It all started with Alex daring me to go onto his podcast in early September at my Facebook group. After many conversations in the group, he did not pull any punches to get me on, and also posted about it. I sent him Sye's way and what transpired was a barrage of podcasts that was highlighted before. By the grace of God, something happened though.
I just witnessed something great and I wanted to share. I listened to David Smart discussing things with Alex and Jim (as a part 5?) and it was jaw dropping and can be dissected here for months.
This was what I prepared as a comment, on Jim's blog:
I agree with David Smart completely. David almost even said what I am about to say, though I believe he was cut off before it could of been driven home.
Basically, I am a YEC as a result of my belief and understanding of Scripture. I trust God. It does NOT matter if you believe in Old earth or young earth. In fact this was one of the very first things I covered when I started my blog. You must understand that ALL of these gentlemen, in the debate I highlighted, are Christians. Old or Young...it doesn't matter. We can both tally who was right or wrong on various subjects in Heaven. But that will not ultimately matter. Just like your gripes and complaints rant about contradictions of the Bible. That is all these things are, gripes and complaints.
The difference between me and Smart, as far as what matters, is absolutely nothing. We both believe in Christ. Even if a Christan believes in evolution, as I do not, that STILL will NEVER ever, ever, affect their salvation. They can still believe in evolution, and be wrong or right, YET be completely and soundly saved. Christ is ALL that is required to be saved.
NOW, the difference between me and you Jim, is a completely different animal. I am a Christian and you are an Antichrist. (1 John 2:22, 2 John 1:7)
So no matter what you believe, be it evolution, old earth, etc. You will still go to Hell. I will not, even though I find out I was completely wrong about everything I thought was truth. (Biblical Creationism)
The point that needs to be driven home is its a non issue and an Ignoratio elenchi.
"You're accusing me of a coherent worldview" ...brilliant!
Mr. Smart is a sweet gentle man, and I see Christ living in him and in his world. But I am still very concerned for the two of you, Alex and Jim.
And what was all the falling all over the feet of David because he mentions your "autonomous human reasoning"? That is the paradigm of TAG, and presuppostional appologetics, at the very core so I was perplexed as to why, though I know, you then understood it and acknowledged it?
I say God was opening your heart to truth. Embrace that! I could be wrong, but I remain hopeful though. Don't deny it.
If "Fruit of the Spirit" is an ever-growing capacity of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self control in the life of the believer, then I believe we all witnessed that in David Smart. That goes for even you two, if you are intellectually honest. I was doing nothing but praising the Lord for those moments. I KNOW you saw the Spirit within David. I almost, almost, cried for both of you. I was cheering for the two of you at the very least. Then I saw the push back that was the desire of denial coming out. You want to deny there is a God, that you knows exists. David did a wonderful job at explaining EVERYTHING to you to realize the truth of God. You admit that. You STILL said that will not get you to believe in God. We AGREE. It would take a miracle for you to believe.
People do not convert people. The arguments are not intended to be convincing, we're merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of our hands.
Does God exist?
Is there a Creator of creation? THIS and THIS alone is the primer to your Atheism and your atheistic worldview. Not any of the fodder you are injecting. The semantics of old or young, evolution or Creationism are NOT the issues you're dealing with yet. Its diversions.
BTW, you cannot say "no" to the question as we pointed out numerous times. You cannot say "I don't know" as we pointed out many times also. That leaves...
So if you're an Atheist because you believe that evolution, and an old universe is truth, then you're an Atheist for all the wrong reasons ( that is if there is such a thing as a good reason, which there is not).
I am wondering why even bring the age of things up? Granted its good for discussions between Christians as intellectual stretching or exploration, in celebration of God, but we all STILL take Scripture as truth. You do not. You deny it all.
Being a YEC will never affect my salvation, even if I am wrong, but your denial of Christ certainly will. Please repent.
I just wanted to make this a post for myself to refer back to, often. It was one of the best I conversations I was a witness to, and I am sure you would agree if you take the time to listen and understand what was being said.
bit.ly/denyitall
I'm an atheist because gods don't exist, and have never existed.
ReplyDeleteDavid gave a clearer account in fewer words than Circular Sye or Dustin or Eric or you have ever managed, yet he still believes based ENTIRELY on faith - he has no evidence at all to back up his initial claim that his god exists.
"I say God was opening your heart to truth. Embrace that! I could be wrong, but I remain hopeful though. Don't deny it. "
You are wrong, I have never been more certain of the non-existence of gods. If anything talking to all these different believers has reinforced just how right I am to not believe.
"NOW, the difference between me and you Jim, is a completely different animal. I am a Christian and you are an Antichrist. (1 John 2:22, 2 John 1:7)"
Ah, and now we come to the rub....
"So no matter what you believe, be it evolution, old earth, etc. You will still go to Hell. I will not, even though I find out I was completely wrong about everything I thought was truth. (Biblical Creationism)"
...which is Fear Theology, pure and simple.
David was polite and coherent, two things Circular Sye is incapable of being, yet he was still (IMO) utterly unconvincing, and has seemingly based his point of view on some creative extrapolation of the texts in an attempt to marry up his faith and his ability to see the truth of the world around him.
To be honest I reckon he's just a single step away from atheism.
This is an inspirational message. It doesn't matter if evolution is true, how old the earth is, or any other frivolous thing. Everyone should just give up on their pursuit for knowledge. After all, they can just laugh about their ignorance in heaven.
ReplyDeleteso, Dan, what is your opinion of people like Ken Ham who insist that you must believe in a young Earth to be a true christian?
ReplyDeleteAnd how would you address the issue that, if the Bible requires a lot of external study to give it any meaning, you god has singularly failed to make his message clear? David didn't really address that criticism, can you?
"You cannot say 'no' because christians have vacuously asserted it many times. You cannot say 'I don't know' because christians have vacuously asserted it many times."
ReplyDeleteWell, your vacuous assertions mean nothing. Alex says "no;" and I say "I don't know." Your message is not self-evidently true, as you claim it to be. If it were, you would not need to spread it. The very fact that christians spread their message is evidence that it is false.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"You are wrong, I have never been more certain of the non-existence of gods. If anything talking to all these different believers has reinforced just how right I am to not believe."
ReplyDeleteAnd this from someone who when asked what truth was replied: "I don't know." Alex does not know what truth is, but professes to know what it isn't. How telling indeed.
Sye,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you updating me about Mr. Smart. I have no clue as to why he would say such things though, if he did indeed say that. Has he admitted to that fact? He didn't appear to have a holier then thou attitude, but I could be wrong. It might be because of the way, he feels, the message is portrayed. Some reason with a soft quiet demeanor and chastise those who chastise non believers. If that IS the case, its quite telling.
Maybe he is just confused, and wrong, as to the "convincing" of people in that he believes he plays a part in it. I hope he comes here to comment as to the motives behind such a comment against you.
I have pointed out before that I am not here to win signatures of my product called God. I am here to warn the non-believers, in love, that they're heading for a very deep cliff that they will not be able to get out of. Which they are. Forgive us if we're pushy, to knock them away from that proverbial cliff fall. We can lick our wounds later just please understand that one point.
Our conversations are not out of hate but love. So, if we shake you a little, its to wake you up to reality here. Do we stop pulling people out of burning buildings because we're afraid of getting, or giving, some bruises? Its absurd! This is a spiritual warfare after all. Souls are at stake. I would want a Sye with me on the front lines and possibly a David in the command post. God gave both gifts that I celebrate. If you were out there on the front lines daily, you get a bit hardened and cut to the case more. That should be celebrated, not chastised.
Not to say Sye is doing this at all but I think if that is what was David Smart's point, then he is just forgetting Philippians 1:15-18. Its the same moot argument that these two, Alex and Jim, are making about the whole YEC thingy. Its again, an irrelevant thesis. The kindest way you can be to the lost is to warn them for the fate they have chosen for themselves. However that is done. Who cares HOW we get there, as long as we do get there.
David needs my Pulp Fiction analogy:
Remember in Pulp Fiction when Vincent (John Travolta) said to Wolf "A please would be nice."
Wolf said "Get it straight buster - I'm not here to say please, I'm here to tell you what to do and if self-preservation is an instinct you possess you'd better do it and do it quick! I'm here to help - if my help's not appreciated then lotsa luck, gentlemen."
Vincent: "I don't mean any disrespect, I just don't like people barking orders at me."
The Wolf: "If I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast and I need you guys to act fast if you wanna get out of this. So, pretty please... with sugar on top. Clean the car!"
And scene.
So if I am curt with you it's because time really is the factor and you could die tomorrow. Because of that self preservation push back we sometimes we will have to say, "pretty please with sugar on top, repent and turn from rejecting the God you know exists, and accept the free gift of Jesus Christ's payment for your sins, so that you might be saved from Hell, spend an eternity with God, AND have a firm foundation for your reasoning NOW."
Either way Christ is preached. David, what say you?
Alex,
ReplyDelete>>so, Dan, what is your opinion of people like Ken Ham who insist that you must believe in a young Earth to be a true christian?
To avoid the gossiping that you're trying to get us in. FIRST prove that Ken said this.
I can remember Ken saying its dangerous to write off the Word of God and discount certain things and not others. I agree. I have not heard Ken say that if you believe in an Old earth that you are not a Christian. I think you're lying again. Prove me wrong.
Max,
ReplyDelete>>Everyone should just give up on their pursuit for knowledge.
Wrong! Its not giving up, its a pursuit. If we give up and proclaim that, for example, science proves evolution then THAT is when you have given up the pursuit for knowledge. We all understand that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method. Side note, The scientific method was formed by Christians silly.
>>After all, they can just laugh about their ignorance in heaven.
YES!!!!
Alex,
ReplyDelete>>I'm an atheist because gods don't exist, and have never existed.
I missed something...Do you have evidence of that very forward claim? Keep in mind that you may be worshiping the same god as Satanists (LaVeyan) worship. The god of "self". Evidence of a god right there.
>>... he has no evidence at all to back up his initial claim that his god exists.
Unlike you? Let's see if the hypocrisy can be exposed right here.
>>You are wrong, I have never been more certain of the non-existence of gods.
Great. Evidence?
>>If anything talking to all these different believers has reinforced just how right I am to not believe.
Oh, baby with the bathwater. Got it.
>>...which is Fear Theology, pure and simple.
Is that absolutely wrong?
>>David was polite and coherent
Is that absolutely right?
>>To be honest I reckon he's just a single step away from atheism.
Is that the goal of your religion? Or is it a personal crusade?
When you state that the truth isn't important because you'll just find out after you die, it very much gives the impression of giving up the pursuit.
ReplyDelete"Side note, The scientific method was formed by Christians silly."
I don't think I ever said Christians can't use scientific method to pursue knowledge, only that you specifically have written that such pursuits are of no importance.
And the Christians who developed the scientific method only did so after being exposed to the empiricism ideas of Aristotle and the experimental approaches of Muslim scientists.
I am lifting my 'Ignore Sye Because He's a Massive Bellend' rule for one post where I will address him directly.
ReplyDeleteSye, firstly I notice you didn't mention the part of the email where David said this "I love Sye personally as my brother in Christ. I have nothing against him personally. We even agree on a great many things.", no you'd much rather smear a fellow believer for your own fucked up ends.
Secondly, regarding 'truth' I have now blogged CLEARLY what I think 'truth' is - you can read that here
Now I shall return to ignoring you, you dismal, bitter, fraudulent little man.
My response to Sye seems to be gone.
ReplyDelete"Maybe he is just confused, and wrong, as to the "convincing" of people in that he believes he plays a part in it. I hope he comes here to comment as to the motives behind such a comment against you."
ReplyDeleteI think David was merely being honest, Old Circular Sye is fucking podcast poison! The amount of people we've had contact us to beg us never to give him airtime again has been quite something. Add in the growing number of fellow Christians who are asking him to stop talking on various blogs, and a picture emerges of someone who has pretty much used up ALL the good will he's ever had. Bad times for bullshitting liar Circular Sye
>>I am lifting my 'Ignore Sye Because He's a Massive Bellend' rule for one post where I will address him directly.
ReplyDeleteSaid the alcoholic that says "just one more drink" :7p
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>My response to Sye seems to be gone.
"There are no spam comments"
Do you mean this one? If not, I will check my email.
"To avoid the gossiping that you're trying to get us in. FIRST prove that Ken said this."
ReplyDeleteGladly
"the literal history of Genesis 1-11 is absolutely foundational to the truth of the rest of the Bible and the gospel itself. Taking these early chapters of Genesis in any other way undermines God’s Word and the gospel of Jesus Christ, and over the past 200 years such compromises with evolution and millions of years have done incalculable damage to the spiritual health and evangelistic and missionary efforts of the Church. That compromise is one of the greatest reasons, if not the greatest reason, that Western Europe is now labeled “post-Christian” and Britain and America are rapidly approaching that spiritual state. Ultimately, the question of the age of the earth is a question of the truth and authority of Scripture. That’s why the age of the earth matters so much and why the church cannot compromise with millions of years (or evolution)."
Taken from this page on AiG
"I think you're lying again."
Exodus 20:18, read it Dan. And 'again', show me where I have lied once so that anything else could be an 'again', you hilarious fantasy believer.
"I missed something...Do you have evidence of that very forward claim?"
ReplyDeleteI'm not the one making the positive claim (that gods exist), so the burden of proof rests with you. Prove that gods exist, then we'll talk.
Nope, sorry, my mistake. I had the wrong thread.
ReplyDelete----------------------
Oh, Dan, it seems that Smart (If Sye is being honest) says that Sye's presence on the show is useless (he makes christianity look stupid) and thus has no redeeming qualities. He is apparently not saying that Sye has no redeeming qualities. I get no sense of a "holier than thou" attitude, except from Sye.
"Is that the goal of your religion? Or is it a personal crusade?"
ReplyDeleteWhat religion?
As for David becoming an atheist, that's up to him, I merely commented that I see him as being only one step away from it. I want people to be free of the slave mentality that religion instils, so I think it's always a good thing when former believer shakes off the chains of faith.
"Said the alcoholic that says "just one more drink" :7p"
ReplyDeleteOnly a fool would bind himself to a self imposed rule that prevents him from pointing out the stupidity of someone like Circular Sye.
Dan, you know what? You're actually WORSE than him! At least he's got some fucking balls! At least he'll talk to people on podcasts (even if it is painful to listen to). You, YOU hide behind him, cheering him on, like the pathetic little boy at school hiding behind the bully and calling out names safe in the knowledge that he never has to directly face those he's mocking.
You, sir, are a joke.
Dan, I take it your silence is down to the care with which you're wording your apology to me.
ReplyDeleteNow, having shown you that AiG did indeed say that, I'll ask again....
ReplyDeleteDan, what is your opinion of people like Ken Ham who insist that you must believe in a young Earth to be a true christian?
There is nothing I can do about the fact that a private email was forwarded to Sye, nor about the fact that he made it public. I would not even begin to presume what Sye's motives were for having done so; however, I would question whether or not it is ethical (especially for those professing the name of Christ). Speaking only for myself, I never make public a private email without the author's permission; and when it seems important to share what was said but I do not have the author's permission, I leave out their name and any other identifying characteristics. For an example of that see my post, "Burden of proof verboten for Botten," where I did not have permission from Rhology to identify him before publishing the post. (I changed it later when he finally responded and gave his persmission.) Or another post, "And the light bulb clicks on," in which I shared a chat conversation but did not identify the lady in any way. Even though the conversation itself took place in a public medium, I was not comfortable identifying her without her permission.
ReplyDeleteBut again, that is just me. Perhaps Sye has a different view on how grievances between believers is to be resolved. What I find in Scripture is that such issues should, if possible, be resolved privately between the parties involved (Matt 18:15-17). As the apostle Paul exhorts us, "Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with a heart of mercy, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if someone happens to have a complaint against anyone else. Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also forgive others. And to all these virtues add love, which is the perfect bond. Let the peace of Christ be in control in your heart (for you were in fact called as one body to this peace), and be thankful" (Col 3:12-15). So I take my cue from such apostolic teachings and try my best to live accordingly.
I do not have a holier-than-thou attitude toward Sye—or anyone else. I am no less a sinner than everybody else, no less in need of the saving grace of Christ and his righteousness, no less in need of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit than any other of God's children. I closely identify with men like the apostle Paul and Martin Luther, men who were acutely aware of their sin before a sovereign and holy God, men who recognized that any good that could be identified in their lives was the work of God to whom all glory was due. And I have no argument with Sye when it comes to what he has said in those podcast episodes; we are both in complete agreement about the ultimate authority of the triune God of all creation; we both recognize that the apostle Peter's encouragement to defend the faith begins with "set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts" (1 Pet 3:15-16). In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col 2:3). Christ is the truth, just as surely as he is the way and the life (John 14:6). I could go on but the point is made. Whether it is Sye or Dustin or myself, we are all saying the same thing: the truth of God and his word is ultimate and foundational, apart from whom nothing is intelligible. We set Christ apart as Lord in our hearts and stand always ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope we possess; it is my prayer that we may be found doing it "with courtesy and respect, keeping a good conscience, so that those who slander your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame when they accuse you" (1 Pet 3:15-16).
Sye
ReplyDeleteThe TAG is NOT a first-cause argument. The argument is that one cannot make sense of ANY argument, let alone the first-cause argument without God.
Isn't that just the same kind of argument, only ramped-up?
”Speaking only for myself, I never make public a private email without the author's permission;”
ReplyDeleteEither do I. I posted what “Fundamentally Flawed” sent me, not any private e-mail that we exchanged. The note was addressed to the Fundamentally Flawed podcast and not some private individual. I have no idea if the note was in fact something that was posted in a public forum, or if it was sent to the podcast, but surely sending a note to a public podcast carries with it no assumption or assurance of privacy.
//”But again, that is just me. Perhaps Sye has a different view on how grievances between believers is to be resolved.”//
Indeed, I do, and it is most certainly not by belittling their heartfelt apologetic in a message to a couple of atheists who admittedly hate the God of Scripture. Surely the proper thing to do would have been to contact me and discuss your problems with what I was doing on their podcast, but you chose to show your true colours by doing what you did.
”I do not have a holier-than-thou attitude toward Sye—or anyone else.”
Your note and your very words on the podcast indicate otherwise: “There is nothing modest about me” (Episode 19 2:49 mark). Your note reeks of “holier than thou.” You claim agreement with me, but give exactly no clarification on your problem with what I did.
With that said, I did learn some things both from the content and demeanour of your appearance on the podcast, and for that I am thankful. Some I will seek to emulate, and some I will seek to avoid.
”I am lifting my 'Ignore Sye Because He's a Massive Bellend' rule for one post where I will address him directly. “
ReplyDeleteOf course, lift your “rule” arbitrarily and delete my comments arbitrarily. I expect nothing different from those bereft of intellectual honesty.
”Sye, firstly I notice you didn't mention the part of the email where David said this "I love Sye personally as my brother in Christ.”
That’s right, it was an excerpt. I also did not mention parts of the message which I found to be worse than what I posted. Besides, saying something nice to someone after you throw them under a bus is hardly noteworthy.
” Secondly, regarding 'truth' I have now blogged CLEARLY what I think 'truth' is”
Erm. That would be EXACTLY what we asked you TWICE if that was your definition of truth. I am pleased that you have finally adopted it so that Dustin could dismantle it for you on your blog.
Sye,
ReplyDelete1. It was not addressed to the Fundamentally Flawed podcast (whatever that means). It was sent to two private individuals, Alex and Jim, at their personal email addresses. I know who forwarded the email to you, although I do not know what email address he used when doing so; neither do I have any control over what he does.
2. The very fact that you had "no idea if the note was in fact something that was posted in a public forum or if it was sent to the podcast" should have been reason enough to give you pause and, perhaps, determine whether or not it was. Moreover, although the Fundamentally Flawed podcast itself is public, its email inbox certainly is not. Thus even if something is sent to the podcast email address, it does carry the assumption of privacy because that inbox is not accessible to the public.
3. I did not belittle your apologetic—nor would it make any sense for me to, since I use the exact same apologetic. (For those who do not know what I mean, I am talking presuppositional apologetics.) What I was critical of was your style, such as responding to Alex over and over... and over and over... and over and over again, "How do you know that, Alex?" But I did not write to you and discuss these issues because, frankly, who am I to presume to tell you how to engage this apologetic? This is your style. Perhaps you feel that it is effective. It happens to grate across my nerves, but why should that matter? There was no grievance between us—i.e., it is not as if somehow your style had hurt me—so there was no reason to write you.
4. Perhaps your style does not allow room for tongue-in-cheek comments, but that is precisely what my comment was. It was rather tongue-in-cheek when I said, "There is nothing modest about me," playing along with their dig at the name of my web site. It was all in good fun, which (your own take notwithstanding) I hope the hosts and their listeners were able to discern from the chuckling. They did not infer a holier-than-thou attitude from it, and apparently neither did many of their listeners, including the author of this blog here. I regret that you did.
You may have the last word.
”1. It was not addressed to the Fundamentally Flawed podcast (whatever that means). It was sent to two private individuals”
ReplyDeleteAllow me to explain what that means. The only entity addressed in the note was “Fundamentally Flawed.” - ”Does Fundamentally Flawed take requests?”not Alex, or Jim.
”2. The very fact that you had "no idea if the note was in fact something that was posted in a public forum or if it was sent to the podcast" should have been reason enough to give you pause and, perhaps, determine whether or not it was.”
Nope, the content, and the fact that it was not addressed to any individual was sufficient.
”Moreover, although the Fundamentally Flawed podcast itself is public, its email inbox certainly is not.“
Could have fooled me :-) Your beef is with Alex or Jim, not with me.
”Thus even if something is sent to the podcast email address, it does carry the assumption of privacy because that inbox is not accessible to the public.”
Again, file your complaint with Alex and Jim.
”3. I did not belittle your apologetic”
I’ll leave that for those to decide who have read the excerpt. You may not have belittled the type of apologetics, but you certainly belittled my employment of it, which was my point. That you cannot, or refuse to see that, is an indictment of your position. As a Christian brother, you would think you would bring your concerns to my attention, rather than besmirch me with those who profess to hate the God of Scripture.
”4. Perhaps your style does not allow room for tongue-in-cheek comments, but that is precisely what my comment was. It was rather tongue-in-cheek when I said, "There is nothing modest about me," playing along with their dig at the name of my web site.”
Actually, the name of your website, explanation of it, and attitude in dealing with me fit precisely with your comment, so I have no reason think it was tongue in cheek.
”It was all in good fun, which (your own take notwithstanding) I hope the hosts and their listeners were able to discern from the chuckling. They did not infer a holier-than-thou attitude from it, and apparently neither did many of their listeners, including the author of this blog here.”
That’s cause the listeners did not read the note you sent them about me.
” I regret that you did.”
Sadly, that seems to be your only regret in this.
”You may have the last word.”
Thanks. Looking forward to your debate with Dustin.
I can't let the following stand (much as it pains me to have to engage Circular Sye) -
ReplyDelete"those who profess to hate the God of Scripture"
I'm going to say this simply, so even a halfwit like you can understand, Sye. I DO NOT HATE YOUR GOD. I no more hate your god than I hate Father Christmas, or the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HATE SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST. Clear? Because, if you're not, you need to explain HOW one can 'hate' something that doesn't exist....and if you claim that we all believe in your god, but 'deny him in unrighteousness' then YOU have to begin by PROVING that your god exists - something you have, so far, utterly failed to do.
"I DO NOT HATE YOUR GOD."
ReplyDeleteThe Bible says otherwise: "They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful;" ~ Romans 1: 29,30
Besides, your vitriol in the first podcast and subsequent exchanges exposes your self-deception.
Besides the comment was meant for David, who I trust agrees with the Biblical assessment.
ReplyDeleteAlex,
ReplyDelete>>I'm not the one making the positive claim (that gods exist), so the burden of proof rests with you.
Said the man in this very first comment says, "I'm an atheist because gods don't exist, and have never existed. "
Sounds pretty positive to me.
"Sounds pretty positive to me."
ReplyDeleteActually it's a universal negative which they cannot prove, thus the avoidance. They do make the positive claim that truth can exist without God, and then give some lame, arbitrary definitions of truth though.
"Nope, the content, and the fact that it was not addressed to any individual was sufficient."
ReplyDeleteClearly not. It was not an open letter, as evidenced by the author's objection. And you had no right to reprint it. But my experience with you has shown me that ethics are not your strong wuit.
"Could have fooled me."
That doesn't seem to take much. Here's some useful information. A public forum or inbox is one in which anyone can examine the contents.
"Your beef is with Alex or Jim, not with me."
Are you asserting that you did not republish or publicize his email in any way? Because, if you republished or publicized it, his beef over your actions is with you. His beef over the improper forwarding of the message to you is with someone else.
When you wrote to Dan on this public forum, you admitted that the email was addressed to two private individuals, Alex and Jim. Knowing that neither you nor Dan was a legitimate recipient, you still cherry-picked an excerpt to make Smart look bad in Dan's eyes.
This is one thing I don't like about christianity. Most christians are like you. They have no ethics. They think it's okay to hurt whomever to help their own private purposes and then claim they are justified by their god. If Dan has any scruples he will tell you it was wrong to post an excerpt from a clearly private e-mail as you did. But I'm not holding my breath.
Hey everyone. Jim here.
ReplyDeleteI find it absolutely hilarious that Sye had to find out from an atheist what other Christians think about his aggressive and pompous attitude. He lives in a world where anything which challenges his existing opinion must be wrong, simply because he didn't think of it first.
I think we've all been doing this for long enough to know that the only way to proceed, when you're dealing with subjects you're new to, is simply admit that you need to learn more instead of pretending you already know. When myself and Alex spoke to David, we ended the cordial and polite conversation by saying we were happy he had given us a better understanding of the TAG in an hour and a half, than Sye, Eric and Dustin had given us in four hours. This was because he stayed calm, stuck to the subject he knew about and didn't pretend to know everything.
I posted a blog entry on howgoodisthat.wordpress.com explaining all of this. I also explained, on the podcast, that in contrast to Sye, David's use of the TAG, as part of a well rounded and open minded approach to his faith, was exactly the kind of Christianity I don't have a problem with and don't understand why anyone else would either.
Sye was banned from my blog because he isn't interested in adult conversation. He is only interested in Sye. I don't think for one second that he represents the views of anyone other than himself. This is a great shame, as — no matter what you might think of me — I genuinely do feel bad for the guy, because I can only presume he feels the need to take the approach he does, because there are aspects of the TAG he doesn't understand as well as he likes to think he does.
The reason I say this, is because on each occasion before we spoke, off-air, I reminded him that my interest in doing any of this, is to explaining my position while learning something new from people with other ideas. All I learned from Sye, was that the TAG was a convenient way of dodging difficult questions. What I learned about the TAG from David, is that it is a genuine attempt to address some of the questions I have had about Christian apologetics for a long time. The fact that I do not believe it answers some of the questions many of its proponents think it does, is neither here nor there. What matters, is that previous to talking to David, I thought it was a phantasmagorically stupid idea. This was because I heard about it from Sye. After talking to David, I saw it in a different light — albeit one which highlighted the weaker aspects of it, which Sye sought to obscure, by stomping his feet like a little girl and trying to browbeat myself and Alex into believing in things which are not true.
I had a conversation today with a guy called Todd Pitner. He and I used to throw ad hominem at each other, back when he was first becoming a Christian and I was new(ish) to debating religion on-line. We both fell into each other's traps. Today, we were able to laugh about it and ended up having a really useful debate, about how much we've moved on since then. But, in all of the time between first meeting Todd and debating with him today, some 3 or 4 years down the line, I never once thought about removing any of the comments or postings I made about him back then, from my blog, because the greatest lesson you can ever learn in life, is that you make all your mistakes in public. You only make a fool of yourself, when you fail to learn from them. Sye needs to stand back for a while and get some perspective on a great many things, and maybe one day he'll realise that there's more to life than seeing everyone as your enemy, simply because they don't believe in the same things as you.
"The Bible says otherwise: "They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful;" ~ Romans 1: 29,30"
ReplyDeleteTry quoting something that I actually hold authoritative next time. You may as well have said 'My dentist says otherwise' for all the stock I place in the Bible.
"Alex,
>>I'm not the one making the positive claim (that gods exist), so the burden of proof rests with you.
Said the man in this very first comment says, "I'm an atheist because gods don't exist, and have never existed. "
Sounds pretty positive to me. "
Dan, are you retarded, or do you just suspend your ability to reason before you start typing? You'll notice I adopt a NEGATIVE position. As that is the case I DO NOT HAVE TO 'prove' anything, as I am not asserting the positive that gods exist - YOU ARE. So, the burden of proof is yours.
I notice you've ignored the fact that I pointed out AiG's claim about YEC belief - still waiting on that apology for you calling me a liar over that. Well? Going to man up and admit you got it wrong?
Well, Sye, you are a gossip, a slanderer, insolent, arrogant, and boastful. I am in no position to vouch for whether you complete the set. You are a gossip for sharing that excerpt. You are a slanderer for claiming that Alex professed to hate you god. He professes no such thing, even if (in your mind) you are sure that he does hate your god.
ReplyDeleteBlessings brother David for stopping by to clear things up.
ReplyDeleteAs Sye pointed out, "That’s cause the listeners did not read the note you sent them about me."
Yea, I agree, that was what was the holier-than-thou attitude reference came from myself. To chastise about Sye's chastising was not what I heard in the podcast. It seemed uncharacteristic to me. I just wanted things "in the light". That being said, we disagree sometimes. It happens.
I have no clue who said it but the saying goes, Christians may not see eye to eye often but that does not mean we shouldn't stand arm in arm.
It felt wrong to gossip about you without an invite to you, so thank you for that.
Its frustrating at times because the Devil and his minions, like Alex and Jim, seek to separate us and cause problems. Alex is trying to do it often with his gripes and complaints about YEC and Ken Ham and on and on. We should be aware of their tactics such as this. Heh, "The Screwtape Letters" by C. S. Lewis just smacked my mind.
I know that we all have strong opinions about things but its a mere game for the wicked as evidenced by this situation.
I would not confide with the devil, I have tried it in my past and nothing good comes from it.
This also reminds me of a time when I had a demonic girlfriend that claimed my brother was doing horrible things. I was so furious with him I could of choked him out. I said some horrible things about my brother that she AGAIN tried to use to twist the story YET again back on me. When I finally went to confront him about it, in private, we both found out she orchestrated the entire fiasco. She was simply evil. Alex and Jim appear to be the very same thing, knowingly. Titus 3:10-11 is great advice (command) for the likes of these two.
These two dudes, Alex and Jim, are not worth it. They seek to cause dissension and strife.
Blessings David. Blessings Sye. You two are a blessings in my life and walk with Christ.
We WILL be laughing about all of this someday soon. I look forward for that Great day.
”I find it absolutely hilarious that Sye had to find out from an atheist what other Christians think about his aggressive and pompous attitude.”
ReplyDeleteYou obviously have not been reading the “Unbelievable?” forums. David is not the first to make such a claim. I do, however, find it interesting that I had to find out from an atheist about a Christian brother’s problem with what I do.
” When myself and Alex spoke to David, we ended the cordial and polite conversation by saying we were happy he had given us a better understanding of the TAG in an hour and a half, than Sye, Eric and Dustin had given us in four hours.”
See, that’s just it, I’m not there to explain the TAG to you, I’m there to “Cast down vain reasoning” as I am commanded to do (2 Corinthians 10:5).
”exactly the kind of Christianity I don't have a problem with and don't understand why anyone else would either.”
A “Christianity” that a God-hater has no problem with, is not Christianity. No, I am not saying that David is not a Christian.
”Sye was banned from my blog because he isn't interested in adult conversation.”
Do you really think you are fooling anyone with that lame excuse? We all know why you had to block my IP, and why Alex deletes all the posts of mine which he doesn’t like.
”All I learned from Sye, was that the TAG was a convenient way of dodging difficult questions. “
No, the TAG exposes that you have no basis for asking supposed difficult questions. If you had admitted that you had no basis for logic, knowledge and truth, I would have been happy to get into the evidences.
”What I learned about the TAG from David, is that it is a genuine attempt to address some of the questions I have had about Christian apologetics for a long time.”
It’s not an attempt to address your questions, it is an exposition of the failure of your worldview.
”trying to browbeat myself and Alex into believing in things which are not true.”
Which definition of truth are you using now? The nonsense from the first podcast, or the arbitrary one from the podcast with Eric and Dustin?
”I had a conversation today with a guy called Todd Pitner. He and I used to throw ad hominem at each other, back when he was first becoming a Christian and I was new(ish) to debating religion on-line. “
Todd Pitner is the fellow who invited me to your blog back in 2009, and the reason I first appeared on the Unbelievable? Radio program in 2010. So, you are in part responsible for what happened to Paul Baird :-) Just for interest’s sake, it was through that first debate that I ended up meeting Dr. James White, and at the conference where I met him, made some dear friends. I thank God for using you in that process.
” But, in all of the time between first meeting Todd and debating with him today, some 3 or 4 years down the line, I never once thought about removing any of the comments or postings I made about him back then, from my blog, because the greatest lesson you can ever learn in life, is that you make all your mistakes in public.”
Um, you admitted to blocking his IP! (7:47 of the interview).
”You only make a fool of yourself, when you fail to learn from them. Sye needs to stand back for a while and get some perspective on a great many things, and maybe one day he'll realise that there's more to life than seeing everyone as your enemy, simply because they don't believe in the same things as you.”
And one day Jim, you will realize that I was your best of friends. Who is the friend, the one that urges you to get off the tracks when a train is bearing down on you, or the one who talks politely about apologetic methodology and old times?
"Alex and Jim appear to be the very same thing, knowingly."
ReplyDeleteLiterally What.The.FUCK??
Come on Dan, apologise for calling me a liar, then tell me what you think of AiG claiming that you have to believe in a literal Genesis to be a true Christian - stop dodging that one.
"See, that’s just it, I’m not there to explain the TAG to you"
ReplyDeletewell that's fortunate, cos you're shit at it.
"Alex deletes all the posts of mine which he doesn’t like."
ReplyDeleteI delete your posts when you're being a dick, which is almost all the time unfortunately.
"We all know why you had to block my IP, and why Alex deletes all the posts of mine which he doesn’t like."
ReplyDeleteEnlighten us, I'm sure we'd ALL love to know why!
Alex,
ReplyDelete>>Taken from this page on AiG
NONE of that says that you are NOT a true Christian IF you are a YEC. Although I agree with all of it.
You originally said:
>>so, Dan, what is your opinion of people like Ken Ham who insist that you must believe in a young Earth to be a true christian?
You have YET to provide this evidence.
Let's break it down:
"Taking these early chapters of Genesis in any other way undermines God’s Word and the gospel of Jesus Christ, and over the past 200 years such compromises with evolution and millions of years have done incalculable damage to the spiritual health and evangelistic and missionary efforts of the Church. "
Amen, but that does not say that if you do such things you're not a Christian. THAT was your claim.
"That compromise is one of the greatest reasons, if not the greatest reason, that Western Europe is now labeled “post-Christian” and Britain and America are rapidly approaching that spiritual state."
Amen, I agree. It causes confusion. But that does not say that if you do such things you're not a Christian. THAT was your claim.
"Ultimately, the question of the age of the earth is a question of the truth and authority of Scripture. That’s why the age of the earth matters so much and why the church cannot compromise with millions of years (or evolution)."
I agree we should not bend to be popular. But that does not say that if you do such things you're not a Christian. THAT was your claim.
Sorry you have yet to make your case.
correction:
ReplyDeleteNONE of that says that you are NOT a true Christian IF you are NOT a YEC.*
Sye TenB said...
ReplyDeleteSye quoting someone:
"I DO NOT HATE YOUR GOD."
The Bible says otherwise: "They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful;" ~ Romans 1: 29,30
I'm not sure, but I think that those are all different groups of people listed, Sye...it doesn't indicate that each adjective applies to the same people.
Even if so, who cares? This is the same book that has talking donkeys and snakes in it. That, and let's face it: When has ANY "holy book" ever said anything NICE about any unbeliever in that book's faith?
Besides, your vitriol in the first podcast and subsequent exchanges exposes your self-deception.
It's not "God" we hate, since we don't believe he exists, a la Darth Vader, right Dan? It's his fan club that most of us has problems with.
Wow, that's some INCREDIBLE delusion there Dan! You actually can't bring yourself to admit what the quotes CLEARLY say!!
ReplyDeleteIt must be hell living inside your head.
Seriously Dan, can't you read?? "Taking these early chapters of Genesis in any other way undermines God’s Word and the gospel of Jesus Christ" - I'd say that was pretty clear.
ReplyDelete"I'm not sure, but I think that those are all different groups of people listed"
ReplyDeleteHope you don't mind (well I really don't care) that I do not take my exegesis from you. :-)
Dan, you should probably also read this page - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v18/n1/six-days
ReplyDelete>>Dan, you should probably also read this page - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v18/n1/six-days
ReplyDeleteDid, have YET to see anything that YEC is a prerequisite to Christianity. I think you're reading into it too much.
>>"Taking these early chapters of Genesis in any other way undermines God’s Word and the gospel of Jesus Christ"
I agree completely as it does. And? Does that mean you are NOT a Christian? Nope.avi
Please provide evidence that back up your claim that IF you DO NOT believe in YEC then you are NOT a Christian. I will be patient, and wait.
This deserves to be repeated:
ReplyDelete"And one day Jim, you will realize that I was your best of friends. Who is the friend, the one that urges you to get off the tracks when a train is bearing down on you, or the one who talks politely about apologetic methodology and old times?"
Amen! Perfect love is a constant confronter. It takes far more love to confront then to ignore the situation, or settle on cordiality. Matthew 22:39 and Leviticus 19:17-18 are clear, "thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor."
"Please provide evidence that back up your claim that IF you DO NOT believe in YEC then you are NOT a Christian"
ReplyDeleteI said 'true' Christian. I notice you have subtly altered what you claim I said...."Taking these early chapters of Genesis in any other way undermines God’s Word and the gospel of Jesus Christ" - would a 'true christian' undermine the word of their god?
You're dodging - it's both pathetic and transparent.
"Please provide evidence that back up your claim that IF you DO NOT believe in YEC then you are NOT a Christian"
ReplyDelete1. it is not my claim, it is Ken Ham's
2. I said 'True Christian', not 'Christian'
Answer the question, Dodger Dan.
>>I said 'true' Christian.
ReplyDeleteOhhhhh, so fake, (false), Christians are Christians? Who are you trying to confuse here, me or you?
>>1. it is not my claim, it is Ken Ham's
YES, I thought that was an already given, but you're right. Do I NEED to reword it? *sigh Fine.
Please provide evidence that backs up your claim that Ken Ham believes that IF you DO NOT believe in YEC then you are NOT a Christian.
Better?
2. I said 'True Christian', not 'Christian'
Is there a difference? If you are saying that false Christians are still Christians, then that is not Biblical and absurd. Understandable that you would pose that considering your worldview though. I will remain patient.
My YEC belief is a consequence of my accepting Biblical authority. I could be wrong, and it will never affect my Salvation.
"Who is the friend, the one that urges you to get off the tracks when a train is bearing down on you, or the one who talks politely about apologetic methodology and old times"
ReplyDeleteA more accurate analogy would be -
"Who is the true friend, the one who wants you to enter into a life of slavery for a master who you will never see, with promise of reward for your obedience AFTER you die, or the one that wants to show you that the life you are living now is beautiful, unique, and too short to waste on fairy tales?"
Sye, Dan, I urge you both to give up your delusions, and enjoy the ONLY life you have before it's too late and you're old and grey and realise you've lost all that time.
"Is there a difference? If you are saying that false Christians are still Christians, then that is not Biblical and absurd. Understandable that you would pose that considering your worldview though. I will remain patient."
ReplyDeleteCould you try writing that in english? Thanks
Listen, Dan, it is clear from the pages I linked to that Ken Ham considers those who do not agree with him to be seriously in error. What do you say about that?
ReplyDeleteChrist, I've had to reword this SO many times in an attempt to get a straight answer!
Alex,
ReplyDelete>>Dan, it is clear from the pages I linked to that Ken Ham considers those who do not agree with him to be seriously in error. What do you say about that?
I understand that, but that is my point. Ken feels that Christians are wrong who believe in an old earth. So what? YOU said he believes they are NOT Christians. Entirely different situation. THAT is the claim you're making. Prove it as you have yet to.
Either fess up with intellectual honesty of a concede to my point or provide evidence that Ken believes they are not Christian if they do not believe in YEC.
You have ONLY two options at this point.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteAs I told you in an email, Alex, Ken Ham is insisting on the literal historicity of Adam as the federal head of mankind who broke the covenant between him and God. If Adam was not an actual person, then everything predicated on him becomes unintelligible and shipwrecks the gospel. It is Adam who is the connection to the gospel. Whether the universe was created 10,000 years ago, or there is a chronological gap of billions of years between verse 1 and 2, or the days of creation were indefinite ages and so on, none of that has any bearing on the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is Adam who does. Ken Ham wrongly thinks that the universe being billions of years old or biological evolution being true somehow means Adam was not an historical person, which is a non-sequitur fallacy. The point for Ham in his relevant articles (and for any young-earth creationist) is the necessary historical reality of Adam, who lived about 10,000 years ago. It is if one rejects an historical Adam, who plays a significant role in soteriology, that one's Christianity is imperiled. "But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell!" (Gal 1:8).
>>Ken Ham wrongly thinks that the universe being billions of years old or biological evolution being true somehow means Adam was not an historical person, which is a non-sequitur fallacy.
ReplyDeleteSee, I agree with that. Its possible he/we are wrong. Its possible that David is wrong. So what? Will not affect our Salvation one bit.
You Alex, on the other hand, is not in that same camp. You stand outside of this very interesting discussion claiming we're all wrong about which god is God. You wrongly claim "self". Insert "autonomous human reasoning" here. Now THAT is the problem and the meat of the matter and should be the focus of ALL your discussions. If you have any hope of coming to a revelation of the truth, that is.
Christians aren't perfect, we're just forgiven. We get things wrong sometimes. And?
We all will be in Heaven to discuss these matters of where, and what, we got wrong and such. That will be the most epic "podcast" in mankind's history. Care to join us in that discussion?
Or will we be sitting in Heaven screaming Alex, Alex, Alex, Alex,...etc., wondering if you made it.
I see you intend to keep dodging that question about Hambo, oh well, that'll teach me for thinking you could for once give a straight answer, Dan.
ReplyDelete"We all will be in Heaven to discuss these matters of where, and what, we got wrong and such. That will be the most epic "podcast" in mankind's history. Care to join us in that discussion?"
It won't happen, because there is no heaven (also the Bible pretty clearly preaches a Kingdom on Earth, so even if WERE true you still wouldn't be in heaven).
Here's what is going to happen. Assuming you don't die in your sleep, you will have a moment, when you're very old, when you realise that you've wasted your only life, and YOU'LL look back on these events and wish you'd listened to those of us who cared enough to engage with you. You'll remember the people who tried to free you from your religious slavery for no reason other than it being the right thing to do (no promise of an eternal reward for us).
You will look back at a life wasted, and you will realise that those times will never return. And you will die, and be gone forever. Remembered as the man who spent his whole life thinking he was stopping people walking blindly over a cliff when, in reality, there was no cliff at all and people were looking at him in pity as they went about their daily lives.
That is how this is going to play out, and I can say that with 100% certainty.
The thing is, Dan, you KNOW this deep down. At the core of your being you know this is all there is - why else would you ask people to pray for sick friends and relatives? Why else would you make sure your children are immunised and made aware of the dangers of this world? A finite life on Earth, compared to an infinite life in the Kingdom of God, is nothing, merely the blink of an eye - so why care about those who die? Why cry at a funeral of a loved one if you're going to be seeing them soon? Why do anything to prolong life at all?
In fact, as the Bible seems to show that unbaptised children get a free pass automatically to the Kingdom, why teach your offspring how to be safe? Surely you'd be doing them a far greater favour by allowing them to be killed on the road, or choking on a piece of Lego? No, the very reason you DON'T do that is because you KNOW, deep in your core, that THIS is IT.
To borrow from one of Circular Sye's favourite phrases, you know the truth that this life is the only one you'll ever live, but you deny it in misplaced self-righteousness.
"YOU said he believes they are NOT Christians. "
ReplyDeleteNo I did NOT. I said he claims that you are not a TRUE Christian if you deny Young Earth Creationism, this is evidenced by the many links and quotes I have given you. You seem to be denying this purely because he's a fellow believer, you're defending him just because he shares some of your beliefs, and that's blinding you to the blatant bullshit he spews.
You actions have spoken louder than any direct answer, Dodger Dan, and I see no purpose in asking you again.
Hey, this blogging is fun. :-)
ReplyDeleteUm, you admitted to blocking his IP! (7:47 of the interview).
ReplyDeleteTodd was banned because he was cutting and pasting other people's work into the comments as if they were his own, not because he said things with which I disagreed.
And one day Jim, you will realize [sic] that I was your best of friends.
Read: "And one day, Jim, you will burn forever in pain and tears because you had the temerity to disagree with the great Sye TenB"
Read more non-fiction.
"Todd was banned because he was cutting and pasting other people's work into the comments as if they were his own, not because he said things with which I disagreed."
ReplyDeleteLooks like you will find any ol' reason to ban someone.
"And one day Jim, you will realize [sic]"
I'm Canadian Jim, that is the proper spelling. Quite the trolling move though, perhaps Dan should block your IP :-)
"Read: "And one day, Jim, you will burn forever in pain and tears because you had the temerity to disagree with the great Sye TenB"
No Jim, for sinning against the God that you know exists. I hope that that day never comes (I hope you repent before that), but if it does, I will not be gloating. I don't do what I do to see those I engage go to Hell. I realize that our exchanges come off as very adversarial, but know that I will be among those rejoicing in Heaven, when a sinner repents. At that moment, you would go from being my adversary to my beloved Brother in Christ. I also realize that it has been said that you would not be interested in spending an eternity with the likes of me, but trust me, all my sins will be washed away too, and we'd get along just fine :-)
What makes you think that Jim knows that YOUR god exists??
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, the same book that has talking animals in it.
Sye TenB said...
ReplyDelete"I'm not sure, but I think that those are all different groups of people listed"
Hope you don't mind (well I really don't care) that I do not take my exegesis from you. :-)
I'm more concerned about your ability to understand what you're reading.
Here, Sye...if your god really wanted to show himself to us, he could just do what it's claimed he'll do in Revelations: Have an angel fly around and bloody physically proclaim the gospel himself.
ReplyDeleteNone of this "how do you know that an omnipotent being can not reveal himself to us such that we'd know it" or whatever that shit is that you keep saying.
No "could have's" but instead, actual doings.
Guys, could I recommend a website ?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.relate.org.uk/relationship-counselling/index.html
:-)
Jim isn't even close to getting it.
ReplyDeleteDavid Smart nails it here.
David Smart said...
ReplyDelete"The truth of God and his word is a presupposition we reason from, not a conclusion we reason to."
And yet you've reasoned to God's existence from the revelation you claim to have received - you then claim that that same revelation justifies the reason you've just used to reason that God exists. All so very viciously circular.
"And yet you've reasoned to God's existence from the revelation you claim to have received"
ReplyDeleteAnother person who obviously doesn't get it.
"Another person who obviously doesn't get it."
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that no-one 'gets it', and that must be (surely) down to those trying to explain it failing.
Sye, you've claimed that the TAG proves your god exists, now you're moving towards David's view that its existence is the foundation. You've also borrowed Dustin's 'revelation' - question: do you have a SINGLE original thought in your head? Or do you steal from every apologist you meet if you think their ideas will make you look smarter?
Thing is, Sye, I'm starting to get a clearer and clearer picture of you as someone who isn't really all that bright, but who has a good memory for repeating what he's heard - I think that you possibly don't even UNDERSTAND what you're preaching.
PENNY DROPS
ReplyDeleteYou're just Joe Cienkowski in a suit!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
"It seems to me that no-one 'gets it', and that must be (surely) down to those trying to explain it failing."
ReplyDeleteNope, lots of people get it. I think that Mr. Smart explains the problem with Jim not getting it quite nicely.
"Sye, you've claimed that the TAG proves your god exists, now you're moving towards David's view that its existence is the foundation."
Moving towards David's view??? You are further from getting this than the rest it would appear. My argument has ALWAYS been that God is the necessary foundation for proof, and THAT is the proof! "The proof that God exists, is that without Him, you couldn't prove anything."
Sound familiar there Alex? It's only what my website is all about :-)
"You've also borrowed Dustin's 'revelation'"
Huh? Surely it has occurred to you that we have the same revelation???
"Thing is, Sye, I'm starting to get a clearer and clearer picture of you as someone who isn't really all that bright, but who has a good memory for repeating what he's heard - I think that you possibly don't even UNDERSTAND what you're preaching."
Should be very easy for you to destroy my position in a formal debate then.
"My argument has ALWAYS been that God is the necessary foundation for proof, and THAT is the proof!"
ReplyDeleteBINGO! Circular Sye admits the circularity of his argument!
"Huh? Surely it has occurred to you that we have the same revelation???"
I think it only occurred to YOU when you heard Dustin say it! Up until then you've been suggesting it's some kind of mystery.
"Should be very easy for you to destroy my position in a formal debate then."
Having done the TAG to death with you, I'll look forward to destroying you NEW argument just as soon as you decide what it is.
"BINGO! Circular Sye admits the circularity of his argument!"
ReplyDeleteSeriously man, do you take illegal drugs? WE HAVE ADMITTED THE CIRCULARITY ON EVERY ONE OF THE PODCASTS! (Do the caps help?) :-) ALL ultimate authority claims are necessarily circular (a point which you amazingly refuse to admit - because you can't) but only one is valid (and it aint yours :-)
"I think it only occurred to YOU when you heard Dustin say it! Up until then you've been suggesting it's some kind of mystery."
I repeat: "Lolwut?" This is desperate even for you. This should be very simple Alex, as there are THOUSANDS of my posts online (as you well know since you apparently spend your time googling me). Please cut and paste ANYWHERE where I have said that my revelation is "some kind of mystery."
"Having done the TAG to death with you, I'll look forward to destroying you NEW argument just as soon as you decide what it is."
Telling someone which argument they may not bring to the table in a debate? Your fear is palpable.
"Your fear is palpable."
ReplyDeleteKeep saying that to yourself Sye, I'm sure it makes you feel better for being such a desperate failure.
"But only one is valid."
ReplyDeleteHow can you tell if you circular argument is the valid circular argument? What if the only valid circular argument it isn't yours? What if all circular arguments are in some way flawed?
What evidence would you accept as disproving the hypothesis that your circular argument is the only valid circular argument? How can we test this?
"How can you tell if you circular argument is the valid circular argument?"
ReplyDeleteSimple. Revelation.
"What evidence would you accept as disproving the hypothesis that your circular argument is the only valid circular argument?"
None. There can be no evidence to disprove the precondition to the concept of evidence.
"How can we test this?"
You can't test the necessary precondition to the concept of testing.
"Keep saying that to yourself Sye, I'm sure it makes you feel better for being such a desperate failure."
ReplyDeleteYour fear is palpable. Nope, feels the same :-D
"Simple. Revelation."
ReplyDeleteBut what if it happens that you are wrong about your "revelation"? What if it's invalid? What if there's really no revelation at all? How could you tell? (I think I know the answer, but I want to be sure I understand.)
As for the rest, you seem to be saying that if your argument is completely and totally wrong, there is no way to know this. Your hypothesis could be utterly invalid, inaccurate and wrong, but you can never know this. In this case, I see no reason to favor your argument over any other.
How can you know that this "revelation" is from your god and not a delusion or from another "entity"?
ReplyDeletePlease don't tell me that you use your senses, because you've said elsewhere that you use this "revelation" as the justification for being able to trust your senses in the first place.
Bottom line: The stupidity of your circular reasoning is: A Muslim can say the exact same thing about Allah, and you would not be able to refute him.
As is shown by your silence whenever I bring that up on this post.
Sye, your "answers" are all non-answers. All you do is back up your unprovable assertions with...more unprovable assertions.
And here you go with your famous circular logic again, in an attempt to evade trying to prove your beliefs, you once again dodge by saying: You can't test the necessary precondition to the concept of testing.
If there was any validity at all, only xians would be able to test anything. That is obviously not the case.
”But what if it happens that you are wrong about your "revelation"?”
ReplyDeleteI’m not.
” What if it's invalid?”
It can’t be (as it is the very precondition of the concept of validity).
” What if there's really no revelation at all?
There is.
” How could you tell? (I think I know the answer, but I want to be sure I understand.)”
Without revelation from God, you would have no basis for the intelligibility required to ask questions about revelation from God.
”As for the rest, you seem to be saying that if your argument is completely and totally wrong, there is no way to know this.”
No, I am saying that God can and has revealed some things to us such that we can know them for certain.
” Your hypothesis could be utterly invalid, inaccurate and wrong, but you can never know this.”
1. It’s not a hypothesis.
2. It cannot be wrong as it is the necessary precondition for the very concepts of “right” and “wrong.”
I asked, “but what if it happens that you are wrong about your revelation.”
ReplyDeleteYou answered, “I’m not.”
I asked, “what if it’s invalid.”
You answered, “it can’t be.”
Thank you. I understand. I see no need for any further discussion. I also see no reason to favor your argument over any other.
”How can you know that this "revelation" is from your god and not a delusion or from another "entity"?”
ReplyDeleteBecause God has revealed it such that we can be certain of it.
”Bottom line: The stupidity of your circular reasoning is: A Muslim can say the exact same thing about Allah, and you would not be able to refute him. “
Well, once you become Muslim, come back and I’ll be happy to refute you.
”As is shown by your silence whenever I bring that up on this post.”
Huh, I even engaged an atheist where he played the Muslim and showed him the refutation here
”Sye, your "answers" are all non-answers. All you do is back up your unprovable assertions with...more unprovable assertions.”
Prove this please.
”And here you go with your famous circular logic again, in an attempt to evade trying to prove your beliefs, you once again dodge by saying: You can't test the necessary precondition to the concept of testing.”
Huh? Are you saying that you can???
”If there was any validity at all, only xians would be able to test anything. That is obviously not the case.”
Great logic there Reynold. The claim is not that only Christians can test things, but that you must borrow from the Christian worldview when you do so.
"I also see no reason to favor your argument over any other."
ReplyDeleteI could not care less what you favour, just repent for denying the God that you know exists.
"I could not care less what you favour, just repent for denying the God that you know exists."
ReplyDeleteWhat will happen if we don't repent to a god we don't believe in?
"What will happen if we don't repent to a god we don't believe in?"
ReplyDeleteNothing.
Excellent, then I'll be fine, as I don't believe in your god! Claim I do? You have to do several things - 1. prove that gods exist, 2. prove that your version of your god is the 'right' one, 3. prove that I also believe in your version of your god.
ReplyDeleteUp to the challenge?
"Claim I do? You have to do several things"
ReplyDeleteUm no, I don't have to do any of them. Scripture says that you know that God exists, and that you are without excuse for denying Him (Romans 1: 18-21).
You are without excuse no matter what you demand. When you face your maker, you won't be complaining that no one answered your 3 challenges, trust me on that.
"Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (from Philipians 2:10)
"Um no, I don't have to do any of them. Scripture says that you know that God exists, and that you are without excuse for denying Him (Romans 1: 18-21)."
ReplyDeleteBut I don't hold your scripture to be authoritative, so now you have yet ANOTHER step! You've got to prove to me that it is! OOPS!
The bible says many things. Some, like the one Sye quoted, are plainly false. I do not "know" the biblical god to exist. Any source that claims that I do is wrong -- or deliberately deceptive. The bible is not reliable.
ReplyDelete"The bible says many things. Some, like the one Sye quoted, are plainly false."
ReplyDeleteWell, let's see if you can back up your claim. What is truth or falsehood according to your worldview, and how are you able to know ANYTHING to be true or false? (without being viciously circular)(didn't think so :-)
Truth is that which conforms to reality or actuality
ReplyDelete"Truth is that which conforms to reality or actuality"
ReplyDeleteThere was a part 2, which you cannot answer as it demolishes your answer to part 1.
...and how are you able to know ANYTHING to be true or false? (without being viciously circular) (resume ducking).
"If there was any validity at all, only Christians would be able to test anything." (Reynold)
ReplyDeleteFalse. Non-Christians can test things; but it is despite their worldview, not because of it.
"The stupidity of your circular reasoning is: A Muslim can say the exact same thing about Allah and you would not be able to refute him." (Reynold)
That follows only by begging the very question, which is fallacious. How embarrassing.
"What will happen if we don't repent to a god we don't believe in?" (Alex)
Nothing, as Sye said. The question is, "What will happen if you do not repent to the God you know exists?"
"But I don't hold your Scripture to be authoritative." (Alex)
It is neither his nor mine, but God's. And we know you do not hold it to be authoritative. Not to put too fine a point on it, but so what? How is this autobiographical detail of yours relevant to our argument? Does the fact that it is not authoritative to you somehow mean that it is not authoritative at all? When did you become a solipsist?
"[The Bible is] plainly false. I do not 'know' the biblical God to exist. Any source that claims that I do is wrong—or deliberately deceptive." (Pvblivs)
That follows only by begging the question, which is fallacious. How embarrassing.
"Truth is that which conforms to reality or actuality." (Alex)
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Now define "reality" without begging the very question.
And the TAG. smokescreen continues...
ReplyDeleteSye TenB said...
ReplyDelete"And yet you've reasoned to God's existence from the revelation you claim to have received"
Another person who obviously doesn't get it.
So you didn't use reason to interpret the revelation you claim proves God's existence? Instead I'm supposed to accept your unreasoned claim that you irrationally believe that a revelation has occurred? And that that unreasonable and irrational belief in a revelation somehow proves that you can reason correctly about the revelation you didn't interpret through your reason?
Ryft:
ReplyDeleteThe embarassment is yours. It is an empirical fact that I do not believe (let alone "know") your god exists. You can accept this empirical fact or close your eyes to it. If you accept it, you find that your "scripture" contradicts reality and is, therefore, unreliable.
Oh, by the way, I don't think you understand what begging the question is. Begging the question is trying to prove your conclusion by inserting it into the premises. That's what Presuppositional Baloney does.
Sye:
You've got it backwards. People who see the vicious circularity in your "argument" for what it is get it. You and your supporters do not.
So you didn't use reason to interpret the revelation you claim proves God's existence?
ReplyDeleteHuh? Where did you get that?
"Instead I'm supposed to accept your unreasoned claim that you irrationally believe that a revelation has occurred?"
Huh? Where did you get that?
"And that that unreasonable and irrational belief in a revelation somehow proves that you can reason correctly about the revelation you didn't interpret through your reason?"
Huh? Straw man much?
And the TAG. smokescreen continues.
ReplyDeleteYou see, it's this kind of non-answer that would be exposed in a formal debate, that is why you are terrified of one.
Both I and Ryft have asked you questions regarding your definition of truth, and you MUST avoid them in a vain attempt at protecting your view. I can understand why you are avoiding questions on it though, as you've only held it for a couple of days. When I asked, you had no idea what truth was :-) (And apparently still don't)
Sye TenB said...
ReplyDeleteSo you didn't use reason to interpret the revelation you claim proves God's existence?
Huh? Where did you get that?
From the mixed up contradictory crap presuppers say about their worldview.
So you're saying that you do use reason to interpret the revelation you claim justifies your reason and your belief that God exists?
"Instead I'm supposed to accept your unreasoned claim that you irrationally believe that a revelation has occurred?"
Huh? Where did you get that?
From the mixed up contradictory crap presuppers say about their worldview.
If you don't use your reason to interpret the revelation you claim to have received then your claim to revelation is unreasoned and your acceptance of the revelation is irrational.
"And that that unreasonable and irrational belief in a revelation somehow proves that you can reason correctly about the revelation you didn't interpret through your reason?"
Huh? Straw man much?
Not really - you claim your revelation is Scripture and nature - both of which require you to perceive them through your senses and reason about the information received. Yet you claim that that same revelation assures you that your senses and reasoning can be trusted about the information contained in the revelation. You are using your senses and reasoning - the very thing you say can't be trusted - to validate your senses and reasoning. Then you seem to deny that you're using your senses and reasoning to interpret the revelation which means your revelation is unreasoned and irrationally accepted.
Freddie, are you suggesting that it is impossible for God to reveal some things to us via, or wholly apart from our reason, such that we can know them for certain? If so, how do you know that for certain?
ReplyDeleteSye TenB said...
ReplyDeleteFreddie, are you suggesting that it is impossible for God to reveal some things to us via, or wholly apart from our reason, such that we can know them for certain? If so, how do you know that for certain?
No, God could grant you omniscience such that you could know for certain the source and veracity of the revelation. If you have some method by which God could make you absolutley certain sans omniscience then please, enlighten us.
No
ReplyDeleteSo, you accept that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain. Great.
"God could grant you omniscience such that you could know for certain the source and veracity of the revelation."
That is not my claim, but I'm pleased that you agree that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain.
"If you have some method by which God could make you absolutley certain sans omniscience then please, enlighten us."
The method is irrelevant. I am pleased that you admit that He could do this though.