently speak to on line that respond with such a silly statement. You can’t use circular reasoning Dan. We’ve explained this to you over and over. I feel like a parent scolding their child.
I assume nothing Dan. First the existence of god must be validated. Then you need to show support for the bible being his literal word too. Until you do this Dan, I am making no more of an assumption than I do concerning many other characters in fictional books loosely based on reality, nor concerning the idea and ideals they project in the books..
You cannot use a book alone to validate your god Dan. It’s no better than me saying Indian Jones really exists, or any of the monsters in the Odyssey are real. Both have things, people and places that are real mentioned in them, but that does not make them really or true. At best the bible can only confirm that Jesus existed, like many other prophets of that time that also were believe to have magical powers. At worst, it’s a cultural fiction like the gods and characters of Greek Mythology.
” If that is the case I reject you existence. Does that make it true? Of course not.”
Nor does your belief that your god exists make it true. Once again Dan, you burned out my irony meter. It seems that the rules of reasoning you operate by only apply to those who disagree with what you believe in.
” If you concede to the mere EXISTENCE of the Bible then you MUST concede to evidence for God.”
Dan, if you concede the mere EXISTENCE of the Odyssey then you must concede to evidence for Scylla, Calypso, and Poseidon.
Its so easy when I use you method of bare assertion instead of showing support for my claims. I can see why you like it so much, it require little to no mental effort.
” Your fallacious argumentation (relative fallacy) is getting in the way of your logic and reasoning.
Dan, you need to understand what logic and logical fallacies are before you can start welding them around with reckless abandoned. If you keep this up, you might hurt yourself Dan.
Dan, you claim to be right because with your god Logic, Moral Standards and other things are certain and absolute. When asked how you can be certain that the violent act of Infanticide and Subjugation of the innocent young girls who were witnesses to the killing of their brothers, sisters and parents by the men order by your god to do so, is morally correct or not, you have been very uncertain with your answers.
Dan you first claimed to not understand why good ordered man to do it, but since he did, it must be good and righteous. When I press you to explain how these violent acts on innocent children can be good and be morally wrong for man to do, you try to cover up by putting god outside the standards we must live by.
When reminded that if Morals are absolute and certain, that means its alway good or bad no matter where you dwell, inside or outside of our reality. If not, then they are not absolute.
I continue to press you on specifically the innocent young girls subjugated by the men who killed their families, and pointed out that with the standards of the middle eastern culture of the past and even today, that would include children, you could not answer that either.
I keep asking you Dan for a straight answer but you can't seem to use you godly logic to make it work. Dan please explain how 2 things that would be considered not only morally wrong but also extremely violent and cruel, can also be good and righteous for your god to order man to do to these innocent children. Please apply your holy logic to weave a seamless case, with no conflicts, as to why what appears to be deeply morally wrong by your standard can be righteous if god orders it done.
My prediction is you either will ignore it again, or make another attempt of using rhetoric to wrap your non-answer in in as you've done every other time. Dan flowery words and ethereal hierarchy don't change the fact that you keep telling us that its OK for your god to do things you have demonstrated to us you would consider morally wrong.
If this is what you call certainty Dan, you must live in Bizarro world.
>>If your god’s qualities, his eternal power and divine nature are invisible, how do you know there are such qualities, power and nature if you can’t see them?
His revelation. I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them.
>>I trust what I see and feel about the natural world.
I know you do but you cannot account for the assumptions that you make about the future. Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
God has revealed to you that you can trust your senses memory and reasoning. Otherwise you have no grounds to know if they are, or not.
>>Circular reasoning once again Wow!!!
You said:
>>What is that god revelation? Can you share it with us (without mentioning the bible)?
That is asking me to reveal the revelation without revealing the revelation. Its illogical.
>>Funny, I’ve read in some of your comments that our senses are not reliable. How come is that?
No! I ask how are you CERTAIN they are reliable? I ask, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? Please answer.
>>Only Christians have 100% reliable senses?
No, but Christians, at the very least, can ACCOUNT for our reliable senses. You?
>>You see D.A.N, you contradict yourself all the time.
Are contradictions wrong? How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?
>>You say things that are convenient for you (like claiming our “atheist senses” are not reliable because the revelation of god is all around us and we didn’t see it.)
Wrong again. I say that atheists cannot account for their reliable senses yet they make that assumption. I am asking atheists, WITHIN their worldview to account for such things. Yes revelation of God is around us, but you do see it. You just deny it. As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God..
>>Saying the bible is the ultimate evidence for god because is your “ultimate authority” and because you believe in god is also question begging.
Never said it wasn’t circular, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is.
Why?? You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
>>I assume nothing Dan. First the existence of god must be validated.
Did you assume that first premise? *snicker
>>Then you need to show support for the bible being his literal word too.
Done (internally claimed and proved)
>>You cannot use a book alone to validate your god Dan.
While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason. You? (You knew that was coming)
>>Both have things, people and places that are real mentioned in them, but that does not make them really or true.
So truth is absolute, universal, and objective? How is that within your worldview? Again, I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
>>At worst, it’s a cultural fiction like the gods and characters of Greek Mythology.
How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? (Again, ou knew that was coming)
>>It seems that the rules of reasoning you operate by only apply to those who disagree with what you believe in.
The difference is the temporal plane that you appeal to and the eternal plane that I am appealing to. One of us can be certain. You, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity.
>>Nor does your belief that your god exists make it true.
I completely agree, just because I believe something, does not make it true. Keep that in mind when we discuss what you believe.
>>Its so easy when I use you method of bare assertion instead of showing support for my claims.
Yet my appeal is not a bare assertion, like your worldview demands. The Bible is indeed evidence to God. Not that you accept it but that does not change the truth. right? Remember just because you believe something (Bible is fiction), does not make it true. You need evidence.
>>Dan, you need to understand what logic and logical fallacies are before you can start welding them around with reckless abandoned.
You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. How is that within your worldview?
>>Dan you first claimed to not understand why good ordered man to do it, but since he did, it must be good and righteous.
Right! God is good and honorable and worthy of our trust in these matters.
>>When I press you to explain how these violent acts on innocent children can be good and be morally wrong for man to do, you try to cover up by putting god outside the standards we must live by.
Almost. It is you who is trying to drag down God to our temporal plane and subject to our standards. Howard Huge difference. I merely appeal to the possibility that I do not have ALL the information to make a informed opinion on the matter. You claim God is wrong. I say I trust God to know what He is doing.
>>When reminded that if Morals are absolute and certain, that means its always good or bad no matter where you dwell, inside or outside of our reality.
I agree. God is ALWAYS moral and RIGHT.
>>If not, then they are not absolute.
Agree.
>>I continue to press you on specifically the innocent young girls subjugated by the men who killed their families, and pointed out that with the standards of the middle eastern culture of the past and even today, that would include children, you could not answer that either.
I answered it quite exhaustively. If God did it its right. I said things like taking children away from this wicked world is right if God did it because He is bringing that child home to Him. When we murder a child we are REMOVING him FROM us. Its wrong. Its ABSOLUTELY right for God to bring children home to him. Same with us.
>>I keep asking you Dan for a straight answer but you can't seem to use you godly logic to make it work.
Hogwash. You keep denying my words. Does that make your points true?
>> Dan please explain how 2 things that would be considered not only morally wrong but also extremely violent and cruel, can also be good and righteous for your god to order man to do to these innocent children. Please apply your holy logic to weave a seamless case, with no conflicts, as to why what appears to be deeply morally wrong by your standard can be righteous if god orders it done.
See above.
>>My prediction is you either will ignore it again, or make another attempt of using rhetoric to wrap your non-answer in in as you've done every other time.
Deuteronomy 18:22 :7)
>>Dan flowery words and ethereal hierarchy don't change the fact that you keep telling us that its OK for your god to do things you have demonstrated to us you would consider morally wrong.
Because you do not posses the same powers of God. Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
Can you send people to hell? No? Then I rest my case.
>>If this is what you call certainty Dan, you must live in Bizarro world.
1. In order to trust our senses we need the revelation from God. 2. This revelation from God is the Bible 3. A schizophrenic who reads and believes the Bible can trust his senses because he has received revelation from God.
Dan, ” You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview…”
Dan, you make assumptions about what my world exactly is, but you are incorrect. I have never claimed all things are absolute or are not absolute. It is you who assumes that its an with or choice on world view. What my world view is doesn’t matter anyway Dan. As I already have explained to you repeatedly, I’m using your claimed world view to examine your world view, and it doesn’t look pretty.
ME: “Then you need to show support for the bible being his literal word too.”
Dan,”Done (internally claimed and proved)”
As would be expect, more unsupported assertion. Your world view seems so conflicted when you scold others for doing exactly this, but somehow it doesn’t apply to you.
Dan,”While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason. You? (You knew that was coming)”
Bla Bla Bla, Can you actually make a supported argument for once instead of bold assertions?
Dan, we’ve shown you over and over why your Presup stuff doesn’t work. The fact that you demonstrate over and over your own world view is conflicted and highly subject doesn’t help either.
Dan then continues to avoid the question with more presup rhetoric void of any content.
ME:”It seems that the rules of reasoning you operate by only apply to those who disagree with what you believe in.”
Dan, ”The difference is the temporal plane that you appeal to and the eternal plane that I am appealing to. One of us can be certain. You, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity.”
HA! HA! HA! So you’re saying your absolute laws of logic do not apply to you if are “appealing to” some “Eternal Plane”, but do if you, “appealing to” some “temporal plane” which you also have not defined. So if you make up some undefined baloney, it makes you exempt from the absolute laws of logic. Dan, now that’s some of the weakest rhetoric I’ve seen from you in a while. Though I call BS on the whole plane baloney, you do realize that means they are not absolute?
Sorry Dan I missed the 2nd half where you go on telling me how though its absolutely wrong for man to kill children its OK if god tells man to do this to them in an act of violence. You justify this by trying to contrast the acts of man killing with phrases like 'taking away' and 'bringing home' to soften what happens though the only thing that differs the two acts is god OK the infanticide of the Canaanite children by mans hands. You then saying, "It is you who is trying to drag down God to our temporal plane and subject to our standards." That is not correct Dan, I am not dragging god anywhere. I'm just holding the actions he ordered man to do up to you absolute moral standards and your claim that genocide is morally wrong. If genocide is morally wrong and absolute, that means it must also apply to your god. The fact he had men do the violent act seems even more perverse for an omnipotent being to do.
You then go on saying its god and righteous for man to subjugate young girls, innocent young children who just had witnesses the slaughter of their family and friends per order of your god. Your rationalization for this is that "If God did it its right."
SO you heard it here, Dan says it OK to make innocent young girls watch their family and friends be slaughtered in an act of genocide, then to be subjugated by the killers because they happen to be 'clean' young girls. What a violent act so praised and glorified by Dan and his bizarro blind faith and absolute morals and logic.
One more excellent example to be cut and paste into my on going collection Dans best work. Some point in the future I'll publish it all in a paper. I'll be sure to send a copy for your review before submitting it.
Sorry Dan I missed the 2nd half where you go on telling me how though its absolutely wrong for man to kill children its OK if god tells man to do this to them in an act of violence. You justify this by trying to contrast the acts of man killing with phrases like 'taking away' and 'bringing home' to soften what happens though the only thing that differs the two acts is god OK the infanticide of the Canaanite children by mans hands. You then saying, "It is you who is trying to drag down God to our temporal plane and subject to our standards." That is not correct Dan, I am not dragging god anywhere. I'm just holding the actions he ordered man to do up to you absolute moral standards and your claim that genocide is morally wrong. If genocide is morally wrong and absolute, that means it must also apply to your god. The fact he had men do the violent act seems even more perverse for an omnipotent being to do.
You then go on saying its good and righteous for man to subjugate young girls, innocent young children who just had witnesses the slaughter of their family and friends per order of your god. Your rationalization for this is that "If God did it its right."
SO you heard it here, Dan says it OK to make innocent young girls watch their family and friends be slaughtered in an act of genocide, then to be subjugated by the killers because they happen to be 'clean' young girls. What a violent act so praised and glorified by Dan and his bizarro blind faith and absolute morals and logic.
One more excellent example to be cut and paste into my on going collection Dans best work. Some point in the future I'll publish it all in a paper. I'll be sure to send a copy for your review before submitting it.
HI, Sorry for the double post. I was correcting where I said 'god and righteous' to 'good and righteous'. I thought I had deleted the one with the mistake, but soon discovered that I did not and can't seem to do so. Just ignore the first one.
Let me take the moment to point out a detail Dan. Lets pretend I grant you you word play of 'Take them home', which I don't, but that still does not explain the cruelty of making young innocent girls, children, being made to suffer witnessing the murder of their families and friends, only then to be subjugated by the killers for the rest of their lives.
If we were to grant you the 'take them home' reward for those killed, it makes it even more cruel for those girls who in a sense would be considered the most innocent of the children to be put through a horrific moment only to live a life of servitude, some involving sexual interaction, to the killers. Its like sending the most innocent and defenseless children to a living hell.
Blogger had technical difficulties making it impossible to post a comment, so I prayed to the flying spaghetti monster, and now Blogger is fixed. This proves the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
>>Dan you first claimed to not understand why good ordered man to do it, but since he did, it must be good and righteous.
Right! God is good and honorable and worthy of our trust in these matters.
>>When I press you to explain how these violent acts on innocent children can be good and be morally wrong for man to do, you try to cover up by putting god outside the standards we must live by.
Almost. It is you who is trying to drag down God to our temporal plane and subject to our standards. Howard Huge difference. I merely appeal to the possibility that I do not have ALL the information to make a informed opinion on the matter. You claim God is wrong. I say I trust God to know what He is doing.
>>When reminded that if Morals are absolute and certain, that means its always good or bad no matter where you dwell, inside or outside of our reality.
I agree. God is ALWAYS moral and RIGHT.
>>If not, then they are not absolute.
Agree.
>>I continue to press you on specifically the innocent young girls subjugated by the men who killed their families, and pointed out that with the standards of the middle eastern culture of the past and even today, that would include children, you could not answer that either.
I answered it quite exhaustively. If God did it its right. I said things like taking children away from this wicked world is right if God did it because He is bringing that child home to Him. When we murder a child we are REMOVING him FROM us. Its wrong. Its ABSOLUTELY right for God to bring children home to him. Same with us.
>>I keep asking you Dan for a straight answer but you can't seem to use you godly logic to make it work.
Hogwash. You keep denying my words. Does that make your points true?
>> Dan please explain how 2 things that would be considered not only morally wrong but also extremely violent and cruel, can also be good and righteous for your god to order man to do to these innocent children. Please apply your holy logic to weave a seamless case, with no conflicts, as to why what appears to be deeply morally wrong by your standard can be righteous if god orders it done.
See above.
>>My prediction is you either will ignore it again, or make another attempt of using rhetoric to wrap your non-answer in in as you've done every other time.
Deuteronomy 18:22 :7)
>>Dan flowery words and ethereal hierarchy don't change the fact that you keep telling us that its OK for your god to do things you have demonstrated to us you would consider morally wrong.
Because you do not posses the same powers of God. Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
Can you send people to hell? No? Then I rest my case.
>>If this is what you call certainty Dan, you must live in Bizarro world.
Why?? You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
>>I assume nothing Dan. First the existence of god must be validated.
Did you assume that first premise? *snicker
>>Then you need to show support for the bible being his literal word too.
Done (internally claimed and proved)
>>You cannot use a book alone to validate your god Dan.
While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason. You? (You knew that was coming)
>>Both have things, people and places that are real mentioned in them, but that does not make them really or true.
So truth is absolute, universal, and objective? How is that within your worldview? Again, I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
>>At worst, it’s a cultural fiction like the gods and characters of Greek Mythology.
How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? (Again, ou knew that was coming)
>>It seems that the rules of reasoning you operate by only apply to those who disagree with what you believe in.
The difference is the temporal plane that you appeal to and the eternal plane that I am appealing to. One of us can be certain. You, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity.
>>Nor does your belief that your god exists make it true.
I completely agree, just because I believe something, does not make it true. Keep that in mind when we discuss what you believe.
>>Its so easy when I use you method of bare assertion instead of showing support for my claims.
Yet my appeal is not a bare assertion, like your worldview demands. The Bible is indeed evidence to God. Not that you accept it but that does not change the truth. right? Remember just because you believe something (Bible is fiction), does not make it true. You need evidence.
>>Dan, you need to understand what logic and logical fallacies are before you can start welding them around with reckless abandoned.
You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. How is that within your worldview?
It appears that others are trying to chime in to help you Bellecherie. Its cute. Maybe they don't have enough confidence in you to address these issues. Maybe they are scared that you, like them, cannot address these questions fully. Reynold mentioned Stephen Law who was at a lost.
Stephen said: "Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock." It took a moment to conclude that the fact that he was discussing things with Sye and, attempting, to engage him in a conversation about logic, and other things, cogitates [shows] that he believes that Sye is a rational logical being capable of a reasonable conversation. The evidence is within Stephen already, thus Sye didn't have to respond to any of Stephen Law's brain damage garbage because its already been revealed as a false premiss. Also, Stephan's whole argument is a Relativist Fallacy. Stephen Law was debunked by his own argument.
Also, Sye stated it this way: The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!
>>If your god’s qualities, his eternal power and divine nature are invisible, how do you know there are such qualities, power and nature if you can’t see them?
His revelation. I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them.
>>I trust what I see and feel about the natural world.
I know you do but you cannot account for the assumptions that you make about the future. Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
God has revealed to you that you can trust your senses memory and reasoning. Otherwise you have no grounds to know if they are, or not.
>>Circular reasoning once again Wow!!!
You said:
>>What is that god revelation? Can you share it with us (without mentioning the bible)?
That is asking me to reveal the revelation without revealing the revelation. Its illogical.
>>Funny, I’ve read in some of your comments that our senses are not reliable. How come is that?
No! I ask how are you CERTAIN they are reliable? I ask, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? Please answer.
>>Only Christians have 100% reliable senses?
No, but Christians, at the very least, can ACCOUNT for our reliable senses. You?
>>You see D.A.N, you contradict yourself all the time.
Are contradictions wrong? How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?
>>You say things that are convenient for you (like claiming our “atheist senses” are not reliable because the revelation of god is all around us and we didn’t see it.)
Wrong again. I say that atheists cannot account for their reliable senses yet they make that assumption. I am asking atheists, WITHIN their worldview to account for such things. Yes revelation of God is around us, but you do see it. You just deny it. As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God..
>>Saying the bible is the ultimate evidence for god because is your “ultimate authority” and because you believe in god is also question begging.
Never said it wasn’t circular, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is.
>> His revelation. I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us…
Such as?
>> God has revealed to you that you can trust your senses memory and reasoning. Otherwise you have no grounds to know if they are, or not.
Neither do you, since our memories and senses are not reliable.
>> That is asking me to reveal the revelation without revealing the revelation. Its illogical.
It’s illogical to you because you have nothing else besides the bible to give me this so-called revelation. If you had anything else besides the bible you would tell me.
>> I ask how are you CERTAIN they are reliable?
How do you know your senses are reliable? You are christian, but you are a human being, just like me. Unless you have some superior physiology from the rest of us you can’t rely on your senses and memory too. If you see a fairy flying around your kitchen table you’ll start believing in fairies, since you rely 100% in your senses, right?
>> Are contradictions wrong? How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?
An example: I’m talking to my friend that I consider stealing wrong and those who commit this crime should go to jail. Then my friend says to me: “Well, your father is a thief. So why don’t you turn him in to the police?”. Then I tell her: “Oh, no! He’s my father. It’s not immoral and wrong when he’s the one stealing.” “My friend tells me again: “How come? If someone else does the stealing it’s wrong, but when your father does it is right? You can’t have it both ways. Or you consider stealing wrong or you don’t.” I answer her. “But my father knows best and I can’t question/doubt his actions.”
According to this example, here I am having two contradictory opinions about stealing at the same time. For me stealing is right and wrong depending on who does the stealing. It’s how your reasoning is D.A.N. You think two things are right and wrong at the same time depends on who does/commands it. If man does/commands it for the sake of it is wrong; but when your god does or commands it then it’s right. It can’t be that way. Or you agree with it or you don’t.
>> Yes revelation of God is around us, but you do see it. You just deny it.
So, again…where are those revelations? Just don’t tell me they are around me…tell me what they are exactly. How god revealed himself to us? (again, not quoting the scriptures for goodness’ sake)
I’m not accountable to some invisible deity. I’m accountable to myself, to the society I live in and to the laws that rules that society, there. I’m not rebelling/denying your god, I don’t believe in gods to be rebelling/denying them.
If you don’t believe in Thor and Odin, so you are denying them and rebelling against them (be careful or else Thor is going to strike you dead with his almighty hammer…lol)
1. Suppose we have person A who has never read the Bible before. According to you this person cannot trust that their senses are accurate without the revelation from God, which is the Bible. So a christian friend gives them a Bible to read. If their senses cannot be trusted than how can they trust what they are reading, they might hallucinate extra sections into the Bible that aren't really there. How can anyone read the Bible and receive revelation without first assuming that there senses are correct?
2. Can a schizophrenic, or a person suffering from any physical or mental problem that causes hallucinations, trust their senses after reading the Bible and receiving God's revelation? If the answer is no, please tell me what mechanism God's revelation offers to diagnose people with mental and physical illnesses that would prevent their senses from being accurate. It seems that rather than consulting a doctor or psychiatrist, you would use God's revelation to diagnose hallucinatory disorders, and I'm interested to know how it's done.
His revelation. I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us... "Can" and "did" are two completely different things, Dan. Can you show that she actually did?
God has revealed to you that you can trust your senses, memory and reasoning. Otherwise you have no grounds to know if they are, or not. How do you know what your "god" allegedly did for someone else, Dan?
What would that revelation look like? Can you describe it for us? I've asked you that once before, haven't I?
Also, Sye stated it this way: The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. Which was done over and over again by me and others:
The greeks and others developed the laws of logic without influence from your religion
The bible does not lay out the laws of logic (you try to get around that once by quoting some verses but at best, they only gave an example of a law with no indication that the person saying it knew that they were giving an example of an actual law)
You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence! So what the fuck use is it then?
By the way Dan, I know you're making one of your "jokes" when you say that we're "helping" bellecherie out because we don't think she's doing a good job, but guess what?
It always takes several people to try to pound any sense into your religiously messed-up up head.
Your little "joke" to bellecherie is just showing how contemptible you're becoming.
Now, on to some of your other crap:
No! I ask how are you CERTAIN they are reliable? I ask, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? Please answer.
>>Only Christians have 100% reliable senses?
No, If not, then how can you say that they're reliable then? How can you tell that the bible says what you think it says then, if your senses aren't 100% reliable?
It would explain the hundreds of xian denominations out there, all with their own spin on god's "infallible" word!
...but Christians, at the very least, can ACCOUNT for our reliable senses. You? Evolution, natural selection, whatever. Come to think of it, any member of any damned religion can "account" for their senses too, Dan.
It always takes several people to try to pound any sense into your religiously messed-up up head.
The world has yet to see the clue-bat big enough to counter Dan's monumental case of fundy-brain. Only the other day he claimed that if someone set him on fire, he would trust to his god not to let him burn...
Not so fast. You know full well we always say that assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
And as we always say: assuming the Bible is evidence for God because you believe God exists is also question begging.
If you concede to the mere EXISTENCE of the Bible then you MUST concede to evidence for God.
What utter rubbish. The Bible is evidence of the Bible, nothing more.
Rejected evidence does not negate evidence.
Evidence that has been shown NOT to be evidence cannot continue to be claimed as evidence.
Scripture itself proves God. The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true and then proceeds to effectively prove itself internally.
It really doesn't and, as we're playing "unsubstantiated assertions win" rules, then I win.
The self consistency
What self consistency?
and accuracy
Lol.
of the scriptures that speaks of God and His existence is sufficient.
For a gullible idiot perhaps.
Believers base their assurance and knowledge on things OTHER then fallible human things.
On 'revelations' you mean? The same revelations you can't actually demonstrate have actually ocurred. The revelations that require you to resort to an infinite regress of revelations. The revelations that require you to be omniscient yourself in order to be certain.
God's revelation is sufficient to know things, as we do.
And there it is, the appeal to revelation, lol. Can you demonstrate the truth of your assertion without resorting to an infinite regress or the need to be omniscient yourself?
Without it, you cannot know anything. Hence the post title and claim.
Can you demonstrate the truth of your claim that without God people cannot know anything?
You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. How is that within your worldview?
Within his worldview is, in this case, irrelevant. Instead, it is your professed worldview that states that logic is absolute and fallacies are not allowed ... and yet you have to resort to logical fallacies in order to support your claim. Why is that?
Stephen said: "Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock." It took a moment to conclude that the fact that he was discussing things with Sye and, attempting, to engage him in a conversation about logic, and other things, cogitates [shows] that he believes that Sye is a rational logical being capable of a reasonable conversation.
Why ignore the part where Stephen explained that he was actually conversing with Sye's nurse in the hope that the nurse could dumb it down for the benefit of poor brain damaged Sye? Is it because it ruins your argument perhaps?
The evidence is within Stephen already, thus Sye didn't have to respond to any of Stephen Law's brain damage garbage because its already been revealed as a false premiss.
It wasn't demonstrated as such at all. Any attempt by Sye to demonstrate his competence simply demonstrates that he's been brain damaged and can't think straight.
The whole point of the exchange was to show the dishonesty of the presuppositional argument i.e. it first claims that you cannot account for something and that any attempt to make an account simply supports the presupp position.
Also, Stephan's whole argument is a Relativist Fallacy.
Lol. Can you support this claim? Maybe you should read Stephen's 2005 paper in "Think: Philosophy for everyone (A journal of the the Royal Institute of Philosophy)" entitled "Thinking Tools: The Relativist Fallacy" for some hints...
Coming from the man having to resort to an infinite regress of revelations this is utterly hilarious.... I'm surprised you haven't disappeared up your own rectum with the vortex that that kind of circularity must have caused.
>>1. Suppose we have person A who has never read the Bible before. According to you this person cannot trust that their senses are accurate without the revelation from God, which is the Bible.
Wrong. God can reveal things without the Bible. Its not the only revelation God gave us. How do you know your senses are reliable?
>> How can anyone read the Bible and receive revelation without first assuming that there senses are correct?
We both trust our senses and reasoning, but of the two of us, I can justify doing so in a non-viciously circular fashion, you cannot.
Again, I am not saying that atheists do not use their senses and reasoning as reliable, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that they're valid, yet they make that assumption. I assumed my reasoning was valid about God, as an Atheist, until God revealed that it was wrong.
>>2. Can a schizophrenic, or a person suffering from any physical or mental problem that causes hallucinations, trust their senses after reading the Bible and receiving God's revelation?
Yes. If God reveals something to them, that thing can be trusted. God could reveal things to him, such that he can be certain of them. That much I know.
Do you understand how silly you sound by using such a false paradigm? When you claim something like "natural selection" you're saying that nature SELECTED things. In other words, it has a mind to select things that are 'favorable'. The only power that natural selection has is to captivate a mind, as its only in the mind that this kind of "selection" actually takes place. It is you who claims that there is no "selector" yet you use such terms. Its absurd once again.
>>And as we always say: assuming the Bible is evidence for God because you believe God exists is also question begging.
But that is not the case, and you know it. (Ignoratio elenchi)
The Bible is evidence for God because it first claims it, then proves it internally and externally. You have no saving rescuing device. So assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is still question begging. :7)
>>Evidence that has been shown NOT to be evidence cannot continue to be claimed as evidence.
And to what appeal is the evidence been shown NOT to be evidence? Discounted by non-believers is not evidence at all for it. Barely asserting its not evidence is not evidence at all either. State your claim. If good enough, I will make it a post even so we can discuss it. Bring that "A" game. Shut me up.
>>It really doesn't and, as we're playing "unsubstantiated assertions win" rules, then I win.
Well you do make a point, since your unsubstantiated assertions are quite large. Then buy that alone you might be the winner. Fortunately we are not playing by such rules, although you're unsubstantiated assertions claim we are.
The self consistency and accuracy of the scriptures that speaks of God and His existence is sufficient.
>>For a gullible idiot perhaps.
Thanks for providing evidence for my claim, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
>>The revelations that require you to be omniscient yourself in order to be certain.
Not so. An omniscient, omnipotent being could Himself reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. No need for us to have such omniscience. Although we will also have such knowledge someday. I trust God to fully let us know everything when He wants to reveal all that to us as 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 says which, if I understand it properly, that we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God. I certainly am very excited about that. I will trust Him, and Him alone, until that wonderful day.
>>Can you demonstrate the truth of your claim that without God people cannot know anything?
How ironic you posted this question on this post. Thanks for demonstrating this posts claim. :7)
>>What is that god revelation? Can you share it with us (without mentioning the bible)?
To which I said,: Did you just ask me to reveal the revelation without revealing the revelation?
To which I added,
While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.
>> While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.
No, you didn’t. I asked you to give me what are those evidence exactly. I want details. I don’t want answers like “the bible is the ultimate evidence for god’s revelation”, “the evidence is all around you”, “god put the evidence in you”, etc. I’ve heard it all before, not only from you. I’ve been dealing with hardcore christians and bible thumpers like you for a very long time.
I want to know what this “god’s collective natural and special revelation” is. And I want real hard evidence (yes, always the evidence) that those things are revelation from your god’s existence. Is it that hard, sweety?
Dan, showing that he doesn't know what the hell a metaphor is, or what "anthropomorphisation" means.
D.A.N. said...
Reynold,
>>Evolution, natural selection, whatever.
Do you understand how silly you sound by using such a false paradigm? When you claim something like "natural selection" you're saying that nature SELECTED things. In other words, it has a mind to select things that are 'favorable'. No you idiot...you can't really believe that I just claimed that "nature" has a mind, do you?
Are you that fucking stupid??
The only power that natural selection has is to captivate a mind, as its only in the mind that this kind of "selection" actually takes place. It is you who claims that there is no "selector" yet you use such terms. Its absurd once again.
Speaking of Atheism not knowing... Dan, do not speak of other's ignorance when you're the one showing stupidity.
While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable... Uh, and given that our senses kick in as babies, are you claiming that you had to have had "gods'" revelation then? You must have had this "revelation" first so that you would know to trust your senses later.
Thing is, I know that's bullshit because you never went off on this idiocy until Sye showed up.
...and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason. Bullshit, Dan. You assert that. You don't even try to show that.
>>And as we always say: assuming the Bible is evidence for God because you believe God exists is also question begging.
But that is not the case, and you know it. (Ignoratio elenchi)
It is the case and by claiming I am committing ignoratio elenchi you are suggesting that I'm making an argument that isn't relevant to the discussion - please show how my argument is irrelevant to a discussion on whether the Bble is evidence of God.
The Bible is evidence for God because it first claims it, then proves it internally and externally.
You have not demonstrated this. You assume God exists (you certainly haven't proved such) and you assume that He inspired the Bible (you haven't proved this either) so you're assuming the Bible is evidence for God because you believe God exists - you're question begging. Alternatively you could actually demonstrate how the Bible proves itself internally and externally instead of just asserting that it does - the difference between show and tell we've been trying to get you to understand for a long time.
You have no saving rescuing device.
I do not need one.
So assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is still question begging. :7)
I do not assume that the Bible is not evidence for God because I do not believe God exists, instead I do not believe the Bible to be evidence for God because you haven't yet demonstrated that it is. Demonstrate that the Bible is divinely inspired, otherwise it's simply a book and evidence for nothing more than itself. To demonstrate that it is divinely inspired you need to show that such divine inspiration exists (i.e. first show your God exists). You are, in essence, trying to put the cart before the horse by claiming the Bible is evidence for God when you first need to show God exists before you can demonstrate that He inspired the Bible. It's pathetically circular and doesn't hold.
>>Evidence that has been shown NOT to be evidence cannot continue to be claimed as evidence.
And to what appeal is the evidence been shown NOT to be evidence?
You want me to list every instance where an argument for God's existence has been refuted? Or just on here where the only evidences for God you seem to have advanced are the Bible and 'special revelations'. So far you've failed to demonstrate the divine nature of the first and can't even demonstrate the reality of the second. Care to try? Or will you continue to try shifting the burden of proof?
Discounted by non-believers is not evidence at all for it.
Here you do exactly what you accuse atheists of doing - your dismissal of the refutations of the evidence doesn't stop there being refutations of the evidence. If you can't counter the refutation then the evidence is suspect and cannot be relied upon when making other claims.
Barely asserting its not evidence is not evidence at all either.
Barely asserting that it is evidence is also not evidence either but you don't seem to realise this. Stop telling us that the Bible is evidence of God and instead actually support your claim that the Bible is evidence of God.
State your claim.
To what claim are you referring? I'm not really making a claim, I'm trying to get you to actually support yours.
If good enough, I will make it a post even so we can discuss it. Bring that "A" game.
We can discuss your evidence to support your claims anywhere you like, just as soon as you present some.
>>It really doesn't and, as we're playing "unsubstantiated assertions win" rules, then I win.
Well you do make a point, since your unsubstantiated assertions are quite large.
Considering that assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, my response to your claim was actually a dismissal not an assertion and I note you don't actually respond to my point by giving evidence to support your claim. Are you unwilling or simply unable?
The self consistency and accuracy of the scriptures that speaks of God and His existence is sufficient.
>>For a gullible idiot perhaps.
My response still stands. Do you have any compelling evidence to support this claim? The Bible, is, after all, riddled with contradictions and inaccuracies. If that's God's idea of consistency and accuracy then He sets a very low bar for perfection.
Thanks for providing evidence for my claim, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
And thank you for simply repeating your strawman claim ad nauseum. Do you think this proves something? As I've pointed out, I do not assume the Bible is not evidence for God because I don't believe God exists, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate your claim that the Bible is evidence for God. Care to try anytime soon?
>>The revelations that require you to be omniscient yourself in order to be certain.
Not so.
How? Any gap in your knowlegde leads to uncertainty on your part. If you dispute this please demonstrate why it's not true.
An omniscient, omnipotent being could Himself reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them.
Yes, by granting you omniscience. Anything less than omniscience on your part leaves you open to being tricked by; your own God, another God, an entity sufficiently capable of manipulating your thoughts and, of course, your own mind. If you dispute this then I ask again, show how this isn't so.
No need for us to have such omniscience.
Baseless assertion...
Although we will also have such knowledge someday.
Baseless assertion...
I trust God to fully let us know everything when He wants to reveal all that to us as 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 says which, if I understand it properly, that we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God. I certainly am very excited about that. I will trust Him, and Him alone, until that wonderful day.
I'm happy that you're happy in your delusion.
>>Can you demonstrate the truth of your claim that without God people cannot know anything?
How ironic you posted this question on this post. Thanks for demonstrating this posts claim. :7)
A simple 'no' would have sufficed. Instead you simply repeat the claim and promptly shift the burden of proof. Not that I really expected anything better.
>>And I want real hard evidence (yes, always the evidence) that those things are revelation from your god’s existence. Is it that hard, sweety?
I understand. Yes, its a difficult thing to ask for because its not just one thing, but many. He is always speaking to us. I have tried to address this in a past post, but yes its hard to nail down. You just have to be there for the personal revelation to have an understanding for the personal revelation. And NO personal revelation is not the only revelation. God has revealed Himself to ALL mankind. So you're without excuse.
>> I understand. Yes, its a difficult thing to ask for because its not just one thing, but many. He is always speaking to us. I have tried to address this in a past post, but yes its hard to nail down. You just have to be there for the personal revelation to have an understanding for the personal revelation. And NO personal revelation is not the only revelation. God has revealed Himself to ALL mankind. So you're without excuse.
I don’t care if those revelations are many. Tell them what they are. I don’t mind. Go ahead.
There’s one problem with personal revelations: they are not evidence and they are not reliable. I would just have to believe in your word. And I don’t. I wasn’t there with you when you had those alleged revelations.
For example: I tell you that a flying saucer landed on my backyard and that I was abducted by aliens. They made experiments with me and all. After a few hours they send me back like nothing happened. Would you take my word for it and believe me even though I don’t have any evidence of my alien abduction? The testimony of my personal experience would be the ultimate evidence that we are not alone in the universe?
Now a real story: A few years ago my housekeeper told me that her son saw a ghost in my bedroom. She said she was with him in the corridor that leads to my bedroom when he suddenly asked her who that boy was and why he was grounded. She asked him what boy. He answered that he saw the boy looking at him and then closing the door. The he asked her if the boy was my brother. She told him I didn’t have a brother, just a sister and that hour my sister was at school. There was only my housekeeper and her son in my house. She told she didn’t see any boy and didn’t see my bedroom door being closed. Did I believe her? No, for 5 reasons:
1- I don’t believe in ghosts; 2- I wasn’t there at that time; 3- It was her son’s personal experience; 4- It was a testimony of my housekeeper about her son’s personal experience; 5- No real hard/concrete evidence that there was the ghost of a boy in my room.
Should I believe in my housekeeper’s testimony about a personal experience her son had while I was out about seeing a ghost in my bedroom when there’s no evidence of that just because she worked in my house for ten years?
At best: her son was lying; she was lying; both of them were lying or her son was hallucinating.
>>There’s one problem with personal revelations: they are not evidence and they are not reliable. I would just have to believe in your word. And I don’t. I wasn’t there with you when you had those alleged revelations.
Is it any wonder why I was resistant to share anything on a personal level with you. You don't believe in revelations. You're an Atheist after all!
As for you example you're comparing apples and oranges YET AGAIN. Comparing God to aliens with no evidence is not the same. There is INDEED evidence for God. Sure, you reject the evidence, but there is evidence.
>>At best: her son was lying; she was lying; both of them were lying or her son was hallucinating.
Or something happened, that is unexplained at the moment. You didn't consider that one, did you? Saying someone is a liar, without evidence for it, is a bit hasty. Understandable for an Atheist though. :7)
I am with you, as I do not believe in ghosts. Ghost's are not Biblical. Daemons are a whole other story though. I believe in daemons. You may have a daemon in the house. Daemons must flee from me since I am with Christ. You on the other hand...
Yes, there are dark forces in this world. Maybe one decided to camp with you. Hard to know for certain. Good luck with that though. Your house keeper didn't have to share that with you. She could of just let it go. She confided in you. You should encourage truth. Understandable for an Atheist though. :7)
>>So, should I believe you had personal revelations about the existence of your god – without evidence to back it up – just because you said so? I don’t believe in my own mother when she says those things to me.
>> As for you example you're comparing apples and oranges YET AGAIN. Comparing God to aliens with no evidence is not the same. There is INDEED evidence for God. Sure, you reject the evidence, but there is evidence.
Why not? Both “revelations” (god/and not being the only intelligent life in the universe) demand evidence. It’s about testimony of a personal experience which you – or me in the example – don’t have any proof to support what we are claiming.
But since you are religious, let’s replace alien abduction with me seeing an angel with wings and all flying around my backyard and giving me a message from god. I have no real hard/concrete evidence that angel made me a visit and left me a message from his boss, so you and everyone else will just have to take my word for it and believe me?
>> Or something happened, that is unexplained at the moment. You didn't consider that one, did you?
Unless something changed in the world, everybody lies. Including those ones we know for a very long time.
That’s the thing about unexplained things. Just because I can’t explain something it doesn’t mean that it must be supernatural or paranormal.
Some years ago I was in the street with my cousins at night, talking and everything when we saw a strange brilliant flying object. The object made something I never saw before: it came out of nowhere (apparently) with a very faint light and in the middle of his route the light became brighter and then – as long as the object was flying - the light became faint and disappeared. He made this one more time and disappeared for good. Based on my personal experiences about flying objects I had no idea on what that thing was. But I – automatically – jumped into the conclusion that it was an alien flying saucer? No. Until this day I can’t explain what that flying object was, I’m waiting – that one day – I find a rational explanation for what I saw.
>> I am with you, as I do not believe in ghosts. Ghost's are not Biblical. Daemons are a whole other story though. I believe in daemons. Again, what evidence you have that demons are real? Have you ever seen them? Talked to them? Do you have a photo or a video of a demon? Any other concrete evidence that supports the existence of demons? You may have a daemon in the house. Daemons must flee from me since I am with Christ. You on the other hand Yes, there are dark forces in this world. Maybe one decided to camp with you. Hard to know for certain. Good luck with that though.
Maybe I should call the world’s most famous paranormal investigator Lorraine Warren to investigate my house, after all she has a huge experience about casting out demons from people’s houses. <-- insert sarcasm here.
>> Your house keeper didn't have to share that with you. She could of just let it go. She confided in you. You should encourage truth. Understandable for an Atheist though.
So, should I trusted her, even though she had no evidence to support her son’s claims?
This is not about being an atheist, it’s about being skeptic, which I also am.
I encourage truth, as long as it have evidence to support it.
But it was fun though, I scared the shit out of her many times because of that ghost story, lol.
>> Oh and Bellecherie, let us know if you start getting unexplained scratches or something worse. You know, evidence. John 7:20 , < - - wow, using a bible verse to scare me. Yes, I’m terrified (insert sarcasm again)
I live in the same house for more than 20 years and never – in any moment – something unexplained or scary happened in here. Even in the time that alleged ghost sighting “happened”.
>> I have no real hard/concrete evidence that angel made me a visit and left me a message from his boss, so you and everyone else will just have to take my word for it and believe me?
But Christianity DOES have evidence OTHER THEN personal revelations. For one the Bible. You're missing that point over and over. Also remember that assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
>>Unless something changed in the world, everybody lies.
Sorry, even you cannot claim that with evidence. Its baseless and a bare assertion.
>>Just because I can’t explain something it doesn’t mean that it must be supernatural or paranormal.
Just because you can’t explain something it doesn’t mean that it must NOT be supernatural or paranormal. Your assumptions are baseless. Its possible there is a God. Do you admit that?
>>But I – automatically – jumped into the conclusion that it was an alien flying saucer?
No, but it certainly was a U.F.O. They're real, you do understand.
>>Again, what evidence you have that demons are real?
God, through one of His revelations. Plus a phenomena that can point to one on a personal level.
>>Have you ever seen them?
No, I have heard them.
>> Any other concrete evidence that supports the existence of demons?
To convince you? None. Remember, my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.
>>So, should I trusted her, even though she had no evidence to support her son’s claims?
Sure. Why not? Take it for what its worth and be weary of it for the future. Boy for an Atheist that scream for evidence, when someone actually give you some, you cry liar! Even the courts accept eye witnesses. Sure, they cross examine the validity of their claims but they're accepted never the less.
>>This is not about being an atheist, it’s about being skeptic, which I also am.
Yes a radical skeptic. Radical skepticism is the philosophical position that knowledge is impossible, btw.
>>I encourage truth, as long as it have evidence to support it.
Hogwash! You encourage truth, as long as it has evidence that must fit your presuppositions to accept it. God existing will never be evidenced to you because you don't believe He exists.
>>I live in the same house for more than 20 years and never – in any moment – something unexplained or scary happened in here.
Maybe the daemon was following the house keeper or her son. Who knows. Or I could have said something like do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance. :7)
>> But Christianity DOES have evidence OTHER THEN personal revelations. For one the Bible. You're missing that point over and over. Also remember that assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
Christianity has evidence other then personal revelations and one of them is the bible. So, it means there are other evidences which are not personal revelations, what are they?
I’ll say again and for the last time: saying the bible is evidence of god just because you believe in god is question begging.
But you didn’t answer my question: I claim I saw an angel flying around my backyard and that he gave me a message from god. I have no evidence whatsoever that an angel visited to give me a message from god (no photo, no video, no feather from one of his wings, nada.). Would you believe in that story based on my testimony alone?
>> Sorry, even you cannot claim that with evidence. Its baseless and a bare assertion.
Honey, when someone comes and tell me they saw a ghost and have no evidence to back their claim I’ll assume that they are lying, they are hallucinating or someone pranked them somehow. Borderline, I won’t believe it.
>> Its possible there is a God. Do you admit that?
For argument’s sake, yes. Me – personally – I don’t see how the existence of gods (or any other supernatural entities) are possible. There are no evidences that show their existence is possible.
>> No, but it certainly was a U.F.O. They're real, you do understand.
But, that’s the thing. For most people UFO = alien flying saucer. The keyword in UFO is unidentified. An UFO could be anything: an alien flying saucer, an artificial satellite, weather balloons, atmospheric phenomenon, meteors, hoaxes, my mother wrapped in christmas’ lights flying around in a kite, whatever. To me, it was an UFO in the real meaning of the term because I didn’t know what it was. Did I conclude it was an alien flying saucer just because – based on what I know – I couldn’t find an explanation? No.
>> God, through one of His revelations. Plus a phenomena that can point to one on a personal level.
>>Have you ever seen them?
No, I have heard them. Good, do you have his voice recorded on tape to send to me so I can give to technicians to analyze it?
>> Sure. Why not? Take it for what its worth and be weary of it for the future. Boy for an Atheist that scream for evidence, when someone actually give you some, you cry liar! Even the courts accept eye witnesses. Sure, they cross examine the validity of their claims but they're accepted never the less.
Sorry, but I don’t believe her. Read my story again. According to her – she was next to her son when he claimed to see a boy closing my bedroom door. She didn’t see any boy or my door being closed by an invisible force. Her reasoning was: my son saw a boy and I didn’t therefore he saw a ghost.
The conclusion she came about her son’s personal experience without evidence to back this up was not enough to make me believe her.
I don’t know how things work in your country about eye witness, but in my country the police, the investigators and the prosecutors don’t build an entire case based only in eye witnesses’ testimonies. They collect those testimonies and still search for evidence that validates or refute those testimonies. In my country – during a trial – no judge would accept to judge a case based on eye witnesses testimonies alone.
>> Yes a radical skeptic. Radical skepticism is the philosophical position that knowledge is impossible, btw.
Skepticism is about questioning opinions/beliefs stated as facts when they don’t have evidence that proves they are facts.
For example: I’m willing to believe unicorns are real as long someone provides me evidence that proves unicorns are real. If that doesn’t happen I won’t blindly believe in unicorns just because their existence is mentioned in the bible and in any other texts telling a mythical story.
>> Hogwash! You encourage truth, as long as it has evidence that must fit your presuppositions to accept it. God existing will never be evidenced to you because you don't believe He exists.
Here you are distorting my words again. I encourage truth as long as it has evidence that supports it, even though going against my worldview and presuppositions. Let’s go back to the example of the unicorn. I don’t believe in unicorns because I never saw one, there are no evidence that they are real and – until proved otherwise – they are mythical creatures. For arguments’ sake, let’s suppose a team of paleontologists found an unicorn fossil and after a bunch of tests to prove the veracity of the fossil later they come to the conclusion the unicorn’s fossil is real. There’s evidence and – even though going against my lack of belief in unicorns – I’ll admit that in certain period of time unicorns really existed. See?
>> Maybe the daemon was following the house keeper or her son.
What evidence do you – or they – have that this demon boy was following my housekeeper or her son? Again, I think I should call Lorraine Warren to cast out the demon boy, after all I don’t want to be seriously injured by some demon (being sarcastic).
Ha! That’s funny Dan. They make the unsupported assertion that nobody can deny god, therefore god.
ReplyDeleteDan, you cannot deny that I am god. If you do then you are claiming you know all, therefore, I am god!
Hey Dan, you cannot deny I’ve been to Mars. If you do you are claiming to you know everything I’ve have and haven’t done, therefore, I’m a Martian.
I like this game.
Ignorance is not evidence Dan. Saying that you cannot deny that there is an all knowing being who is giving you access to knowledge you are absolutely certain of that is a complete lie too. I can see how this video would convince someone who has already chosen to believe. This guys faith has obviously blinded him of all the holes in his arguments.
Dan, this video blew out my irony meter and gave me a severe migraine, so I couldn’t watch the either thing. Still though, I think I went down a few points in IQ form just watching the first few minutes. It will take months of re-education, mental therapy and a month on only a liquid diet to regain my strength.
~Atomic Chimp
Nice internal refutation there - if god didn't exist, god wouldn't exist. Great.
ReplyDeleteCan you demonstrate the necessity of an independent, knowing mind, in order for anything else to exist? Thought not. Also, can you demonstrate that any 'knower' claims certainty, apart from yourself?
Again, thought not. Certainty is an illusion, unless you believe you already know everything.
And the dopey surfer/stoner dude narration doesn't really help your case, I have to say...
DD,
ReplyDelete>>Can you demonstrate the necessity of an independent, knowing mind, in order for anything else to exist?
We say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.
>>And the dopey surfer/stoner dude narration doesn't really help your case, I have to say...
Are you certain of that? If so, how are you certain of it? If not, you have no argument. :7)
Dan said,"We say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence. "
ReplyDeleteI say that all evidence is evidence there is no god. I also say that all the lack of evidence for a god is also evidence there is no god!
Check and Mate! Hey, with your world view, bare assertions seem are good enough to make it true. Why should I waste my time delivering a well thought response supported by empirical evidence?
Dan,"even one's very ability to reason about evidence."
You consider your barren reasoning skill set, evidence for your god Dan? You seem to keep forgetting that many others and I have demonstrated the gapping holes in you claims.
So, is the unnecessary suffering of the Canaanite children order to be killed by your god, and those young girls who watch their family violently killed and were taken as possessions by the invading army, which your god gave them complete permission to do, as evidence of your god?
~Atomic Chimp
Are you certain of that? If so, how are you certain of it? If not, you have no argument. :7)
ReplyDeleteIf I was certain, there would be no need for argument. Argument implies a point of contention. If there isn't one - if everyone agrees - why argue?
Dan
ReplyDeleteWe say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.
Are you still using that circular reasoning crap?
Can you even attempt to justify that?
How about this? We say that all evidence is evidence of Asmodeus, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.
Prove me wrong using your uh, "reasoning".
Atomic,
ReplyDelete>>I say that all evidence is evidence there is no god. I also say that all the lack of evidence for a god is also evidence there is no god!
>>Check and Mate!
Not so fast. You know full well we always say that assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
If you concede to the mere EXISTENCE of the Bible then you MUST concede to evidence for God. Rejected evidence does not negate evidence. If that is the case I reject you existence. Does that make it true? Of course not. Your fallacious argumentation (relative fallacy) is getting in the way of your logic and reasoning.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Are you still using that circular reasoning crap?
Is that wrong? If so, how is this or anything wrong within your worldview?
>>Can you even attempt to justify that?
Sure. God is presupposed in order to make sense of reason, and one's ability to do so, and logic. Otherwise things are reduced to the absurd.
>>We say that all evidence is evidence of Asmodeus, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.
Does that (mere claim) make it true?
>>Prove me wrong using your uh, "reasoning".
I don't have to, it falls apart by its own merits and evidence. Look, the point is that you can only depend on fallible human things that deal with possibilities and probabilities. You cannot be certain of anything. We are certain of things, therefore....
Scripture itself proves God. The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true and then proceeds to effectively prove itself internally. The self consistency and accuracy of the scriptures that speaks of God and His existence is sufficient. Believers base their assurance and knowledge on things OTHER then fallible human things. Nobody know the Father without the Son Jesus Christ. Period. (Matthew 11:27)
God's revelation is sufficient to know things, as we do. Without it, you cannot know anything. Hence the post title and claim.
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> Sure. God is presupposed in order to make sense of reason, and one's ability to do so, and logic. Otherwise things are reduced to the absurd.
So, for argument’s sake – according to your beliefs - god gave us logic and the ability to reason. Thanks to our ability to logic and reason we realized there’s no evidence that supports his existence (since he didn’t show himself to us. So your god is responsible for the atheists to exist.
Unless your god is some sort of prankster who gave us the ability to logic and reason just to send us to hell if we use that ability to doubt his existence.
>> Does that (mere claim) make it true?
If all evidence is evidence of god, does that mere claim make it true?
>> I don't have to, it falls apart by its own merits and evidence. Look, the point is that you can only depend on fallible human things that deal with possibilities and probabilities. You cannot be certain of anything. We are certain of things, therefore....
D.A.N, what makes you so certain of things? God? Really? That’s question begging…
We never claimed to be 100% sure of everything, because nobody is (that includes you). But the difference between us and you is that when we know something we bring evidence that backs up what are we saying and you don’t. You use baseless circular reasoning.
>> Scripture itself proves God. The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true and then proceeds to effectively prove itself internally. The self consistency and accuracy of the scriptures that speaks of God and His existence is sufficient. Believers base their assurance and knowledge on things OTHER then fallible human things. Nobody know the Father without the Son Jesus Christ. Period.
The bible is true because is the word of god therefore bible itself is the definitive proof of god. See? Baseless circular reasoning.
>> God's revelation is sufficient to know things, as we do. Without it, you cannot know anything. Hence the post title and claim.
What is that god revelation? Can you share it with us (without mentioning the bible)?
The only “revelations” I had reading the bible is that this book fails in the morality subject (so much for moral guidance, right?) and that the god portrayed in it is far from being a merciful and loving father. Besides the contradictions and all the other nonsense stuff shown in there.
Bellecherie,
ReplyDelete>>So, for argument’s sake – according to your beliefs - god gave us logic and the ability to reason.
Yes. To know Him.
>> Thanks to our ability to logic and reason we realized there’s no evidence that supports his existence (since he didn’t show himself to us. So your god is responsible for the atheists to exist.
Not so fast again. You obviously have not read the last part of Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
He gave you knowledge of Him to know Him. So you do. You choose to deny Him. That you have done ALL on your own. You are responsible for your atheism.
>>What is that god revelation? Can you share it with us (without mentioning the bible)?
Did you just ask me to reveal the revelation without revealing the revelation? Wow, you're absurd.
While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.
>>Besides the contradictions and all the other nonsense stuff shown in there.
Thanks for revealing that you're assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists. Which is question begging of course.
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> Not so fast again. You obviously have not read the last part of Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
The keyword here is invisible. How something can be clearly seen if it’s invisible? It’s like the Invisible Pink Unicorn…how do you know the unicorn is pink if you can’t see him?
If your god’s qualities, his eternal power and divine nature are invisible, how do you know there are such qualities, power and nature if you can’t see them? Your entire belief system is based on faith – which is basically “I don’t have to see to belief”.
But that’s not me. For me to consider something to be true, to be real there has to be some evidence. If there isn’t an evidence or any evidence that someone gives to me is refuted by reason, well…I don’t believe then.
>> He gave you knowledge of Him to know Him. So you do. You choose to deny Him. That you have done ALL on your own. You are responsible for your atheism.
How come we deny something we don’t believe in and there’s no evidence whatsoever to prove this something’s existence?
It’s like saying: “D.A.N doesn’t believe in elves therefore he denies their existence.”
>> Did you just ask me to reveal the revelation without revealing the revelation? Wow, you're absurd.
Circular reasoning once again Wow!!!
>> While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.
Funny, I’ve read in some of your comments that our senses are not reliable. How come is that?
Only Christians have 100% reliable senses? Are they some sort of super humans, like Spiderman with his spider sense or Super Man with his x-ray vision and super hearing?)
You see D.A.N, you contradict yourself all the time. You say things that are convenient for you (like claiming our “atheist senses” are not reliable because the revelation of god is all around us and we didn’t see it.) You have to make your mind up D.A.N: or everybody’s senses are totally reliable or they are not.
I trust what I see and feel about the natural world. My senses can be wrong? Yes. But I automatically jump to the conclusion that must be a supernatural force running the game without any evidence to support this conclusion? NO.
>> Thanks for revealing that you're assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists. Which is question begging of course.
Saying the bible is the ultimate evidence for god because is your “ultimate authority” and because you believe in god is also question begging.
To bellecherie:
ReplyDeleteDan has been using that circular reasoning bullshit ever since that Sye TenBruggencate character showed up here.
To see what Sye's about, check out the "Sinner Ministries" link on the side here .
A professional philosopher Stephen Law spent a lot of time slapping Sye around on his blog.
Here's a link about a debate Sye had a while ago.
You've noticed no doubt, that now Dan just makes a shitload of assumptions without providing evidence for them. For instance, his claim that his god is necessary for logic, and that we can't know anything without first assuming that his god exists...sure would come as a surprise to a lot of the ancient Greeks for instance...
ReplyDeleteHe admits in the first minute that the SSK "cannot be independently verified." I quit watching right there, since nothing else beyond that point is salient to proposition of claiming evidence for the existence of God.
ReplyDeleteDan said,” Not so fast. You know full well we always say that assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.”
ReplyDeleteWe Dan? No Dan, it’s you who always says this. I don’t know of anyone else I currently speak to on line that respond with such a silly statement. You can’t use circular reasoning Dan. We’ve explained this to you over and over. I feel like a parent scolding their child.
I assume nothing Dan. First the existence of god must be validated. Then you need to show support for the bible being his literal word too. Until you do this Dan, I am making no more of an assumption than I do concerning many other characters in fictional books loosely based on reality, nor concerning the idea and ideals they project in the books..
You cannot use a book alone to validate your god Dan. It’s no better than me saying Indian Jones really exists, or any of the monsters in the Odyssey are real. Both have things, people and places that are real mentioned in them, but that does not make them really or true. At best the bible can only confirm that Jesus existed, like many other prophets of that time that also were believe to have magical powers. At worst, it’s a cultural fiction like the gods and characters of Greek Mythology.
” If that is the case I reject you existence. Does that make it true? Of course not.”
Nor does your belief that your god exists make it true. Once again Dan, you burned out my irony meter. It seems that the rules of reasoning you operate by only apply to those who disagree with what you believe in.
” If you concede to the mere EXISTENCE of the Bible then you MUST concede to evidence for God.”
Dan, if you concede the mere EXISTENCE of the Odyssey then you must concede to evidence for Scylla, Calypso, and Poseidon.
Its so easy when I use you method of bare assertion instead of showing support for my claims. I can see why you like it so much, it require little to no mental effort.
” Your fallacious argumentation (relative fallacy) is getting in the way of your logic and reasoning.
Dan, you need to understand what logic and logical fallacies are before you can start welding them around with reckless abandoned. If you keep this up, you might hurt yourself Dan.
~Atomic Chimp
Dan, you claim to be right because with your god Logic, Moral Standards and other things are certain and absolute. When asked how you can be certain that the violent act of Infanticide and Subjugation of the innocent young girls who were witnesses to the killing of their brothers, sisters and parents by the men order by your god to do so, is morally correct or not, you have been very uncertain with your answers.
ReplyDeleteDan you first claimed to not understand why good ordered man to do it, but since he did, it must be good and righteous. When I press you to explain how these violent acts on innocent children can be good and be morally wrong for man to do, you try to cover up by putting god outside the standards we must live by.
When reminded that if Morals are absolute and certain, that means its alway good or bad no matter where you dwell, inside or outside of our reality. If not, then they are not absolute.
I continue to press you on specifically the innocent young girls subjugated by the men who killed their families, and pointed out that with the standards of the middle eastern culture of the past and even today, that would include children, you could not answer that either.
I keep asking you Dan for a straight answer but you can't seem to use you godly logic to make it work. Dan please explain how 2 things that would be considered not only morally wrong but also extremely violent and cruel, can also be good and righteous for your god to order man to do to these innocent children. Please apply your holy logic to weave a seamless case, with no conflicts, as to why what appears to be deeply morally wrong by your standard can be righteous if god orders it done.
My prediction is you either will ignore it again, or make another attempt of using rhetoric to wrap your non-answer in in as you've done every other time. Dan flowery words and ethereal hierarchy don't change the fact that you keep telling us that its OK for your god to do things you have demonstrated to us you would consider morally wrong.
If this is what you call certainty Dan, you must live in Bizarro world.
~Atomic Chimp
Bellecherie,
ReplyDelete>>If your god’s qualities, his eternal power and divine nature are invisible, how do you know there are such qualities, power and nature if you can’t see them?
His revelation. I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them.
>>I trust what I see and feel about the natural world.
I know you do but you cannot account for the assumptions that you make about the future. Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
God has revealed to you that you can trust your senses memory and reasoning. Otherwise you have no grounds to know if they are, or not.
>>Circular reasoning once again Wow!!!
You said:
>>What is that god revelation? Can you share it with us (without mentioning the bible)?
That is asking me to reveal the revelation without revealing the revelation. Its illogical.
>>Funny, I’ve read in some of your comments that our senses are not reliable. How come is that?
No! I ask how are you CERTAIN they are reliable? I ask, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? Please answer.
>>Only Christians have 100% reliable senses?
No, but Christians, at the very least, can ACCOUNT for our reliable senses. You?
>>You see D.A.N, you contradict yourself all the time.
Are contradictions wrong? How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?
>>You say things that are convenient for you (like claiming our “atheist senses” are not reliable because the revelation of god is all around us and we didn’t see it.)
Wrong again. I say that atheists cannot account for their reliable senses yet they make that assumption. I am asking atheists, WITHIN their worldview to account for such things. Yes revelation of God is around us, but you do see it. You just deny it. As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God..
>>Saying the bible is the ultimate evidence for god because is your “ultimate authority” and because you believe in god is also question begging.
Never said it wasn’t circular, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is.
Atomic,
ReplyDelete>>You can’t use circular reasoning Dan.
Why?? You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
>>I assume nothing Dan. First the existence of god must be validated.
Did you assume that first premise? *snicker
>>Then you need to show support for the bible being his literal word too.
Done (internally claimed and proved)
>>You cannot use a book alone to validate your god Dan.
While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason. You? (You knew that was coming)
>>Both have things, people and places that are real mentioned in them, but that does not make them really or true.
So truth is absolute, universal, and objective? How is that within your worldview? Again, I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
>>At worst, it’s a cultural fiction like the gods and characters of Greek Mythology.
How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? (Again, ou knew that was coming)
>>It seems that the rules of reasoning you operate by only apply to those who disagree with what you believe in.
The difference is the temporal plane that you appeal to and the eternal plane that I am appealing to. One of us can be certain. You, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity.
>>Nor does your belief that your god exists make it true.
I completely agree, just because I believe something, does not make it true. Keep that in mind when we discuss what you believe.
>>Its so easy when I use you method of bare assertion instead of showing support for my claims.
Yet my appeal is not a bare assertion, like your worldview demands. The Bible is indeed evidence to God. Not that you accept it but that does not change the truth. right? Remember just because you believe something (Bible is fiction), does not make it true. You need evidence.
>>Dan, you need to understand what logic and logical fallacies are before you can start welding them around with reckless abandoned.
You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. How is that within your worldview?
Atomic,
ReplyDelete>>Dan you first claimed to not understand why good ordered man to do it, but since he did, it must be good and righteous.
Right! God is good and honorable and worthy of our trust in these matters.
>>When I press you to explain how these violent acts on innocent children can be good and be morally wrong for man to do, you try to cover up by putting god outside the standards we must live by.
Almost. It is you who is trying to drag down God to our temporal plane and subject to our standards. Howard Huge difference. I merely appeal to the possibility that I do not have ALL the information to make a informed opinion on the matter. You claim God is wrong. I say I trust God to know what He is doing.
>>When reminded that if Morals are absolute and certain, that means its always good or bad no matter where you dwell, inside or outside of our reality.
I agree. God is ALWAYS moral and RIGHT.
>>If not, then they are not absolute.
Agree.
>>I continue to press you on specifically the innocent young girls subjugated by the men who killed their families, and pointed out that with the standards of the middle eastern culture of the past and even today, that would include children, you could not answer that either.
I answered it quite exhaustively. If God did it its right. I said things like taking children away from this wicked world is right if God did it because He is bringing that child home to Him. When we murder a child we are REMOVING him FROM us. Its wrong. Its ABSOLUTELY right for God to bring children home to him. Same with us.
>>I keep asking you Dan for a straight answer but you can't seem to use you godly logic to make it work.
Hogwash. You keep denying my words. Does that make your points true?
>> Dan please explain how 2 things that would be considered not only morally wrong but also extremely violent and cruel, can also be good and righteous for your god to order man to do to these innocent children. Please apply your holy logic to weave a seamless case, with no conflicts, as to why what appears to be deeply morally wrong by your standard can be righteous if god orders it done.
See above.
>>My prediction is you either will ignore it again, or make another attempt of using rhetoric to wrap your non-answer in in as you've done every other time.
Deuteronomy 18:22 :7)
>>Dan flowery words and ethereal hierarchy don't change the fact that you keep telling us that its OK for your god to do things you have demonstrated to us you would consider morally wrong.
Because you do not posses the same powers of God. Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
Can you send people to hell? No? Then I rest my case.
>>If this is what you call certainty Dan, you must live in Bizarro world.
Come one, come all.
So let me see if I understand
ReplyDelete1. In order to trust our senses we need the revelation from God.
2. This revelation from God is the Bible
3. A schizophrenic who reads and believes the Bible can trust his senses because he has received revelation from God.
Dan, ” You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview…”
ReplyDeleteDan, you make assumptions about what my world exactly is, but you are incorrect. I have never claimed all things are absolute or are not absolute. It is you who assumes that its an with or choice on world view. What my world view is doesn’t matter anyway Dan. As I already have explained to you repeatedly, I’m using your claimed world view to examine your world view, and it doesn’t look pretty.
ME: “Then you need to show support for the bible being his literal word too.”
Dan,”Done (internally claimed and proved)”
As would be expect, more unsupported assertion. Your world view seems so conflicted when you scold others for doing exactly this, but somehow it doesn’t apply to you.
Dan,”While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason. You? (You knew that was coming)”
Bla Bla Bla, Can you actually make a supported argument for once instead of bold assertions?
Dan, we’ve shown you over and over why your Presup stuff doesn’t work. The fact that you demonstrate over and over your own world view is conflicted and highly subject doesn’t help either.
Dan then continues to avoid the question with more presup rhetoric void of any content.
ME:”It seems that the rules of reasoning you operate by only apply to those who disagree with what you believe in.”
Dan, ”The difference is the temporal plane that you appeal to and the eternal plane that I am appealing to. One of us can be certain. You, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity.”
HA! HA! HA! So you’re saying your absolute laws of logic do not apply to you if are “appealing to” some “Eternal Plane”, but do if you, “appealing to” some “temporal plane” which you also have not defined. So if you make up some undefined baloney, it makes you exempt from the absolute laws of logic. Dan, now that’s some of the weakest rhetoric I’ve seen from you in a while. Though I call BS on the whole plane baloney, you do realize that means they are not absolute?
Sorry Dan I missed the 2nd half where you go on telling me how though its absolutely wrong for man to kill children its OK if god tells man to do this to them in an act of violence. You justify this by trying to contrast the acts of man killing with phrases like 'taking away' and 'bringing home' to soften what happens though the only thing that differs the two acts is god OK the infanticide of the Canaanite children by mans hands. You then saying, "It is you who is trying to drag down God to our temporal plane and subject to our standards." That is not correct Dan, I am not dragging god anywhere. I'm just holding the actions he ordered man to do up to you absolute moral standards and your claim that genocide is morally wrong. If genocide is morally wrong and absolute, that means it must also apply to your god. The fact he had men do the violent act seems even more perverse for an omnipotent being to do.
ReplyDeleteYou then go on saying its god and righteous for man to subjugate young girls, innocent young children who just had witnesses the slaughter of their family and friends per order of your god. Your rationalization for this is that "If God did it its right."
SO you heard it here, Dan says it OK to make innocent young girls watch their family and friends be slaughtered in an act of genocide, then to be subjugated by the killers because they happen to be 'clean' young girls. What a violent act so praised and glorified by Dan and his bizarro blind faith and absolute morals and logic.
One more excellent example to be cut and paste into my on going collection Dans best work. Some point in the future I'll publish it all in a paper. I'll be sure to send a copy for your review before submitting it.
~Atomic Chimp
Sorry Dan I missed the 2nd half where you go on telling me how though its absolutely wrong for man to kill children its OK if god tells man to do this to them in an act of violence. You justify this by trying to contrast the acts of man killing with phrases like 'taking away' and 'bringing home' to soften what happens though the only thing that differs the two acts is god OK the infanticide of the Canaanite children by mans hands. You then saying, "It is you who is trying to drag down God to our temporal plane and subject to our standards." That is not correct Dan, I am not dragging god anywhere. I'm just holding the actions he ordered man to do up to you absolute moral standards and your claim that genocide is morally wrong. If genocide is morally wrong and absolute, that means it must also apply to your god. The fact he had men do the violent act seems even more perverse for an omnipotent being to do.
ReplyDeleteYou then go on saying its good and righteous for man to subjugate young girls, innocent young children who just had witnesses the slaughter of their family and friends per order of your god. Your rationalization for this is that "If God did it its right."
SO you heard it here, Dan says it OK to make innocent young girls watch their family and friends be slaughtered in an act of genocide, then to be subjugated by the killers because they happen to be 'clean' young girls. What a violent act so praised and glorified by Dan and his bizarro blind faith and absolute morals and logic.
One more excellent example to be cut and paste into my on going collection Dans best work. Some point in the future I'll publish it all in a paper. I'll be sure to send a copy for your review before submitting it.
~Atomic Chimp
HI, Sorry for the double post. I was correcting where I said 'god and righteous' to 'good and righteous'. I thought I had deleted the one with the mistake, but soon discovered that I did not and can't seem to do so. Just ignore the first one.
ReplyDeleteLet me take the moment to point out a detail Dan. Lets pretend I grant you you word play of 'Take them home', which I don't, but that still does not explain the cruelty of making young innocent girls, children, being made to suffer witnessing the murder of their families and friends, only then to be subjugated by the killers for the rest of their lives.
If we were to grant you the 'take them home' reward for those killed, it makes it even more cruel for those girls who in a sense would be considered the most innocent of the children to be put through a horrific moment only to live a life of servitude, some involving sexual interaction, to the killers. Its like sending the most innocent and defenseless children to a living hell.
Thanks.
~Atomic Chimp
Blogger had technical difficulties making it impossible to post a comment, so I prayed to the flying spaghetti monster, and now Blogger is fixed. This proves the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
ReplyDeleteMaxFF,
ReplyDelete>>This proves the existence of the flying spaghetti monster.
At least your god has pull in this world, but is that what matters? (Matthew 16:26)
Man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just noticed my response to Atomic did not go through and I deleted it thinking it did. Grrrrr
ReplyDeleteHere they are
ReplyDeleteAtomic,
>>Dan you first claimed to not understand why good ordered man to do it, but since he did, it must be good and righteous.
Right! God is good and honorable and worthy of our trust in these matters.
>>When I press you to explain how these violent acts on innocent children can be good and be morally wrong for man to do, you try to cover up by putting god outside the standards we must live by.
Almost. It is you who is trying to drag down God to our temporal plane and subject to our standards. Howard Huge difference. I merely appeal to the possibility that I do not have ALL the information to make a informed opinion on the matter. You claim God is wrong. I say I trust God to know what He is doing.
>>When reminded that if Morals are absolute and certain, that means its always good or bad no matter where you dwell, inside or outside of our reality.
I agree. God is ALWAYS moral and RIGHT.
>>If not, then they are not absolute.
Agree.
>>I continue to press you on specifically the innocent young girls subjugated by the men who killed their families, and pointed out that with the standards of the middle eastern culture of the past and even today, that would include children, you could not answer that either.
I answered it quite exhaustively. If God did it its right. I said things like taking children away from this wicked world is right if God did it because He is bringing that child home to Him. When we murder a child we are REMOVING him FROM us. Its wrong. Its ABSOLUTELY right for God to bring children home to him. Same with us.
>>I keep asking you Dan for a straight answer but you can't seem to use you godly logic to make it work.
Hogwash. You keep denying my words. Does that make your points true?
>> Dan please explain how 2 things that would be considered not only morally wrong but also extremely violent and cruel, can also be good and righteous for your god to order man to do to these innocent children. Please apply your holy logic to weave a seamless case, with no conflicts, as to why what appears to be deeply morally wrong by your standard can be righteous if god orders it done.
See above.
>>My prediction is you either will ignore it again, or make another attempt of using rhetoric to wrap your non-answer in in as you've done every other time.
Deuteronomy 18:22 :7)
>>Dan flowery words and ethereal hierarchy don't change the fact that you keep telling us that its OK for your god to do things you have demonstrated to us you would consider morally wrong.
Because you do not posses the same powers of God. Matthew 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
Can you send people to hell? No? Then I rest my case.
>>If this is what you call certainty Dan, you must live in Bizarro world.
Come one, come all.
Atomic,
ReplyDelete>>You can’t use circular reasoning Dan.
Why?? You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
>>I assume nothing Dan. First the existence of god must be validated.
Did you assume that first premise? *snicker
>>Then you need to show support for the bible being his literal word too.
Done (internally claimed and proved)
>>You cannot use a book alone to validate your god Dan.
While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason. You? (You knew that was coming)
>>Both have things, people and places that are real mentioned in them, but that does not make them really or true.
So truth is absolute, universal, and objective? How is that within your worldview? Again, I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
>>At worst, it’s a cultural fiction like the gods and characters of Greek Mythology.
How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? (Again, ou knew that was coming)
>>It seems that the rules of reasoning you operate by only apply to those who disagree with what you believe in.
The difference is the temporal plane that you appeal to and the eternal plane that I am appealing to. One of us can be certain. You, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity.
>>Nor does your belief that your god exists make it true.
I completely agree, just because I believe something, does not make it true. Keep that in mind when we discuss what you believe.
>>Its so easy when I use you method of bare assertion instead of showing support for my claims.
Yet my appeal is not a bare assertion, like your worldview demands. The Bible is indeed evidence to God. Not that you accept it but that does not change the truth. right? Remember just because you believe something (Bible is fiction), does not make it true. You need evidence.
>>Dan, you need to understand what logic and logical fallacies are before you can start welding them around with reckless abandoned.
You keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. How is that within your worldview?
It appears that others are trying to chime in to help you Bellecherie. Its cute. Maybe they don't have enough confidence in you to address these issues. Maybe they are scared that you, like them, cannot address these questions fully. Reynold mentioned Stephen Law who was at a lost.
ReplyDeleteStephen said: "Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock." It took a moment to conclude that the fact that he was discussing things with Sye and, attempting, to engage him in a conversation about logic, and other things, cogitates [shows] that he believes that Sye is a rational logical being capable of a reasonable conversation. The evidence is within Stephen already, thus Sye didn't have to respond to any of Stephen Law's brain damage garbage because its already been revealed as a false premiss. Also, Stephan's whole argument is a Relativist Fallacy. Stephen Law was debunked by his own argument.
Also, Sye stated it this way: The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!
Bellecherie,
ReplyDelete>>If your god’s qualities, his eternal power and divine nature are invisible, how do you know there are such qualities, power and nature if you can’t see them?
His revelation. I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them.
>>I trust what I see and feel about the natural world.
I know you do but you cannot account for the assumptions that you make about the future. Do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance.
God has revealed to you that you can trust your senses memory and reasoning. Otherwise you have no grounds to know if they are, or not.
>>Circular reasoning once again Wow!!!
You said:
>>What is that god revelation? Can you share it with us (without mentioning the bible)?
That is asking me to reveal the revelation without revealing the revelation. Its illogical.
>>Funny, I’ve read in some of your comments that our senses are not reliable. How come is that?
No! I ask how are you CERTAIN they are reliable? I ask, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? Please answer.
>>Only Christians have 100% reliable senses?
No, but Christians, at the very least, can ACCOUNT for our reliable senses. You?
>>You see D.A.N, you contradict yourself all the time.
Are contradictions wrong? How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?
>>You say things that are convenient for you (like claiming our “atheist senses” are not reliable because the revelation of god is all around us and we didn’t see it.)
Wrong again. I say that atheists cannot account for their reliable senses yet they make that assumption. I am asking atheists, WITHIN their worldview to account for such things. Yes revelation of God is around us, but you do see it. You just deny it. As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God..
>>Saying the bible is the ultimate evidence for god because is your “ultimate authority” and because you believe in god is also question begging.
Never said it wasn’t circular, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is.
>> His revelation. I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us…
ReplyDeleteSuch as?
>> God has revealed to you that you can trust your senses memory and reasoning. Otherwise you have no grounds to know if they are, or not.
Neither do you, since our memories and senses are not reliable.
>> That is asking me to reveal the revelation without revealing the revelation. Its illogical.
It’s illogical to you because you have nothing else besides the bible to give me this so-called revelation. If you had anything else besides the bible you would tell me.
>> I ask how are you CERTAIN they are reliable?
How do you know your senses are reliable? You are christian, but you are a human being, just like me. Unless you have some superior physiology from the rest of us you can’t rely on your senses and memory too.
If you see a fairy flying around your kitchen table you’ll start believing in fairies, since you rely 100% in your senses, right?
>> Are contradictions wrong? How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, on what basis do you proceed with the assumption that they will not change, and how is it possible to know anything for certain according to YOUR worldview?
An example: I’m talking to my friend that I consider stealing wrong and those who commit this crime should go to jail. Then my friend says to me: “Well, your father is a thief. So why don’t you turn him in to the police?”. Then I tell her: “Oh, no! He’s my father. It’s not immoral and wrong when he’s the one stealing.”
“My friend tells me again: “How come? If someone else does the stealing it’s wrong, but when your father does it is right? You can’t have it both ways. Or you consider stealing wrong or you don’t.”
I answer her. “But my father knows best and I can’t question/doubt his actions.”
According to this example, here I am having two contradictory opinions about stealing at the same time. For me stealing is right and wrong depending on who does the stealing.
It’s how your reasoning is D.A.N. You think two things are right and wrong at the same time depends on who does/commands it. If man does/commands it for the sake of it is wrong; but when your god does or commands it then it’s right. It can’t be that way. Or you agree with it or you don’t.
>> Yes revelation of God is around us, but you do see it. You just deny it.
So, again…where are those revelations? Just don’t tell me they are around me…tell me what they are exactly.
How god revealed himself to us? (again, not quoting the scriptures for goodness’ sake)
I’m not accountable to some invisible deity. I’m accountable to myself, to the society I live in and to the laws that rules that society, there. I’m not rebelling/denying your god, I don’t believe in gods to be rebelling/denying them.
If you don’t believe in Thor and Odin, so you are denying them and rebelling against them (be careful or else Thor is going to strike you dead with his almighty hammer…lol)
Hey Dan where did all my posts go?
ReplyDeleteOkay I'll try to be serious for second:
ReplyDelete1. Suppose we have person A who has never read the Bible before. According to you this person cannot trust that their senses are accurate without the revelation from God, which is the Bible. So a christian friend gives them a Bible to read. If their senses cannot be trusted than how can they trust what they are reading, they might hallucinate extra sections into the Bible that aren't really there. How can anyone read the Bible and receive revelation without first assuming that there senses are correct?
2. Can a schizophrenic, or a person suffering from any physical or mental problem that causes hallucinations, trust their senses after reading the Bible and receiving God's revelation? If the answer is no, please tell me what mechanism God's revelation offers to diagnose people with mental and physical illnesses that would prevent their senses from being accurate. It seems that rather than consulting a doctor or psychiatrist, you would use God's revelation to diagnose hallucinatory disorders, and I'm interested to know how it's done.
Dan
ReplyDeleteHis revelation. I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us...
"Can" and "did" are two completely different things, Dan. Can you show that she actually did?
God has revealed to you that you can trust your senses, memory and reasoning. Otherwise you have no grounds to know if they are, or not.
How do you know what your "god" allegedly did for someone else, Dan?
What would that revelation look like? Can you describe it for us? I've asked you that once before, haven't I?
Also, Sye stated it this way: The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic.
Which was done over and over again by me and others:
The greeks and others developed the laws of logic without influence from your religion
The bible does not lay out the laws of logic (you try to get around that once by quoting some verses but at best, they only gave an example of a law with no indication that the person saying it knew that they were giving an example of an actual law)
You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!
So what the fuck use is it then?
By the way Dan, I know you're making one of your "jokes" when you say that we're "helping" bellecherie out because we don't think she's doing a good job, but guess what?
It always takes several people to try to pound any sense into your religiously messed-up up head.
Your little "joke" to bellecherie is just showing how contemptible you're becoming.
Now, on to some of your other crap:
No! I ask how are you CERTAIN they are reliable? I ask, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid? Please answer.
>>Only Christians have 100% reliable senses?
No,
If not, then how can you say that they're reliable then? How can you tell that the bible says what you think it says then, if your senses aren't 100% reliable?
It would explain the hundreds of xian denominations out there, all with their own spin on god's "infallible" word!
...but Christians, at the very least, can ACCOUNT for our reliable senses. You?
Evolution, natural selection, whatever. Come to think of it, any member of any damned religion can "account" for their senses too, Dan.
It always takes several people to try to pound any sense into your religiously messed-up up head.
ReplyDeleteThe world has yet to see the clue-bat big enough to counter Dan's monumental case of fundy-brain. Only the other day he claimed that if someone set him on fire, he would trust to his god not to let him burn...
D.A.N. said... (to Atomic Chimp)
ReplyDeleteNot so fast. You know full well we always say that assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
And as we always say: assuming the Bible is evidence for God because you believe God exists is also question begging.
If you concede to the mere EXISTENCE of the Bible then you MUST concede to evidence for God.
What utter rubbish. The Bible is evidence of the Bible, nothing more.
Rejected evidence does not negate evidence.
Evidence that has been shown NOT to be evidence cannot continue to be claimed as evidence.
D.A.N. said... (to Reynold)
ReplyDeleteScripture itself proves God. The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true and then proceeds to effectively prove itself internally.
It really doesn't and, as we're playing "unsubstantiated assertions win" rules, then I win.
The self consistency
What self consistency?
and accuracy
Lol.
of the scriptures that speaks of God and His existence is sufficient.
For a gullible idiot perhaps.
Believers base their assurance and knowledge on things OTHER then fallible human things.
On 'revelations' you mean? The same revelations you can't actually demonstrate have actually ocurred. The revelations that require you to resort to an infinite regress of revelations. The revelations that require you to be omniscient yourself in order to be certain.
God's revelation is sufficient to know things, as we do.
And there it is, the appeal to revelation, lol. Can you demonstrate the truth of your assertion without resorting to an infinite regress or the need to be omniscient yourself?
Without it, you cannot know anything. Hence the post title and claim.
Can you demonstrate the truth of your claim that without God people cannot know anything?
D.A.N. said... (to Atomic Chimp)
ReplyDeleteI would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview
Quite possibly the funniest thing you ever say.
D.A.N. said... (to Atomic Chimp)
ReplyDeleteYou keep bringing up logical fallacies as if you thought logic was absolute. How is that within your worldview?
Within his worldview is, in this case, irrelevant. Instead, it is your professed worldview that states that logic is absolute and fallacies are not allowed ... and yet you have to resort to logical fallacies in order to support your claim. Why is that?
D.A.N. said... (seemingly to bellcherie)
ReplyDeleteStephen said: "Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock." It took a moment to conclude that the fact that he was discussing things with Sye and, attempting, to engage him in a conversation about logic, and other things, cogitates [shows] that he believes that Sye is a rational logical being capable of a reasonable conversation.
Why ignore the part where Stephen explained that he was actually conversing with Sye's nurse in the hope that the nurse could dumb it down for the benefit of poor brain damaged Sye? Is it because it ruins your argument perhaps?
The evidence is within Stephen already, thus Sye didn't have to respond to any of Stephen Law's brain damage garbage because its already been revealed as a false premiss.
It wasn't demonstrated as such at all. Any attempt by Sye to demonstrate his competence simply demonstrates that he's been brain damaged and can't think straight.
The whole point of the exchange was to show the dishonesty of the presuppositional argument i.e. it first claims that you cannot account for something and that any attempt to make an account simply supports the presupp position.
Also, Stephan's whole argument is a Relativist Fallacy.
Lol. Can you support this claim? Maybe you should read Stephen's 2005 paper in "Think: Philosophy for everyone (A journal of the the Royal Institute of Philosophy)" entitled "Thinking Tools: The Relativist Fallacy" for some hints...
D.A.N. said ... (to pretty much everyone)
ReplyDeleteviciously circular
Coming from the man having to resort to an infinite regress of revelations this is utterly hilarious.... I'm surprised you haven't disappeared up your own rectum with the vortex that that kind of circularity must have caused.
Atomic,
ReplyDelete>>Hey Dan where did all my posts go?
Yours got lost too!!??
Wow, Google you're failing at this whole blogger thingy. Wake up!
I will try to find them. Re post them if you have them. Grrrrr
MaxFF,
ReplyDelete>>1. Suppose we have person A who has never read the Bible before. According to you this person cannot trust that their senses are accurate without the revelation from God, which is the Bible.
Wrong. God can reveal things without the Bible. Its not the only revelation God gave us. How do you know your senses are reliable?
>> How can anyone read the Bible and receive revelation without first assuming that there senses are correct?
We both trust our senses and reasoning, but of the two of us, I can justify doing so in a non-viciously circular fashion, you cannot.
Again, I am not saying that atheists do not use their senses and reasoning as reliable, all I am saying is that they have no basis for assuming that they're valid, yet they make that assumption. I assumed my reasoning was valid about God, as an Atheist, until God revealed that it was wrong.
>>2. Can a schizophrenic, or a person suffering from any physical or mental problem that causes hallucinations, trust their senses after reading the Bible and receiving God's revelation?
Yes. If God reveals something to them, that thing can be trusted. God could reveal things to him, such that he can be certain of them. That much I know.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Evolution, natural selection, whatever.
Do you understand how silly you sound by using such a false paradigm? When you claim something like "natural selection" you're saying that nature SELECTED things. In other words, it has a mind to select things that are 'favorable'. The only power that natural selection has is to captivate a mind, as its only in the mind that this kind of "selection" actually takes place. It is you who claims that there is no "selector" yet you use such terms. Its absurd once again.
Speaking of Atheism not knowing...
Freddies dead,
ReplyDelete>>And as we always say: assuming the Bible is evidence for God because you believe God exists is also question begging.
But that is not the case, and you know it. (Ignoratio elenchi)
The Bible is evidence for God because it first claims it, then proves it internally and externally. You have no saving rescuing device. So assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is still question begging. :7)
>>Evidence that has been shown NOT to be evidence cannot continue to be claimed as evidence.
And to what appeal is the evidence been shown NOT to be evidence? Discounted by non-believers is not evidence at all for it. Barely asserting its not evidence is not evidence at all either. State your claim. If good enough, I will make it a post even so we can discuss it. Bring that "A" game. Shut me up.
Freddies dead,
ReplyDelete>>It really doesn't and, as we're playing "unsubstantiated assertions win" rules, then I win.
Well you do make a point, since your unsubstantiated assertions are quite large. Then buy that alone you might be the winner. Fortunately we are not playing by such rules, although you're unsubstantiated assertions claim we are.
The self consistency and accuracy of the scriptures that speaks of God and His existence is sufficient.
>>For a gullible idiot perhaps.
Thanks for providing evidence for my claim, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
>>The revelations that require you to be omniscient yourself in order to be certain.
Not so. An omniscient, omnipotent being could Himself reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. No need for us to have such omniscience. Although we will also have such knowledge someday. I trust God to fully let us know everything when He wants to reveal all that to us as 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 says which, if I understand it properly, that we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God. I certainly am very excited about that. I will trust Him, and Him alone, until that wonderful day.
>>Can you demonstrate the truth of your claim that without God people cannot know anything?
How ironic you posted this question on this post. Thanks for demonstrating this posts claim. :7)
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteYou didn't answer my last comment telling what those god's revelations are...
Bellecherie,
ReplyDelete>>You didn't answer my last comment telling what those god's revelations are...
Sure I did.
Remember also that you said,
>>What is that god revelation? Can you share it with us (without mentioning the bible)?
To which I said,: Did you just ask me to reveal the revelation without revealing the revelation?
To which I added,
While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.
No, you didn’t. I asked you to give me what are those evidence exactly. I want details. I don’t want answers like “the bible is the ultimate evidence for god’s revelation”, “the evidence is all around you”, “god put the evidence in you”, etc. I’ve heard it all before, not only from you. I’ve been dealing with hardcore christians and bible thumpers like you for a very long time.
I want to know what this “god’s collective natural and special revelation” is. And I want real hard evidence (yes, always the evidence) that those things are revelation from your god’s existence. Is it that hard, sweety?
Dan, showing that he doesn't know what the hell a metaphor is, or what "anthropomorphisation" means.
ReplyDeleteD.A.N. said...
Reynold,
>>Evolution, natural selection, whatever.
Do you understand how silly you sound by using such a false paradigm? When you claim something like "natural selection" you're saying that nature SELECTED things. In other words, it has a mind to select things that are 'favorable'.
No you idiot...you can't really believe that I just claimed that "nature" has a mind, do you?
Are you that fucking stupid??
The only power that natural selection has is to captivate a mind, as its only in the mind that this kind of "selection" actually takes place. It is you who claims that there is no "selector" yet you use such terms. Its absurd once again.
Speaking of Atheism not knowing...
Dan, do not speak of other's ignorance when you're the one showing stupidity.
While the Bible is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable...
ReplyDeleteUh, and given that our senses kick in as babies, are you claiming that you had to have had "gods'" revelation then? You must have had this "revelation" first so that you would know to trust your senses later.
Thing is, I know that's bullshit because you never went off on this idiocy until Sye showed up.
...and can account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws of logic and reason.
Bullshit, Dan. You assert that. You don't even try to show that.
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies dead,
>>And as we always say: assuming the Bible is evidence for God because you believe God exists is also question begging.
But that is not the case, and you know it. (Ignoratio elenchi)
It is the case and by claiming I am committing ignoratio elenchi you are suggesting that I'm making an argument that isn't relevant to the discussion - please show how my argument is irrelevant to a discussion on whether the Bble is evidence of God.
The Bible is evidence for God because it first claims it, then proves it internally and externally.
You have not demonstrated this. You assume God exists (you certainly haven't proved such) and you assume that He inspired the Bible (you haven't proved this either) so you're assuming the Bible is evidence for God because you believe God exists - you're question begging. Alternatively you could actually demonstrate how the Bible proves itself internally and externally instead of just asserting that it does - the difference between show and tell we've been trying to get you to understand for a long time.
You have no saving rescuing device.
I do not need one.
So assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is still question begging. :7)
I do not assume that the Bible is not evidence for God because I do not believe God exists, instead I do not believe the Bible to be evidence for God because you haven't yet demonstrated that it is. Demonstrate that the Bible is divinely inspired, otherwise it's simply a book and evidence for nothing more than itself. To demonstrate that it is divinely inspired you need to show that such divine inspiration exists (i.e. first show your God exists). You are, in essence, trying to put the cart before the horse by claiming the Bible is evidence for God when you first need to show God exists before you can demonstrate that He inspired the Bible. It's pathetically circular and doesn't hold.
>>Evidence that has been shown NOT to be evidence cannot continue to be claimed as evidence.
And to what appeal is the evidence been shown NOT to be evidence?
You want me to list every instance where an argument for God's existence has been refuted? Or just on here where the only evidences for God you seem to have advanced are the Bible and 'special revelations'. So far you've failed to demonstrate the divine nature of the first and can't even demonstrate the reality of the second. Care to try? Or will you continue to try shifting the burden of proof?
Discounted by non-believers is not evidence at all for it.
Here you do exactly what you accuse atheists of doing - your dismissal of the refutations of the evidence doesn't stop there being refutations of the evidence. If you can't counter the refutation then the evidence is suspect and cannot be relied upon when making other claims.
Barely asserting its not evidence is not evidence at all either.
Barely asserting that it is evidence is also not evidence either but you don't seem to realise this. Stop telling us that the Bible is evidence of God and instead actually support your claim that the Bible is evidence of God.
State your claim.
To what claim are you referring? I'm not really making a claim, I'm trying to get you to actually support yours.
If good enough, I will make it a post even so we can discuss it. Bring that "A" game.
We can discuss your evidence to support your claims anywhere you like, just as soon as you present some.
Shut me up.
Why the hell would I want to do that?
D.A.N. said...
ReplyDeleteFreddies dead,
>>It really doesn't and, as we're playing "unsubstantiated assertions win" rules, then I win.
Well you do make a point, since your unsubstantiated assertions are quite large.
Considering that assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, my response to your claim was actually a dismissal not an assertion and I note you don't actually respond to my point by giving evidence to support your claim. Are you unwilling or simply unable?
The self consistency and accuracy of the scriptures that speaks of God and His existence is sufficient.
>>For a gullible idiot perhaps.
My response still stands. Do you have any compelling evidence to support this claim? The Bible, is, after all, riddled with contradictions and inaccuracies. If that's God's idea of consistency and accuracy then He sets a very low bar for perfection.
Thanks for providing evidence for my claim, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
And thank you for simply repeating your strawman claim ad nauseum. Do you think this proves something? As I've pointed out, I do not assume the Bible is not evidence for God because I don't believe God exists, I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate your claim that the Bible is evidence for God. Care to try anytime soon?
>>The revelations that require you to be omniscient yourself in order to be certain.
Not so.
How? Any gap in your knowlegde leads to uncertainty on your part. If you dispute this please demonstrate why it's not true.
An omniscient, omnipotent being could Himself reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them.
Yes, by granting you omniscience. Anything less than omniscience on your part leaves you open to being tricked by; your own God, another God, an entity sufficiently capable of manipulating your thoughts and, of course, your own mind. If you dispute this then I ask again, show how this isn't so.
No need for us to have such omniscience.
Baseless assertion...
Although we will also have such knowledge someday.
Baseless assertion...
I trust God to fully let us know everything when He wants to reveal all that to us as 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 says which, if I understand it properly, that we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God. I certainly am very excited about that. I will trust Him, and Him alone, until that wonderful day.
I'm happy that you're happy in your delusion.
>>Can you demonstrate the truth of your claim that without God people cannot know anything?
How ironic you posted this question on this post. Thanks for demonstrating this posts claim. :7)
A simple 'no' would have sufficed. Instead you simply repeat the claim and promptly shift the burden of proof. Not that I really expected anything better.
Bellecherie,
ReplyDelete>>And I want real hard evidence (yes, always the evidence) that those things are revelation from your god’s existence. Is it that hard, sweety?
I understand. Yes, its a difficult thing to ask for because its not just one thing, but many. He is always speaking to us. I have tried to address this in a past post, but yes its hard to nail down. You just have to be there for the personal revelation to have an understanding for the personal revelation. And NO personal revelation is not the only revelation. God has revealed Himself to ALL mankind. So you're without excuse.
D.A,N,
ReplyDelete>> I understand. Yes, its a difficult thing to ask for because its not just one thing, but many. He is always speaking to us. I have tried to address this in a past post, but yes its hard to nail down. You just have to be there for the personal revelation to have an understanding for the personal revelation. And NO personal revelation is not the only revelation. God has revealed Himself to ALL mankind. So you're without excuse.
I don’t care if those revelations are many. Tell them what they are. I don’t mind. Go ahead.
There’s one problem with personal revelations: they are not evidence and they are not reliable. I would just have to believe in your word. And I don’t. I wasn’t there with you when you had those alleged revelations.
For example: I tell you that a flying saucer landed on my backyard and that I was abducted by aliens. They made experiments with me and all. After a few hours they send me back like nothing happened. Would you take my word for it and believe me even though I don’t have any evidence of my alien abduction? The testimony of my personal experience would be the ultimate evidence that we are not alone in the universe?
Now a real story: A few years ago my housekeeper told me that her son saw a ghost in my bedroom. She said she was with him in the corridor that leads to my bedroom when he suddenly asked her who that boy was and why he was grounded. She asked him what boy. He answered that he saw the boy looking at him and then closing the door. The he asked her if the boy was my brother. She told him I didn’t have a brother, just a sister and that hour my sister was at school. There was only my housekeeper and her son in my house. She told she didn’t see any boy and didn’t see my bedroom door being closed. Did I believe her? No, for 5 reasons:
1- I don’t believe in ghosts;
2- I wasn’t there at that time;
3- It was her son’s personal experience;
4- It was a testimony of my housekeeper about her son’s personal experience;
5- No real hard/concrete evidence that there was the ghost of a boy in my room.
Should I believe in my housekeeper’s testimony about a personal experience her son had while I was out about seeing a ghost in my bedroom when there’s no evidence of that just because she worked in my house for ten years?
At best: her son was lying; she was lying; both of them were lying or her son was hallucinating.
I really want you to answer me those ones.
Bellecherie,
ReplyDelete>>There’s one problem with personal revelations: they are not evidence and they are not reliable. I would just have to believe in your word. And I don’t. I wasn’t there with you when you had those alleged revelations.
Is it any wonder why I was resistant to share anything on a personal level with you. You don't believe in revelations. You're an Atheist after all!
As for you example you're comparing apples and oranges YET AGAIN. Comparing God to aliens with no evidence is not the same. There is INDEED evidence for God. Sure, you reject the evidence, but there is evidence.
>>At best: her son was lying; she was lying; both of them were lying or her son was hallucinating.
Or something happened, that is unexplained at the moment. You didn't consider that one, did you? Saying someone is a liar, without evidence for it, is a bit hasty. Understandable for an Atheist though. :7)
I am with you, as I do not believe in ghosts. Ghost's are not Biblical. Daemons are a whole other story though. I believe in daemons. You may have a daemon in the house. Daemons must flee from me since I am with Christ. You on the other hand...
Yes, there are dark forces in this world. Maybe one decided to camp with you. Hard to know for certain. Good luck with that though. Your house keeper didn't have to share that with you. She could of just let it go. She confided in you. You should encourage truth. Understandable for an Atheist though. :7)
Oh and Bellecherie, let us know if you start getting unexplained scratches or something worse. You know, evidence. John 7:20
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteD.A.N,
ReplyDelete>>So, should I believe you had personal revelations about the existence of your god – without evidence to back it up – just because you said so? I don’t believe in my own mother when she says those things to me.
>> As for you example you're comparing apples and oranges YET AGAIN. Comparing God to aliens with no evidence is not the same. There is INDEED evidence for God. Sure, you reject the evidence, but there is evidence.
Why not? Both “revelations” (god/and not being the only intelligent life in the universe) demand evidence. It’s about testimony of a personal experience which you – or me in the example – don’t have any proof to support what we are claiming.
But since you are religious, let’s replace alien abduction with me seeing an angel with wings and all flying around my backyard and giving me a message from god. I have no real hard/concrete evidence that angel made me a visit and left me a message from his boss, so you and everyone else will just have to take my word for it and believe me?
>> Or something happened, that is unexplained at the moment. You didn't consider that one, did you?
Unless something changed in the world, everybody lies. Including those ones we know for a very long time.
That’s the thing about unexplained things. Just because I can’t explain something it doesn’t mean that it must be supernatural or paranormal.
Some years ago I was in the street with my cousins at night, talking and everything when we saw a strange brilliant flying object. The object made something I never saw before: it came out of nowhere (apparently) with a very faint light and in the middle of his route the light became brighter and then – as long as the object was flying - the light became faint and disappeared. He made this one more time and disappeared for good. Based on my personal experiences about flying objects I had no idea on what that thing was. But I – automatically – jumped into the conclusion that it was an alien flying saucer? No. Until this day I can’t explain what that flying object was, I’m waiting – that one day – I find a rational explanation for what I saw.
>> I am with you, as I do not believe in ghosts. Ghost's are not Biblical. Daemons are a whole other story though. I believe in daemons.
Again, what evidence you have that demons are real? Have you ever seen them? Talked to them? Do you have a photo or a video of a demon? Any other concrete evidence that supports the existence of demons?
You may have a daemon in the house. Daemons must flee from me since I am with Christ. You on the other hand
Yes, there are dark forces in this world. Maybe one decided to camp with you. Hard to know for certain. Good luck with that though.
Maybe I should call the world’s most famous paranormal investigator Lorraine Warren to investigate my house, after all she has a huge experience about casting out demons from people’s houses. <-- insert sarcasm here.
>> Your house keeper didn't have to share that with you. She could of just let it go. She confided in you. You should encourage truth. Understandable for an Atheist though.
So, should I trusted her, even though she had no evidence to support her son’s claims?
This is not about being an atheist, it’s about being skeptic, which I also am.
I encourage truth, as long as it have evidence to support it.
But it was fun though, I scared the shit out of her many times because of that ghost story, lol.
>> Oh and Bellecherie, let us know if you start getting unexplained scratches or something worse. You know, evidence. John 7:20 , < - - wow, using a bible verse to scare me. Yes, I’m terrified (insert sarcasm again)
I live in the same house for more than 20 years and never – in any moment – something unexplained or scary happened in here. Even in the time that alleged ghost sighting “happened”.
Bellecherie,
ReplyDelete>> I have no real hard/concrete evidence that angel made me a visit and left me a message from his boss, so you and everyone else will just have to take my word for it and believe me?
But Christianity DOES have evidence OTHER THEN personal revelations. For one the Bible. You're missing that point over and over. Also remember that assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
>>Unless something changed in the world, everybody lies.
Sorry, even you cannot claim that with evidence. Its baseless and a bare assertion.
>>Just because I can’t explain something it doesn’t mean that it must be supernatural or paranormal.
Just because you can’t explain something it doesn’t mean that it must NOT be supernatural or paranormal. Your assumptions are baseless. Its possible there is a God. Do you admit that?
>>But I – automatically – jumped into the conclusion that it was an alien flying saucer?
No, but it certainly was a U.F.O. They're real, you do understand.
>>Again, what evidence you have that demons are real?
God, through one of His revelations. Plus a phenomena that can point to one on a personal level.
>>Have you ever seen them?
No, I have heard them.
>> Any other concrete evidence that supports the existence of demons?
To convince you? None. Remember, my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.
>>So, should I trusted her, even though she had no evidence to support her son’s claims?
Sure. Why not? Take it for what its worth and be weary of it for the future. Boy for an Atheist that scream for evidence, when someone actually give you some, you cry liar! Even the courts accept eye witnesses. Sure, they cross examine the validity of their claims but they're accepted never the less.
>>This is not about being an atheist, it’s about being skeptic, which I also am.
Yes a radical skeptic. Radical skepticism is the philosophical position that knowledge is impossible, btw.
>>I encourage truth, as long as it have evidence to support it.
Hogwash! You encourage truth, as long as it has evidence that must fit your presuppositions to accept it. God existing will never be evidenced to you because you don't believe He exists.
>>I live in the same house for more than 20 years and never – in any moment – something unexplained or scary happened in here.
Maybe the daemon was following the house keeper or her son. Who knows. Or I could have said something like do you use your reasoning when you reason about the past 'success' of your reasoning? Obviously you do, which makes your position viciously circular. Also, assuming that you have nothing else to go on, begs the question AND commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance. :7)
D.A.N, (part 1)
ReplyDelete>> But Christianity DOES have evidence OTHER THEN personal revelations. For one the Bible. You're missing that point over and over. Also remember that assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
Christianity has evidence other then personal revelations and one of them is the bible. So, it means there are other evidences which are not personal revelations, what are they?
I’ll say again and for the last time: saying the bible is evidence of god just because you believe in god is question begging.
But you didn’t answer my question: I claim I saw an angel flying around my backyard and that he gave me a message from god. I have no evidence whatsoever that an angel visited to give me a message from god (no photo, no video, no feather from one of his wings, nada.). Would you believe in that story based on my testimony alone?
>> Sorry, even you cannot claim that with evidence. Its baseless and a bare assertion.
Honey, when someone comes and tell me they saw a ghost and have no evidence to back their claim I’ll assume that they are lying, they are hallucinating or someone pranked them somehow. Borderline, I won’t believe it.
>> Its possible there is a God. Do you admit that?
For argument’s sake, yes. Me – personally – I don’t see how the existence of gods (or any other supernatural entities) are possible. There are no evidences that show their existence is possible.
>> No, but it certainly was a U.F.O. They're real, you do understand.
But, that’s the thing. For most people UFO = alien flying saucer. The keyword in UFO is unidentified. An UFO could be anything: an alien flying saucer, an artificial satellite, weather balloons, atmospheric phenomenon, meteors, hoaxes, my mother wrapped in christmas’ lights flying around in a kite, whatever. To me, it was an UFO in the real meaning of the term because I didn’t know what it was. Did I conclude it was an alien flying saucer just because – based on what I know – I couldn’t find an explanation? No.
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete(cont).
>> God, through one of His revelations. Plus a phenomena that can point to one on a personal level.
>>Have you ever seen them?
No, I have heard them.
Good, do you have his voice recorded on tape to send to me so I can give to technicians to analyze it?
>> Sure. Why not? Take it for what its worth and be weary of it for the future. Boy for an Atheist that scream for evidence, when someone actually give you some, you cry liar! Even the courts accept eye witnesses. Sure, they cross examine the validity of their claims but they're accepted never the less.
Sorry, but I don’t believe her. Read my story again. According to her – she was next to her son when he claimed to see a boy closing my bedroom door. She didn’t see any boy or my door being closed by an invisible force. Her reasoning was: my son saw a boy and I didn’t therefore he saw a ghost.
The conclusion she came about her son’s personal experience without evidence to back this up was not enough to make me believe her.
I don’t know how things work in your country about eye witness, but in my country the police, the investigators and the prosecutors don’t build an entire case based only in eye witnesses’ testimonies. They collect those testimonies and still search for evidence that validates or refute those testimonies. In my country – during a trial – no judge would accept to judge a case based on eye witnesses testimonies alone.
>> Yes a radical skeptic. Radical skepticism is the philosophical position that knowledge is impossible, btw.
Skepticism is about questioning opinions/beliefs stated as facts when they don’t have evidence that proves they are facts.
For example: I’m willing to believe unicorns are real as long someone provides me evidence that proves unicorns are real. If that doesn’t happen I won’t blindly believe in unicorns just because their existence is mentioned in the bible and in any other texts telling a mythical story.
>> Hogwash! You encourage truth, as long as it has evidence that must fit your presuppositions to accept it. God existing will never be evidenced to you because you don't believe He exists.
Here you are distorting my words again. I encourage truth as long as it has evidence that supports it, even though going against my worldview and presuppositions. Let’s go back to the example of the unicorn. I don’t believe in unicorns because I never saw one, there are no evidence that they are real and – until proved otherwise – they are mythical creatures. For arguments’ sake, let’s suppose a team of paleontologists found an unicorn fossil and after a bunch of tests to prove the veracity of the fossil later they come to the conclusion the unicorn’s fossil is real. There’s evidence and – even though going against my lack of belief in unicorns – I’ll admit that in certain period of time unicorns really existed. See?
>> Maybe the daemon was following the house keeper or her son.
What evidence do you – or they – have that this demon boy was following my housekeeper or her son? Again, I think I should call Lorraine Warren to cast out the demon boy, after all I don’t want to be seriously injured by some demon (being sarcastic).