October 30, 2011

When In Doubt, Deny!


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. 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. My YEC belief is a consequence of my accepting Biblical authority. 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! 

I am even more of a fan of David Smart now, if that was even possible, because of this very smart (pun) conversation. I have highlighted his work in a past post, but this discussion brought clarity to a whole 'nother level. Thanks for posting that conversation.

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.

So your entire podcast and post here is an irrelevant thesis to the real point.

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

206 comments:

  1. I'm an atheist because gods don't exist, and have never existed.

    David 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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 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?

    And 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?

    ReplyDelete
  4.      "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."
         Well, 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.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "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."

    And 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.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sye,

    I 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?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Alex,

    >>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.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Max,

    >>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!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alex,

    >>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?

    ReplyDelete
  11. 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.

    "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.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am lifting my 'Ignore Sye Because He's a Massive Bellend' rule for one post where I will address him directly.

    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. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  13.      My response to Sye seems to be gone.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "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 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

    ReplyDelete
  15. >>I am lifting my 'Ignore Sye Because He's a Massive Bellend' rule for one post where I will address him directly.

    Said the alcoholic that says "just one more drink" :7p

    ReplyDelete
  16. Pvb,

    >>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.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "To avoid the gossiping that you're trying to get us in. FIRST prove that Ken said this."

    Gladly

    "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.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I missed something...Do you have evidence of that very forward claim?"

    I'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.

    ReplyDelete
  19.      Nope, sorry, my mistake. I had the wrong thread.

    ----------------------

         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.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Is that the goal of your religion? Or is it a personal crusade?"

    What 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.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Said the alcoholic that says "just one more drink" :7p"

    Only 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.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan, I take it your silence is down to the care with which you're wording your apology to me.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Now, having shown you that AiG did indeed say that, I'll ask again....

    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?

    ReplyDelete
  24. 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.

    But 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).

    ReplyDelete
  25. Sye
    The 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?

    ReplyDelete
  26. ”Speaking only for myself, I never make public a private email without the author's permission;”

    Either 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.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ”I am lifting my 'Ignore Sye Because He's a Massive Bellend' rule for one post where I will address him directly. “

    Of 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.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sye,

    1. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ”1. It was not addressed to the Fundamentally Flawed podcast (whatever that means). It was sent to two private individuals”

    Allow 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.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I can't let the following stand (much as it pains me to have to engage Circular Sye) -

    "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.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "I DO NOT HATE YOUR GOD."

    The 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.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Besides the comment was meant for David, who I trust agrees with the Biblical assessment.

    ReplyDelete
  33. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Sounds pretty positive to me."

    Actually 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.

    ReplyDelete
  35.      "Nope, the content, and the fact that it was not addressed to any individual was sufficient."
         Clearly 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.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hey everyone. Jim here.

    I 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.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "The Bible says otherwise: "They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful;" ~ Romans 1: 29,30"

    Try 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?

    ReplyDelete
  38.      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.

    ReplyDelete
  39. ”I find it absolutely hilarious that Sye had to find out from an atheist what other Christians think about his aggressive and pompous attitude.”

    You 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?

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Alex and Jim appear to be the very same thing, knowingly."

    Literally 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.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "See, that’s just it, I’m not there to explain the TAG to you"

    well that's fortunate, cos you're shit at it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Alex deletes all the posts of mine which he doesn’t like."

    I delete your posts when you're being a dick, which is almost all the time unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "We all know why you had to block my IP, and why Alex deletes all the posts of mine which he doesn’t like."

    Enlighten us, I'm sure we'd ALL love to know why!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Alex,

    >>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.

    ReplyDelete
  45. correction:

    NONE of that says that you are NOT a true Christian IF you are NOT a YEC.*

    ReplyDelete
  46. Sye TenB said...

    Sye 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.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Wow, that's some INCREDIBLE delusion there Dan! You actually can't bring yourself to admit what the quotes CLEARLY say!!

    It must be hell living inside your head.

    ReplyDelete
  48. 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
  49. "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. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dan, you should probably also read this page - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v18/n1/six-days

    ReplyDelete
  51. >>Dan, you should probably also read this page - http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v18/n1/six-days

    Did, 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.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This deserves to be repeated:

    "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."

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Please provide evidence that back up your claim that IF you DO NOT believe in YEC then you are NOT a Christian"

    I 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.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Please provide evidence that back up your claim that IF you DO NOT believe in YEC then you are NOT a Christian"

    1. it is not my claim, it is Ken Ham's
    2. I said 'True Christian', not 'Christian'

    Answer the question, Dodger Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  55. >>I said 'true' Christian.

    Ohhhhh, 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.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "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"

    A 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.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "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."

    Could you try writing that in english? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  58. 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?

    Christ, I've had to reword this SO many times in an attempt to get a straight answer!

    ReplyDelete
  59. Alex,

    >>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.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Alex,

    As 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).

    ReplyDelete
  61. >>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.

    See, 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.

    ReplyDelete
  62. 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.

    "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.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "YOU said he believes they are NOT Christians. "

    No 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.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Um, you admitted to blocking his IP! (7:47 of the interview).


    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.

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "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."

    Looks 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 :-)

    ReplyDelete
  66. What makes you think that Jim knows that YOUR god exists??

    Oh yeah, the same book that has talking animals in it.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Sye TenB said...

    "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.

    ReplyDelete
  68. 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.

    None 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.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Guys, could I recommend a website ?

    http://www.relate.org.uk/relationship-counselling/index.html

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  70. Jim isn't even close to getting it.

    David Smart nails it here.

    ReplyDelete
  71. David Smart said...

    "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.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "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.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Another person who obviously doesn't get it."

    It 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.

    ReplyDelete
  74. PENNY DROPS

    You're just Joe Cienkowski in a suit!

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  75. "It seems to me that no-one 'gets it', and that must be (surely) down to those trying to explain it failing."

    Nope, 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.

    ReplyDelete
  76. "My argument has ALWAYS been that God is the necessary foundation for proof, and THAT is the proof!"

    BINGO! 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.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "BINGO! Circular Sye admits the circularity of his argument!"

    Seriously 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.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "Your fear is palpable."

    Keep saying that to yourself Sye, I'm sure it makes you feel better for being such a desperate failure.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "But only one is valid."

    How 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?

    ReplyDelete
  80. "How can you tell if you circular argument is the valid circular argument?"

    Simple. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "Keep saying that to yourself Sye, I'm sure it makes you feel better for being such a desperate failure."

    Your fear is palpable. Nope, feels the same :-D

    ReplyDelete
  82. "Simple. Revelation."

    But 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.

    ReplyDelete
  83. How can you know that this "revelation" is from your god and not a delusion or from another "entity"?

    Please 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.

    ReplyDelete
  84. ”But what if it happens that you are wrong about your "revelation"?”

    I’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.”

    ReplyDelete
  85. I asked, “but what if it happens that you are wrong about your revelation.”

    You 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.

    ReplyDelete
  86. ”How can you know that this "revelation" is from your god and not a delusion or from another "entity"?”

    Because 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.

    ReplyDelete
  87. "I also see no reason to favor your argument over any other."

    I could not care less what you favour, just repent for denying the God that you know exists.

    ReplyDelete
  88. "I could not care less what you favour, just repent for denying the God that you know exists."

    What will happen if we don't repent to a god we don't believe in?

    ReplyDelete
  89. "What will happen if we don't repent to a god we don't believe in?"

    Nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  90. 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.

    Up to the challenge?

    ReplyDelete
  91. "Claim I do? You have to do several things"

    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).

    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)

    ReplyDelete
  92. "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)."

    But 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!

    ReplyDelete
  93.      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
  94. "The bible says many things. Some, like the one Sye quoted, are plainly false."

    Well, 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 :-)

    ReplyDelete
  95. Truth is that which conforms to reality or actuality

    ReplyDelete
  96. "Truth is that which conforms to reality or actuality"

    There 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).

    ReplyDelete
  97. "If there was any validity at all, only Christians would be able to test anything." (Reynold)

    False. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  98. "Truth is that which conforms to reality or actuality." (Alex)

    Agreed. Now define "reality" without begging the very question.

    ReplyDelete
  99. And the TAG. smokescreen continues...

    ReplyDelete
  100. Sye TenB said...

    "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?

    ReplyDelete
  101. Ryft:

         The 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.

    ReplyDelete
  102. So you didn't use reason to interpret the revelation you claim proves God's existence?

    Huh? 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?

    ReplyDelete
  103. And the TAG. smokescreen continues.

    You 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)

    ReplyDelete
  104. Sye TenB said...

    So 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.

    ReplyDelete
  105. 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?

    ReplyDelete
  106. Sye TenB said...

    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?

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  107. No

    So, 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.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Wow, Sye, I can barely see you through all that smoke!

    ReplyDelete
  109. Sye TenB said...

    No

    So, you accept that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain. Great.

    By granting you omniscience, yes. Are you omniscient? If so you're going to need to demonstrate such...

    "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.

    So you admit you are not omniscient. In which case how are you absolutely certian of the source and veracity of the claimed revelation?

    "If you have some method by which God could make you absolutley certain sans omniscience then please, enlighten us."

    The method is irrelevant.

    Not if you choose one where it is logically impossible for you to be absolutely certain as you claim you are...

    I am pleased that you admit that He could do this though.

    I'm happy you're pleased - now all you need is for God to grant you omniscience in order to be absolutely certain about your revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  110. "By granting you omniscience, yes."

    So, are you saying that it is impossible for God to reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain, unless we are omniscient?

    If so, how do you know that for certain?

    ReplyDelete
  111. "Wow, Sye, I can barely see you through all that smoke!"

    Then stop talking and it may clear up :-D

    ReplyDelete
  112. Sye TenB said...

    "By granting you omniscience, yes."

    So, are you saying that it is impossible for God to reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain, unless we are omniscient?

    I've stated that, logically, the granting of omniscience would give you the absolute certainty you claim to have. You have conceded that you aren't omnisccient but still claim to be absolutely certain and I have asked you to explain how that could be.

    If so, how do you know that for certain?

    Well obviously I'm not certain otherwise I wouldn't have asked you to explain how you could be absolutely certain without God granting you omniscience. Do you have an explaination?

    ReplyDelete
  113. "I've stated that, logically, the granting of omniscience would give you the absolute certainty you claim to have."

    Just answer the question please. I've seen enough dodging from Alex to last a while.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Sye TenB said...

    "I've stated that, logically, the granting of omniscience would give you the absolute certainty you claim to have."

    Just answer the question please. I've seen enough dodging from Alex to last a while.

    Lol, I have answered your questions.

    I agreed it wasn't impossible for God to reveal something to you such that you could be absolutely certain - by granting you omniscience.

    You then asked if I was certain that was the only way and I said I wasn't. While I can't personally think of a means by which you could be absolutely certain while having gaps in your knowledge - gaps which may contain the true source and veracity of the claimed revelation - claiming it is impossible would be an argument from ignorance so, instead, I gave you the opportunity to tell us all how it could happen.

    ReplyDelete
  115. "I gave you the opportunity to tell us all how it could happen."

    Irrelevant. I'm pleased though, that you (finally) admit that God could reveal some things to non-omniscient man, such that we can be certain of them (no matter how He chooses to do it).

    ReplyDelete
  116. Sye TenB said...

    "I gave you the opportunity to tell us all how it could happen."

    Irrelevant.

    Not if you choose one where it is logically impossible for you to be absolutely certain as you claim you are...

    I'm pleased though, that you (finally) admit that God could reveal some things to non-omniscient man, such that we can be certain of them (no matter how He chooses to do it).

    I'm happy you're pleased - now all you need is for God to grant you omniscience in order to be absolutely certain about your revelation.

    A sense of deja-vu there. Are you unwilling or simply unable to explain how you can be absolutely certain without God granting you omniscience?

    ReplyDelete
  117. "I'm happy you're pleased - now all you need is for God to grant you omniscience in order to be absolutely certain about your revelation."

    Huh? Make up your mind. Is omniscience necessary for certainty or isn't is?

    ReplyDelete
  118. Sye TenB said...

    "I'm happy you're pleased - now all you need is for God to grant you omniscience in order to be absolutely certain about your revelation."

    Huh? Make up your mind. Is omniscience necessary for certainty or isn't is?

    I'm waiting for you to show how it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  119. "I'm waiting for you to show how it isn't."

    Just answer the question please. As I said, I've had enough dodging from Alex to last a while.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Sye TenB said...

    "I'm waiting for you to show how it isn't."

    Just answer the question please. As I said, I've had enough dodging from Alex to last a while.

    I have already answered - I do not know - which is why I keep asking you to explain how it isn't necessary and you can be absolutely certain without it. I'm not sure why you keep refusing to answer the question and find it highly amusing that you prefer to accuse me of dodging instead.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Sye has a blind spot for answers he doesn't like, he just claims they've not been answered at all.

    Utterly bizarre.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Freddie,

    As you know, we have been round and round but the response by Sye made the point best, and I would love to see you concede to the point and move on instead of venting that same argument over and over again.

    "So, are you saying that it is impossible for God to reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain, unless we are omniscient?

    If so, how do you know that for certain?"

    Pretty please, address that one. Understandable and quite telling if you do not. I hope you understand that it will be repeated if you bring your "unless you're omniscient" claim to hijack conversations. Moving on?

    ReplyDelete
  123. Sye TenB said... quoting someone else:

    "I gave you the opportunity to tell us all how it could happen."


    Irrelevant. I'm pleased though, that you (finally) admit that God could reveal some things to non-omniscient man, such that we can be certain of them (no matter how He chooses to do it).
    Whether he or she COULD is an entirely different matter than whether he or she DID, though.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Damn, I'm slow today: Did anyone else see the blatant dodge Sye just did? He was directly asked HOW this revelation could happen, and Sye says it's IRRELEVANT. How the fuck is it irrelevant??

    All Sye has here is that it COULD happen! So what? Freddie's asking HOW it could happen so we can judge if it DID happen!

    ReplyDelete
  125. Ryft said...

    "If there was any validity at all, only Christians would be able to test anything." (Reynold)

    False. Non-Christians can test things; but it is despite their worldview, not because of it.
    Guess what? Worldview has butt-eff all to do with it.

    As I pointed out earlier: Greeks and others, including ancient Islamists had logical and mathematical theorems that had nothing to do with the biblical god or christ.

    If they did that stuff "despite" their world view, then guess what?

    Biblegod is NOT needed to formulate conclusions, deductions, or theorems, any more than is any other god. If that were the case, as I said: then non-xian cultures just wouldn't be able to do that.

    Or can you show just HOW your god is the necessary precondition for all of that? Because, bottom line: If other cultures who knew nothing of biblegod were able to do that, then that idea is wrong.


    "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.

    Good grief, Sye the second: All I'm doing is a simple word substitution in the proposition that original Sye has set up. He's the one question begging, not me.

    I'm just showing you people how useless that tactic is.


    You want begging the question? Try this:

    God is the necessary precondition for logic, due to the impossibility of the contrary.

    Logic exists.

    Therefore God exists.
    .
    THAT, my friend, is embarrassing. Not that Sye seems to care though...

    ReplyDelete
  126. Ah, but you see Sye et al claim that the Greeks and Egyptians etc could reason ONLY because the Christian god exists - they may have been unaware of him, but they could only reason because he existed.

    Of course, this argument never actually supplies any evidence that gods exist, especially as we can easily show that gods aren't needed for intelligibility (and might even mean such a thing would be impossible if they were real).

    The depressing thing is that, in the second decade of the Twenty First century, there are still people who feel the need to believe in gods.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Sye said, quoting me:
    ”Sye, your "answers" are all non-answers. All you do is back up your unprovable assertions with...more unprovable assertions.”

    Prove this please.
    Easy. Just read your replies on this thread: You know, the stuff like You can't test the necessary precondition for testing type shit!

    ”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???
    Uh, No. I'm saying that your statement (that your god is the necessary precondition to the concept of testing) is bullshit. Why? See below.

    ”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.
    Oh? Then tell us just exactly what we "must borrow" from YOUR worldview to be able to test things, ok? I'd really like to know just what they are.

    Here's a challenge Sye: Pick any ancient greek thoerem or muslim algebraic forumula and show us just where either biblegod himself OR some aspect that's specific to the xian world view fits into it, ok?

    ReplyDelete
  128. Sye TenB said... quoting me:

    ”How can you know that this "revelation" is from your god and not a delusion or from another "entity"?”

    Because God has revealed it such that we can be certain of it.
    How so? How can you know? How can you be certain? That's the question I'm asking you in the first place!

    Typical non-answer from Sye...

    Just WHAT is this "revelation" of yours? The bible? The book that contradicts the second instrument of this "revelation" (ie. Nature)?

    I hope you don't keep saying that it's this "revelation" that you use to justify trusting your senses Sye, because: You need your senses to receive this "revelation" 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. “
    Well, once you become Muslim, come back and I’ll be happy to refute you.
    Why do I have to convert? You had no problem with that guy who you yourself linked me to in your last reply..as shown below.

    I like how Paul Baird handles you there. Though I wonder why you would NOT look at contradictions within the Koran to disprove it as "divine revelation".


    ”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
    Did you read what I wrote? Let me try again: As is shown by your silence whenever I bring that up...

    ReplyDelete
  129. "It is an empirical fact that I do not believe (let alone 'know') your God exists." (Pvblivs)

    That follows only if my presupposition is false, and you should not beg that question.

    And no, we are not begging the question, as the truth of God and his word is an a-priori presupposition, not an a-posteriori conclusion.

    "You are using your senses and reasoning, the very thing you say can't be trusted, to validate your senses and reasoning." (freddies_dead)

    False. He justifies his senses and reasoning by the truth of God and his word. The use of one's senses and reasoning is categorically distinct from justifying their use.

    ReplyDelete
  130. "If [Greeks and ancient Islamists] did that stuff 'despite' their world view, then ... God is NOT needed to formulate conclusions, deductions, or theorems." (Reynold)

    First, that is a non-sequitur fallacy; if John draws a conclusion despite ¬X, it does not follow that therefore X was unnecessary to that act of cognition. Second, God is unnecessary to such acts of cognition only given my presupposition being false—which is not given, since that would be question-begging.

    Second, if worldviews have "butt-eff all to do with it," then how did the Greeks formulate theorems? How did they accomplish that in the absence of any ideas about the world?

    "Or can you show just HOW God is the necessary precondition for all of that?" (Reynold)

    Certainly. It follows from the aseity and necessity of the transcendent God who creates and sustains reality—without whom nothing would even exist, much less humans and their acts of cognition. "For all things in heaven and on earth were created by him—all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him. He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him" (Col 1:16-17); see also Heb 1:1–3 ("through whom he made the universe ... sustaining all things by his powerful word"), Acts 17:28 ("in him we live and move and have our being"), Rev 4:11 ("by your will [all things] were created and have their being"), and so forth.

    A more pointed example, the existence of logic is intuitively grasped by anyone whose cognitive faculties are functioning properly; what the presuppositionalism of Reformed theology and Van Til et al. does is expose the necessary preconditions thereof, providing an account of the nature and intelligibility of logic, the fundamental principles of which express analogously the curious fact that reality is non contra se. (1) As a divine attribute (original), logic is coterminous with the nature and character of God, understood in terms of divine necessity and simplicity and constituting the coherence and consistency of his nature and unchanging character; as such, logical order is manifest everywhere that the sovereign and sustaining power of God is, which is everywhere. (2) As a human attribute (derivative), given our nature as imago Dei, logic is contingent insofar as we are creatures whose existence is distinct from and sustained by God; at this level, logic is understood analogously as conceptual formulations expressing the logical order of creation and the self-consistent coherence of God's immutable being. The fact that logical principles (e.g., the law of contradiction) are necessarily true, absolute, and universal is accounted for by their analogical relationship to the divine attribute of logic that is coterminous with the very nature and character of the covenant God of promise.

    "All I'm doing is a simple word substitution in the proposition that Sye has set up. He's the one question-begging, not me." (Reynold)

    I am quite aware of what you did. And your simple word substitution follows only given Sye's presupposition being false—which is not given, as that would be question-begging. Sye is not begging the question; he is simply arguing from his axiomatic presupposition. You might reject his presupposition, but that says something about you and nothing about the truth or falsehood of his presupposition. If you want to argue that his presupposition is false, it will take more than simply begging that question.

    ReplyDelete
  131. "If Scripture is the final authority, and if one proves the authority of Scripture on the basis of something else other than Scripture, then one proves that Scripture is not the final authority. In other words, to prove the authority of Scripture on something other than Scripture is to disprove Scripture" (Michael Butler, "A truly Reformed epistemology," in Penpoint Newsletter, Vol. 8, No. 5 [Southern California Center for Christian Studies, May 1997], p. 3).

    ReplyDelete
  132. In other words David's argument is perfectly circular and he has no actual evidence that his god exists.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Unless you are a solipsist, Alex, you are going to have to do better than brute ipse dixit.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Ryft:

         You are begging the question as the very existence of your god is what is in dispute and, therefore, what you need to prove. Furthermre, you don't reason your way to empirical facts. You can only observe them. My disbelief in your god (contrary to your scripture) does not need to follow from anything. It is empirical. We observe it as a fact, much the same way that you might observe the presence or absence of a tree outside your front door.

    ReplyDelete
  135.      "Unless you are a solipsist, Alex, you are going to have to do better than brute ipse dixit."
         Okay, same rules for you. Your quotation of your scriptures is a clear case of ipse dixit (it said so.)

    ReplyDelete
  136. D.A.N. said...

    Freddie,

    As you know, we have been round and round but the response by Sye made the point best, and I would love to see you concede to the point and move on instead of venting that same argument over and over again.


    We can move on just as soon as you answer my question of how you can be absolutely certain without also being omniscient. Until that happens I don't see how we can get any further as you have an unsupported claim outstanding.

    "So, are you saying that it is impossible for God to reveal some things to us, such that we can know them for certain, unless we are omniscient?"

    As I said to Sye:
    I've stated that, logically, the granting of omniscience would give you the absolute certainty you claim to have. You have conceded that you aren't omniscient but still claim to be absolutely certain and I have asked you to explain how that could be.

    Are you any more willing to try than Sye is?

    "If so, how do you know that for certain?"

    And again, as I said to Sye:
    Well obviously I'm not certain otherwise I wouldn't have asked you to explain how you could be absolutely certain without God granting you omniscience. Do you have an explanation?

    Willing to give it a go Dan?

    Pretty please, address that one.

    I have, several times.

    Understandable and quite telling if you do not.

    I guess you can't recognise that I have answered already because you can't trust the senses and reasoning you've used to interpret my responses. Maybe when God grants you omniscience so you can be certain of your revelation - and by extension trust your senses - you'll be able to understand my answers? I won't hold my breath.

    I hope you understand that it will be repeated if you bring your "unless you're omniscient" claim to hijack conversations.

    There is no hijack - the claim is that you are absolutely certain of God's existence thanks to a 'revelation' from God. The 'revelation' is said to be both special (the Bible) and general (nature), both of which require you to use your senses and reasoning to perceive and interpret/understand. Unfortunately that means you have to trust your senses and reasoning that you are perceiving and understanding the 'revelation', that tells you you can trust your senses and reasoning, correctly. When this is pointed out to you you give up trying to explain and change your approach. The 'revelation' becomes something else entirely i.e. something completely apart from your senses/reasoning, note that this rules out both the Bible and nature. You start asking whether God could reveal things to you apart from your senses/reasoning such that you can be absolutely certain of them. I promptly concede that God could grant you omniscience so you can be absolutely certain but for some reason you don't like the answer. Instead you continue to claim you are 1. not omniscient and 2. absolutely certain but refuse to give an argument as to how that could be.

    Moving on?

    You can move on if you wish but there's always going to be that outstanding unsupported claim destroying the foundation of your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Ryft said... quoting me:

    "If [Greeks and ancient Islamists] did that stuff 'despite' their world view, then ... God is NOT needed to formulate conclusions, deductions, or theorems." (Reynold)

    First, that is a non-sequitur fallacy; if John draws a conclusion despite ¬X, it does not follow that therefore X was unnecessary to that act of cognition.
    You mean to that "conclusion", not the act of cognition, right?

    A non-sequitor fallacy is a fallacy in which a conclusion does not follow logically from what preceded it. What I said was not a non-sequitor.

    You claimed that your god was necessary for the ability to reason and form conclusions. If you hadn't had said that but rather that he was helpful or useful in the ability to reason, etc. THEN you'd have a point. BUT: You said that your god was necessary I pointed out that those cultures had no knowledge or belief of your god and they were able to reason and form conclusions anyway. Thus giving examples of where your conclusion was wrong, even if they did so "depsite" not having the "correct worldview".

    Let me guess though: You're not referring to belief in the xian god, are you? If you were, this argument would have just ended.

    You're trying to show that it's his very existence that's necessary for us to reason, right?

    In that case, one would think that your bible would be perfect, eh? After all, if your god is somehow necessary for the ability to reason, there wouldn't be any inaccuracies in the bible, would there?

    There is though: The mustard seed, the contradictory stories of who bought the potter's field (judas or the priests) the problems with keeping track of simple numbers (the number of solomon's stables, etc - if your god can't keep out simple scribal errors in mathematics, why assume that he's responsible for "math" which is part of being able to reason?) and yes, the hundreds of different bible VERSIONS out there...I'd say that "reasoning" is not one of your god's strong suits, much less the prerequisite for it!

    ReplyDelete
  138. Second, God is unnecessary to such acts of cognition only given my presupposition being false—which is not given, since that would be question-begging.
    The only one question-begging here is YOU...you keep going on about how your god is necessary for reasoning, etc...I give examples of other civilizations doing those just fine without him.


    Second, if worldviews have "butt-eff all to do with it," then how did the Greeks formulate theorems? How did they accomplish that in the absence of any ideas about the world?
    Maybe if I said "religious beliefs" that would help clarify what I said? You were after all going on about the so-called christian world view. Their ideas about the world did not need your god or knowledge of him at all.

    "Or can you show just HOW God is the necessary precondition for all of that?" (Reynold)
    Certainly. It follows from the aseity and necessity of the transcendent God who creates and sustains reality—without whom nothing would even exist, much less humans and their acts of cognition.
    See what you just did there? You used as "proof" of your statement, a re-wording of your original contention in the first place!

    Aren't you supposed to show us that your god bloody exists before claiming that he's responsible for everything? Otherwise, all you're doing is just more xian presup viciously circular reasoning.

    "For all things in heaven and on earth were created by him—all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers—all things were created through him and for him. He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him" (Col 1:16-17); see also Heb 1:1–3 ("through whom he made the universe ... sustaining all things by his powerful word"), Acts 17:28 ("in him we live and move and have our being"), Rev 4:11 ("by your will [all things] were created and have their being"), and so forth.
    And the Muslim can say the same kind of crap about Allah, and the atheist can say that natural processes are the cause of all that...yadda yadda yadda. Doesn't prove a damned thing. You're using the bible (big surprise) to "prove" that your god exists, but.....the bible is only useful as evidence if you're already SHOWN that your god exists. Otherwise, you're just quoting another wanna-be superstitious holy book in my eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Furthermre, you don't reason your way to empirical facts. You can only observe them.

    Is THAT a fact, if so how do you know it to be a fact? Also, how do you empirically observe a universal negative (that there is no God)?

    ReplyDelete
  140. "and the atheist can say that natural processes are the cause of all that...yadda yadda yadda. Doesn't prove a damned thing. "

    ...other than the fact that there's actual EVIDENCE of natural processes. So far the naturalistic POV trumps religious creation every single time.

    "Is THAT a fact, if so how do you know it to be a fact? Also, how do you empirically observe a universal negative (that there is no God)? "

    Sye, why don't you just shut up? You're a fucking embarrassment.

    ReplyDelete
  141. "So far the naturalistic POV trumps religious creation every single time."

    Too bad you have no non-viciosuly circular justification for the naturalistic point of view.

    "Sye, why don't you just shut up?"

    And stop exposing your non-answers, and the absurdity of your view? - nah :-)

    ReplyDelete
  142. "And stop exposing your non-answers, and the absurdity of your view? - nah :-) "

    *sigh* ok, keep going then, but that hole you're in is just getting deeper and deeper.

    ReplyDelete
  143. "*sigh* ok, keep going then, but that hole you're in is just getting deeper and deeper."

    Another top-notch argument from Alex Botten! No wonder you are shying away from a formal debate.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Hey Sye, how stupid are you? Did not Alex already deal with you repeatedly?


    Of course, to make the claim he has to ignore the fact that I've already debated him, AT LENGTH, here, here, and here, as well as discussing the subject with others here, here, and here. That's 6 discussions, the shortest of which is over an hour long.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Did not Dan himself post some of those links in a previous post???

    Seriously Sye, why are you saying that Alex is "shying away" from debate??

    ReplyDelete
  146. I find it interesting that two Christians who both claim to be guided by God when interpreting said Gods perfect special revelation come to two separate conclusions regarding the very first book of said revelation. The only conclusions I can come to in light of this is that God is lying to one of them or it is not a perfect special revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Indeed, David and Sye/Dan/Dustin disagree significantly over the nature of the origins of everything - seems likely that at least one hasn't got the 'right' revelation.

    Sye, I've agreed to a formal debate with you, but with the caveat that you bring a new argument to the table, as I'm tired of hearing you repeat 'How do you know that?' over and over, and I think I can safely say that Fundamentally Flawed's listeners are bored to tears by the sound of Sye's 'podcast poison' voice.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Point for JC. I think I was trying to say something like that but I wasn't as succinct.

    ...if your god can't keep out simple scribal errors in mathematics, why assume that he's responsible for "math" which is part of being able to reason?) and yes, the hundreds of different bible VERSIONS out there...I'd say that "reasoning" is not one of your god's strong suits, much less the prerequisite for it!

    ReplyDelete
  149. BTW, Dan, all the extra traffic you're getting to your site? You're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Hello, Sye. I'd like to hear your response to an argument Michael Martin has advanced. Can you tell me what is wrong with it?


    Logic presupposes its principles are necessarily true, as science presupposes our universe behaves according to inviolable natural laws.

    I take it that you think God could revoke logical principles like the law of non-contradiction. Which would make logical principles not necessarily true.

    I take it you also think that God has performed numerous miracles, violating natural law. Whereas science would seek a naturalistic explanation for such events.

    Therefore, logic and science presuppose the nonexistence of your god.

    So, when you use logic to draw any conclusion, you invoke a tool which presupposes your god's nonexistence. You cannot logically conclude anything without presupposing the nonexistence of your god. If God exists, you can't know anything at all.

    Thus, the Transcandental Argument for the Nonexistence of God (TANG).

    ReplyDelete
  151. ”I take it that you think God could revoke logical principles like the law of non-contradiction. “

    Nope. Logic is part of the nature and character of God, and God cannot be “notGod.”

    ”I take it you also think that God has performed numerous miracles, violating natural law.”

    I don’t know how God performs miracles, but “natural law” is a fallacy of reification, as nature can institute no laws.

    ”Therefore, logic and science presuppose the nonexistence of your god.”

    Hopefully my refutation helps you see the problem with that claim.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Sye,

    “Logic is part of the nature and character of God,”

    How do you know that?

    Not the Bible, since the Bible says naught of logic.

    “...and God cannot be “notGod.””

    How do you know he can’t? Because that would be illogical?

    ReplyDelete
  153. Alex,

    You have been TenBruggencated. Move on and go lick your wounds, or repent.

    Hey, we just made a new verb!

    ReplyDelete
  154. "You have been TenBruggencated. Move on and go lick your wounds, or repent."

    All glory goes to God Brother! I am only a tool! Alex, feel free to quote-mine away :-)

    I do indeed think that Alex and Jim have been sufficiently exposed, all over the web now. Perhaps time to move on to greener pastures. Indeed, pray for Alex and Jim, that they repent of their foolish "reasoning" and turn to seek the Truth.

    Thanks for hosting these exchanges Dan!

    ReplyDelete
  155. I find it interesting that two Christians who both claim to be guided by God when interpreting said Gods perfect special revelation come to two separate conclusions regarding the very first book of said revelation. The only conclusions I can come to in light of this is that God is lying to one of them or it is not a perfect special revelation.

    JC has a good point. I think Dan has perhaps missed the ramifications of his OP. If two Christians can disagree on interpreting the Bible and only a direct appeal to God can resolve the issue, then the Bible is not the ultimate authority.

    If the Bible is not the ultimate authority (as Dan says), then anything based on the Bible is also open to question. For example, if Dan reads the Bible and decides that homosexuality is wrong, and (say) I read it as a committed Christian and determine that it actually says that gay marriage etc. is fine, both views are valid until Dan and I reach Heaven. In other words, any absolute moral commands based on the Bible are suspect. Such absolutes may exist, but we can never be sure of them until we die, so biblical moral commands are relative based on the individual's interpretation of the Bible.

    To avoid this, the Bible has to be assumed to be "as authoritative" as God's direct command - hence the focus on a literal interpretation of Genesis. Once you doubt Genesis, then all the rest of the Bible can be re-interpreted and the whole edifice starts to crumble. Doubt Genesis, and you are doubting God.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Hey Mike,

    ”JC has a good point. I think Dan has perhaps missed the ramifications of his OP. If two Christians can disagree on interpreting the Bible and only a direct appeal to God can resolve the issue, then the Bible is not the ultimate authority.”

    No, these issues are often resolved this side of Heaven by exegeting God’s Word.

    ”If the Bible is not the ultimate authority (as Dan says), then anything based on the Bible is also open to question. For example, if Dan reads the Bible and decides that homosexuality is wrong, and (say) I read it as a committed Christian and determine that it actually says that gay marriage etc. is fine, both views are valid until Dan and I reach Heaven.”

    Again no. Both views cannot be valid, as that would violate the law of non-contradiction. It follows that one view must be wrong, but it may be the case that the person holding the wrong view will not know it until they get to Heaven (if they do).

    ReplyDelete
  157. Mike,

    I agree with Sye. There is always someone on the wrong side of truth. We can flesh out the points in question, but some things Scripture is silent about, therefore we should be too. Someone can claim that Scripture reveals that the world will end in October 2011 but since it did not, it was false and the fault was the interpretation of the data, not the data. People can claim all day that the Bible reveals the birthday of Jesus but a valid exegesis of the data says otherwise.

    God certainly has revealed things we can be certain about, like His existence. That is something we all understand quite clearly as Christians. They are the basics, and there is a minimum after all. If there is a question about something small, that is what a good Bible study is about, since someone is confused. Truth is absolute and truth is narrow after all.

    One of us is wrong, my point was that repentance and trusting in Christ is what justifies us in our Salvation, not my YEC beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  158. D.A.N.,

    Yes, at least one of scientists or young earth creationists are wrong about the age of the earth.

    Tree ring chronology goes as far back as 11,000 years.

    According to genetic evidence, all human Y-chromosomes are descended from the same man whose DNA outcompeted every other strain, and from mutation rates we can calculate he lived around 60,000 years ago.

    The Great Barrier Reef has corals that are 600,000 years old.

    We study petrified wood, which under natural processes, takes millions of years for wood to petrify.

    From tectonic drift rates, we calculate that Pangea split into diverging continents 200 million years ago.

    Geologic evidence tells us that the earth's magnetic poles have reversed about 171 times, an event that comes around every few hundred thousand years.

    We've radiometrically dated rocks over 4 billion years old.

    We observe light from stars in the Hubble ultra deep field, ten billion light years away.

    But you discount all that, because the Bible has genealogies going back to a creation myth of ignorant Bronze Age Hebrews, dating the creation of the earth back to around the time that human civilization was inventing beer.

    I think I can tell who's on the wrong side of truth in this debate.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Robin,

    >>I think I can tell who's on the wrong side of truth in this debate.

    Yea, its the same one making large assumptions about these things that must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that persons presuppositions about the age of the universe and earth.

    >>Tree ring chronology goes as far back as 11,000 years.

    How do you know? Could there be assumptions as to tree rings age? Is that possible?

    >>According to genetic evidence, all human Y-chromosomes ...

    Could evidence in the future show those assumptions to be false? If not, why not?

    >>The Great Barrier Reef has corals that are 600,000 years old.

    Are you certain of this? If so, how? Could there, for instance, be an assumption made as to the growth rate of the coral? Could climate change growth rates? If so, is the temperature s the same now as it was back then? If so, how do you know that?

    >>We study petrified wood, which under natural processes, takes millions of years for wood to petrify.

    Is it possible there are assumptions as to how long it takes for such a process?

    On and on...I am sure you are getting my point.

    I hope you understand that even the speed of light can be changed and even slowed. So again wild assumptions and many factors are at play here.

    Could fallible man be wrong about things?

    Like Sye has asked, could you be wrong about everything you think you know?

    I think I can tell who's on the wrong side of truth in this debate. The solipsist with brute ipse dixit as evidenced here.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Pvblivs,

    1. What is being disputed is that you know God exists; that is the question which should not be begged. The existence of God per se is a separate matter and not the question. Namely, whether or not God exists and whether or not you know it are categorically separate issues, a metaphysical point regarding God on the one hand and an epistemological point regarding you on the other. I realize that arguing rationally can be a bit frustrating when trying to maintain your godless view but question-begging ripostes are nevertheless fallacious.

    2. On our presuppositions, it being "an empirical fact" that you do not know God exists is both unintelligible and necessarily false. But I suspect it is also unintelligible and false even on your presuppositions. Even if we grant your presuppositions arguendo, what can be empirically corroborated is that you utter complex patterns of vocalizations, or tap complex patterns of keys on your computer, or exhibit certain biochemical brain states and so forth. That is what is observed, like a tree outside your front door. Neither vocalizations nor keystrokes nor brain states empirically prove that you do not know God exists.

    3. We are not begging the question, because the fact that you know God exists but suppress that knowledge in ungodliness is not a conclusion we assume in order to reach it. Rather we prove the conclusion with the evidence of Scripture. What we assume (as our presuppositional starting point) is the truth of God and his word. If you want to invalidate our argument, then you must do so on our presuppositions (internal critique). Attempting to invalidate our argument on your presuppositions is likewise question-begging.

    4. We are also not guilty of ipse dixit. The fact that you know God exists but suppress that knowledge in ungodliness is not something we assert without proof, but rather something we conclude from the preponderance of evidence (see scriptural citation already referenced). Botten, however, was guilty of ipse dixit, for he asserted without proof that my argument is circular.

    5. Scripture does not qualify as evidence on your view, but what does that have to do with our view and argument?

    ReplyDelete
  161. Reynold,

    1. What else is a conclusion besides an act of cognition?

    2. Yes, I know you pointed to other cultures. But you claimed they were able to reason and form conclusions without any knowledge God. How does your question-begging fallacy prove our conclusion wrong? Our conclusion is that they know God exists but suppress that knowledge in ungodliness. For you to claim that they did not know God exists is to simply beg the very question.

    3. They reason and form conclusions despite their ¬X view, not because of it. You claimed that therefore X was unnecessary. That is non-sequitur because X appears in the conclusion out of nowhere, in an argument that had ¬X in view. That X is unnecessary would follow if they reasoned and formed conclusions because of ¬X, but it would follow invalidly on account of begging the question.

    4. Scripture being inerrant and infallible is a separate issue and thus a red herring here.

    5. That God is self-existent necessary being is not a "re-wording" of God being the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience.

    6. The truth of God and his word is our axiomatic starting point. The demand to prove an axiom is incoherent; if an assumption can be proved, then it is not axiomatic. Your demand tacitly denies that our presupposition is an axiomatic starting point, which is an illegitimate move.

    7. Muslims and atheists can claim whatever they like, but what does that have to do with our view and argument?

    ReplyDelete
  162. JC,

    Two Christians who claim to be guided by God can arrive at two separate interpretations of a text easily enough (for a person can claim anything they like), but not so for two Christians who are committed to the principle of sola scriptura and whose interpretation is arrived at by historico-grammatical exegesis of the text (which can be critically evaluated). However, I fail to see how a fault in a person's interpretation translates as a fault in the text or in God's character. It is strange how those are the only two conclusions you can draw. I draw a rather different conclusion and quite easily: from the fact that Jones and Smith arrived at two separate interpretations, I conclude that one or both of their interpretations was in error.

    Mike,

    Who said that "only a direct appeal to God can resolve the issue"?

    ReplyDelete
  163. Dan, let's see your research that shows all those different dating techniques to be wrong - remember, they are all independent yet can be cross checked (for example, trees and coral can be radiometrically dated as well, and they match...and no, they're not using the trees to calibrate the radiometric dating which then dates the trees - only creationist believe that)

    "I think I can tell who's on the wrong side of truth in this debate."

    Yet David Smart clearly accepts that the findings of Science are genuine. So, out of you and David, who's wrong, Dan?

    ReplyDelete
  164. "from the fact that Jones and Smith arrived at two separate interpretations, I conclude that one or both of their interpretations was in error."

    Are you willing to go out on a limb and point out to Sye and Dan that they're in error?

    ReplyDelete
  165. "Botten, however, was guilty of ipse dixit, for he asserted without proof that my argument is circular."

    My proof is your argument itself, which is entirely circular.

    ReplyDelete
  166. "Our conclusion is that they know God exists but suppress that knowledge in ungodliness."

    REALLY??? So people who have never ever heard of your god were merely 'suppressing that knowledge in ungodliness'? Crikey, do you ever really *think* about how absurd this is? David, you're an intelligent guy, I don't know why you don't take the final step into non-belief and ditch all this nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  167. "4. Scripture being inerrant and infallible is a separate issue and thus a red herring here."

    It's entirely relevant, as the Bible has been cited as the source of a revelation from the Christian god by several of the regulars here - if this revelation can be shown to contain errors, then that revelation cannot be trusted.

    ReplyDelete
  168. "6. The truth of God and his word is our axiomatic starting point. The demand to prove an axiom is incoherent; if an assumption can be proved, then it is not axiomatic. Your demand tacitly denies that our presupposition is an axiomatic starting point, which is an illegitimate move."

    OK, the truth of the Primacy of Existence and the non-existence of god is MY axiomatic starting point.

    Wow, that was easy!

    ReplyDelete
  169. Alex,

    >>My proof is your argument itself, which is entirely circular.

    Is 'begging the question' absolutely fallacious? Because 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.

    ReplyDelete
  170. >>OK, the truth of the Primacy of Existence and the non-existence of god is MY axiomatic starting point.

    God being necessary for logic is my axiom. Wow, that was easy!

    "For that matter, you cannot know the reasoning with which you reason about axioms is itself valid. True? Surely you would grant that there are invalid axioms [as evidenced by Alex's], and also that there is invalid reasoning. Agree? If so, I do not see how it is possible for you to get from that to certainty about anything." ~Sye

    ReplyDelete
  171. Dan, either you or David is wrong about Creationism - which is it?

    ReplyDelete
  172. And, Dan, do you like being Sye's little poodle?

    ReplyDelete
  173. Alex,

    Because I am not retarded enough to be an atheist.

    And yes, Scripture being inerrant and infallible is relevant. However, that is still "a separate issue and thus a red herring here."

    ReplyDelete
  174. Ryft,

    If you are suggesting that it is up to your own reasoning to interpret scripture and that God plays no role then you cannot claim scripture as the final authority as you have made yourself the final authority. However, if God does play a role in interpreting scripture then you have a problem when two different interpretations are made by two different Christians. I realized I left out one other possible conclusion; it could be that one of the two Christians are not actually guided by God, but how then would you know who is and who is not.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Sye said:

    Again no. Both views cannot be valid, as that would violate the law of non-contradiction. It follows that one view must be wrong, but it may be the case that the person holding the wrong view will not know it until they get to Heaven (if they do).

    Sure. But in the here and now - how do you decide if something is morally right, if different Christians perform exegesis and get different answers?

    ReplyDelete
  176. Ryft said...

    Reynold,

    1. What else is a conclusion besides an act of cognition?

    At least conclusions can actually be TESTED! You say later on in your reply to me that your god can't.

    2. Yes, I know you pointed to other cultures. But you claimed they were able to reason and form conclusions without any knowledge God. How does your question-begging fallacy prove our conclusion wrong?
    Uh, HOW is it "question begging" exactly? Those people have never known of your god. There is absolutely no records of such, and they lived in times and places that predate or were out of reach of "the gospel" at the time.

    That lack of knowledge of your god did not stop them from devising the laws of logic OR mathematical theorems.

    The evidence is in our history, logic and math books. No deity of any kind is mentioned as part of the derivications of their works.

    In other words: there is NO EVIDENCE at all that your god was necessary for them to be able to reason, derive or come up with logical conclusions.

    Yet for some reason, you assert that your god is necessary for that, and when I point out to you that there's no evidence of that, and that your conclusion is therefore wrong I'm the one who's "question begging"??


    The only real question begging is coming up right here:
    Our conclusion is that they know God exists but suppress that knowledge in ungodliness.
    Ta-dah! Question begging plus the inbuilt arrogance of your faith on display right here!

    Thanks for the two-fer, Ryft, I knew you would't disappoint!

    Is there any evidence that they had any knowledge of your god for you to make that conclusion in the first place? You know, a "conclusion" is what comes AFTER one looks at the evidence, it is NOT part of the proposition that you use AS evidence!

    For you to claim that they did not know God exists is to simply beg the very question.
    Those cultures were around either before xianity came along or were in different parts of the world.

    Are you saying that even the Australian aborigines, before christ was born knew of your god? Silly me, of COURSE you are. Why? Your holy book says so. The same holy book who is allegedly the "word" of the "god" whose existence you are arguing for (well, presupposing) in the first place!

    And I'm the one who's "question begging" when I claim that they couldn't have known of your god???

    Isn't the very NAME of your apologetic technique (PRESuppsotional apologetics) just another name for question begging?

    ReplyDelete
  177. Ryft,

    Mike,

    Who said that "only a direct appeal to God can resolve the issue"?


    Dan did in his original post, and Sye said the same a few comments ago. This is Dan's whole point - that two believing Christians can disagree on Bible interpretation and sort it out after death. If this is the case, then the ability to apply the Bible authoritatively to real-world issues is questionable. If you have a concern here, I'd discuss it with Dan and Sye.

    Also, where you say:

    but not so for two Christians who are committed to the principle of sola scriptura and whose interpretation is arrived at by historico-grammatical exegesis of the text (which can be critically evaluated)

    I'm sure you're aware that the evidence is strongly against you on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  178. 3. They reason and form conclusions despite their ¬X view, not because of it.
    Why is it "despite" as opposed to "because"?

    How can you tell the difference? I think that's the problem here: You keep saying that your god is NECESSARY for people to reason and draw conclusions.

    I point out that they did just fine without him, so you cover by saying that they did it "despite" lack of god belief, THEN you accuse me of begging the question. I think it's you who's done that.

    Guess what? If god was truly necessary for people to reason, then those people should NOT have been able to reason. No laws of logic, no mathematical theorems, nothing, period.

    You claimed that therefore (God) was unnecessary. That is non-sequitur because God appears in the conclusion out of nowhere, in an argument that had (not God) in view. That (God) is unnecessary would follow if they reasoned and formed conclusions because of (not God), but it would follow invalidly on account of begging the question.
    Now that I've translated this, guess what?

    YOU are the one who is still "question begging". You are assuming with no evidence whatsoever, that your god is necessary for reasoning. Where is the evidence?

    I've said before that religious beliefs are irrelevant to the process of being able to reason. You have, with no evidence whatsoever, assumed that YOUR GOD is necessary for reasoning. I gave examples otherwise.

    Whether "despite" or "because of" their beliefs, they were still able to do it. If you claim that your god was NECESSARY for people to reason, then they should NOT have been able to, full stop.

    4. Scripture being inerrant and infallible is a separate issue and thus a red herring here.
    Not really. You talk about your god being necessary for people to reason. Any errors in his holy book would kind of shoot that idea down, wouldn't it? After all, how can one with flawed reasoning be the one responsible for the ability TO reason in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  179. 5. That God is self-existent necessary being is not a "re-wording" of God being the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience.
    It is when it's said how you originally said it, remember:

    "Or can you show just HOW God is the necessary precondition for all of that?" (Reynold)
    Certainly. It follows from the aseity and necessity of the transcendent God who creates and sustains reality—without whom nothing would even exist, much less humans and their acts of cognition.

    Certainly looks that way to me.

    6. The truth of God and his word is our axiomatic starting point. The demand to prove an axiom is incoherent; if an assumption can be proved, then it is not axiomatic.
    What if it's "dispoved" then through problems with biblical archeology and basic math and science errors?

    Not a very strong "axiom" then, is it?

    Your demand tacitly denies that our presupposition is an axiomatic starting point, which is an illegitimate move.
    Ok, let's try again. So then it's "illegitimate" move to ask for evidence of your god, because you've just admitted that your god can't be proven?

    Yet it's NOT "illegitimate" to try to convince others of this unprovable axiom?

    It's NOT "illegitimate" to corrupt science classes for it (YEC and IDism)?

    Why do you people just up and assume that this being exists? Yes, yes, he's your "starting position" or whatever, but if there's no proof of his existence then what makes you people think he's real in the first place?

    At least with acts of cognition, those things can be demonstrated.

    7. Muslims and atheists can claim whatever they like, but what does that have to do with our view and argument?
    You threw up a bunch of bible quotes as evidence. I was trying to say: "big deal, other religions can quote their holy books too. Doesn't mean a damned thing if I'm not ALREADY a believer, doesn't it"?

    I'll also point out the fact that one of your arguments, at least according to Sye, is something like "God has revealed himself or (can reveal himself, whatever) to us such that we can be certain of him" and shit like that there. Those other religions shoot that claim down, otherwise they'd all be xians too.

    ReplyDelete
  180. Alex,

    >>Dan, either you or David is wrong about Creationism - which is it?

    Again, missing the entire point of post. We can all agree, even you, that you're wrong about your postulation of God's nonexistence. You know, its the real issue here. Nice deflection attempt though. (I am feeling generous today)

    ReplyDelete
  181. “Could fallible man be wrong about things?”

    Indeed.

    “Like Sye has asked, could you be wrong about everything you think you know?”

    Yes, there’s a miniscule chance that scientists could be wrong about dozens of independent line of scientific evidence that the earth is much, much older than 6,000-10,000 years. We could be wrong about everything.

    Or some fallible men in a more ignorant time could’ve got our planet’s age as wrong as they got our planet’s shape, or our planet’s mobility. Which seems vastly more probable.

    ReplyDelete
  182. Dan

    "Again, missing the entire point of post. We can all agree, even you, that you're wrong about your postulation of God's nonexistence. You know, its the real issue here. Nice deflection attempt though. (I am feeling generous today) "

    I asked you a direct question. You and David disagree about the story of Creation - who do you believe to be wrong?

    And where have I said anything other than I DON'T believe in your god? Nowhere it seems!

    Dan, let's see if you can succeed where Sye failed - to prove that I believe in your god you need to do a few things 1. prove that gods exist, 2. prove that your version of your particular god is the 'right' one, then 3. prove that I believe in your version of your particular god.

    I'll not be holding my breath.

    ReplyDelete
  183. HA! Alex has taken to deleting all my posts on his blog again, and I'm the coward! :-D

    Listen to the latest podcast, where Alex and Jim get taken to the tool shed by Shawn. Their take on morality is particularly brilliant!

    The podcast was uploaded mere hours ago, and since then Alex has posted 5, yes count 'em FIVE posts to try to bury it :-) How telling indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  184. Er, Sye? Three of those five mention the podcast, and tell people where to download it. I've also tweeted about it several times during the evening.

    And as soon as the dude who runs the main site is around it'll be uploaded at the top of the front page there.

    Hardly 'try[ing] to bury it'.

    You think Shawn did well? Is that because he, at times, sounded like a junior you? I take it you didn't get to the bit where he couldn't give us any evidence to support Young Earth Creationism? Or how about the moment when he drops White Hole Cosmology like a hot brick after we pointed out the flaws in that particularly bullshit riddled 'theory'? Or perhaps you missed the part when he accidentally agreed that animals demonstrate altruism, giving clear evidence of the evolutionary origins of morality? And I'm guessing you didn't get any where near the section where we quizzed him at length about his illegal 'charity' collections?

    Sye, you really ought to think a bit more before you type your 'thoughts' on the screen.

    ReplyDelete
  185. And, yes, I am deleting all your posts, because you are a tedious cunt who acts like a child.

    Remember, YOU'RE the one who is refusing to debate me, or even have me as the host of a discussion between you and JC. I notice you're also saying you'll ONLY debate BoB if he allows you to use the TAG.

    Yeah, Sye, when we look at it, it's clear who the coward is.

    ReplyDelete
  186. "Remember, YOU'RE the one who is refusing to debate me"

    What colour is the sky in your world Alex?

    Yeah, Sye, when we look at it, it's clear who the coward is."

    Indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  187. I notice you've shut up about Shawn now. I was just listening back, felt quite sorry for the poor chap.

    "Indeed."

    Ah, a moment of accurate self assessment there Sye? Realised that you're a craven coward with some kind of weird mania? Figures.

    ReplyDelete
  188. "Realised that you're a craven coward with some kind of weird mania?"

    Alex: "I NEVER shy away from any challenge."
    Me: "I challenge you to a formal debate."
    Alex: (deletes comment then shies away from formal debate).

    Pretty obvious there Alex.

    ReplyDelete
  189. Reynold,

    1. After I carefully explain how it is question-begging, you ask me how it is question-begging. Really? Are you being obtuse or do you really not understand this fallacy and how it is committed? We argue from X that they know God exists, and your devastating refutation is, "No they don't." Seriously? If you want to clearly see how you are begging the question, then argue from X that they do not know God exists. (This is called an internal critique.) If all it takes to refute a conclusion is asserting its antithesis, then truth is meaningless and so is your argument.

    2. Of course God is not invoked in their reasoning. Given that they suppress knowledge of him in their ungodliness, one should not be surprised that he is not invoked. What is the point of telling us something that our argument already admits? Yes, they can devise the laws of logic, but it is despite their ¬X, not because of it. They use concepts while ignoring, contradicting, or denying the validity of that which those concepts logically and metaphysically depend upon (i.e., intellectual capital unconsciously borrowed from their intrinsic knowledge of God).

    3. I said that "our conclusion is that they know God exists but suppress that knowledge in ungodliness," and you embarrassingly crowed that this is question-begging. No it is not, sir, because the fact that they know God exists but suppress that knowledge in ungodliness is not a conclusion we assume in order to reach it. What we assume is the truth of God and his word; from that we reason from the preponderance of evidence in Scripture to our conclusion. That is not circular, for the P that we conclude is different from the X that we assume.

    4. While this or that culture may have been around prior to Christianity, they were not prior to the God whose image they bear. Our argument has never been that they knew Christianity but suppressed that knowledge.

    5. "Are you saying that even the Australian aborigines, before Christ was born, knew of your God?" you asked. "Silly me, of course you are. Why? Your holy book says so—the same holy book [that] is allegedly the 'word' of the 'God' whose existence you are presupposing in the first place!" Finally, you validly said something correct.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Reynold (cont'd),

    6. "Isn't the very name of your apologetic technique (presuppositional) just another name for question-begging?" Not even close.

    7. "If God was truly necessary for people to reason, then those people should not have been able to reason [apart from him]." That is correct. Since God is necessary for people to reason, those people were not able to reason apart from him. They had to unconsciously borrow intellectual capital not accounted for by their belief system, which was accessible to their noetic functioning by virtue of their being imago Dei. The evidence for this is all over Scripture, starting with Romans 1:18–21. (Sure, on your view that does not qualify as evidence, but what does that have to do with our view and argument?)

    8. You said that I am begging the question because I am "assuming with no evidence whatsoever that God is necessary for reasoning." First, I hate to break it to you but assuming something without evidence does not constitute the fallacy of begging the question; that is, assuming something without evidence is not circular. Perhaps that is why you do not see how you had committed that fallacy, because apparently you do not even understand it in the first place. Second, I am not assuming that they know God exists but suppress that knowledge in ungodliness. What I am assuming is the truth of God and his word; from that I reason from the preponderance of evidence in Scripture to my conclusion. That is not circular, for the P that I conclude is different from the X that I assume.

    9. If you want to prove our X false, then you will have to do so without assuming ¬X. Refuting a view takes more work than simply assuming its antithesis.

    10. We do not convince others of the truth of God and his word. God does that. What we do is proclaim the truth, defend it, and expose falsehoods. God does the convincing. As Scripture says, one plants and another waters but it is God who makes it grow (in reference to the seed of his word).

    ReplyDelete
  191. JC,

    Good thing that is not what I was suggesting, then.

    And no, two different interpretations of a text is not a "problem," neither is five or eight interpretations. The problem arises when any one of them (or all of them) claims to be the correct interpretation. That invokes the issues of authority and hermeneutic principle; this is why I indicated that claiming to be guided by God is insufficient, for a person can claim anything they like. But this gets into deep issues like the theological doctrine of Scripture and I am not going to wander that far afield in this comments thread. See the first chapter of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith for a summary of my view on this issue.

    Alex,

    Dan believes that I am the one who is wrong. However, he is also open to the idea that he might actually be the one who is.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Ryft
    1. After I carefully explain how it is question-begging, you ask me how it is question-begging. Really? Are you being obtuse or do you really not understand this fallacy and how it is committed? We argue from X that they know God exists, and your devastating refutation is, "No they don't." Seriously? If you want to clearly see how you are begging the question, then argue from X that they do not know God exists. (This is called an internal critique.)
    Don't have to. That's the point that I'm trying to get across: There is NOTHING in history or literature to indicate that those people knew that your god exists. NOTHING. This is not a matter for "internal critique".

    I look at the historical evidence that we have of them. You just blindly asserted something without giving a shred of evidence. YOU are the one question begging.

    I mentioned about looking at literature, history and their theorems to look for your assertion that those people somehow knew that your god exists. They worshipped other gods. Even Paul knew that when he went to preach to those poor sods. I'm sure you know the relevent verses.

    If after all that, you claim that they knew that your god existed and also relied on him to be able to reason, it falls on YOU to show it!

    Where is the evidence AT ALL for your blind assertion that those people KNEW that your god existed much less that they relied on your god to be able to reason.


    If all it takes to refute a conclusion is asserting its antithesis, then truth is meaningless and so is your argument.
    If all it takes to assume a conclusion (the ancient greeks, etc, etc KNEW that the xian god exists) and assert that conclusion WITHOUT any evidence what so ever, then YES, truth IS meaningless as is your argument.

    I tried to explain that there is absolutely NO FICKING evidence for your assertion: NONE. No evidence that they knew that your god even existed, much less somehow RELIED on him for their ability to reason.

    I pointed out that they made theorems etc. with no evidence that they knew about your god. You have to show that they did, and that they relied on him somehow to be able to reason.

    I keep asking you: Where is the evidence for that assertion of yours? You NEVER answer, and you never will.


    I tried several times to explain to you why: YOU are the one question begging by automatically assuming that your god exists and using that presup bullshit to justify it. You claim that your god is NECESSARY for people to be able to reason at all.

    I gave counter-examples. You have been proven wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  193. 2. Of course God is not invoked in their reasoning. Given that they suppress knowledge of him in their ungodliness, one should not be surprised that he is not invoked.
    And again what is your evidence that they "knew" that YOUR god existed?

    Do you have anything besides assertions without a shred of fucking evidence to back you up???

    Furthermore, you take the classic xian arrogant attitude that somehow EVERYONE must know of your god's existece, BUT that they "suppressing" it because of their "sin".

    Get off. That's nothing but an ad-hom attack by the same book that has talking animals in it. Evidence, now.

    What is the point of telling us something that our argument already admits? Yes, they can devise the laws of logic, but it is despite their ¬X, not because of it. They use concepts while ignoring, contradicting, or denying the validity of that which those concepts logically and metaphysically depend upon (i.e., intellectual capital unconsciously borrowed from their intrinsic knowledge of God).
    And yet again MORE baseless, evidence-free presupper bullshit assertions. WHAT "intrinsic" knowledge of god? "Unconsiously borrowed"? Even though they've "suppressed" it? Seriously, don't you see how many unproven assertions you're stringing up here?

    SHOW us how your god is the basis for logic please.

    Fuck...and you complain about ME "question begging"? Holy shit.

    ReplyDelete
  194. 4. While this or that culture may have been around prior to Christianity, they were not prior to the God whose image they bear. Our argument has never been that they knew Christianity but suppressed that knowledge.
    Evidence please. NOT more of your presup question begging.

    5. "Are you saying that even the Australian aborigines, before Christ was born, knew of your God?" you asked. "Silly me, of course you are. Why? Your holy book says so—the same holy book [that] is allegedly the 'word' of the 'God' whose existence you are presupposing in the first place!"

    Finally, you validly said something correct.
    Yeah. This is what it looks like when a xian gives up on evidence, turns his brain OFF and just blindly assumes that HIS faith is the right faith.

    ReplyDelete
  195. You know what? I think I just might have had enough of Ryft, at least for now. He's beyond evidence and reason.

    You can't talk about evidence with a presupper, so maybe I'll do something more useful with my time. Well, besides posting the odd link to this bullshit so that other people can see how stupid apologetics can get once they realize that the evidence isn't on their side...

    ReplyDelete
  196. Ryft said:

    And no, two different interpretations of a text is not a "problem," neither is five or eight interpretations. The problem arises when any one of them (or all of them) claims to be the correct interpretation. That invokes the issues of authority and hermeneutic principle; this is why I indicated that claiming to be guided by God is insufficient, for a person can claim anything they like.

    So when Dan says that atheists are going to hell, or someone says that the Bible says that homosexuality is immoral, or abortion is wrong - I can point out that that's just a personal view and doesn't reflect an absolute moral code or anything.

    Makes sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  197. Problem for what Ryft said though: All of them always claim to be the "correct interpretation".

    How is it that this "god" who is supposed to be the basis for knowledge, reasoning, etc, can't seem to have made a simple BOOK that would get the right message across?

    To me, the many interpretations of things like do babies go to hell or not as well as the many xian denominations out there is evidence that the xian god even if he exists, is NOT the foundation for knowledge, reasoning, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  198.      "On our presuppositions, it being 'an empirical fact' that you do not know God exists is both unintelligible and necessarily false."
         Your assumptions are then inconsistent. A falsehood is necessarily intelligible. If we cannot understand something, we cannot identify it as true or false.
         "What is being disputed is that [] [g]od exists; that is the question which should not be begged."
         I fixed it for you. The existence or non-existence of your god is the issue under dispute. It is your belief that it does exist. And it is my belief that it does not.
         "We are not begging the question, because the fact that you know [g]od exists but suppress that knowledge in ungodliness is not a conclusion we assume in order to reach it."
         That's not the conclusion that you are trying to reach. The conclusion that you are trying to reach is that your god exists. That I do not believe it exists is empirically evident from the mere fact that we are having this discussion. As you keep trying to insert the claim that your god exists (and that it wrote the bible) as a premise, you are indeed begging the question.
         "We are also not guilty of ipse dixit."
         Of course you are. The phrase ipse dixit literally means "it said so, itself." You are citing the bible and the fact that it said so, itself as a reason to believe things. And I should point out that you have not been using multiple lines of evidence. You have been using the say-so of your bible to the exclusion of evidence. It would be hard to be more guilty of ipse dixit.

    ReplyDelete
  199. After that aspersive meltdown, Reynold decides he is done with me. Since he refuses to deal honestly with what I actually said, I shall return the favor.

    Mike,

    If it is "a personal view and doesn't reflect an absolute moral code or anything," then you can point to it as such. But if it is a conclusion drawn from an historico-grammatical exegesis of the text consistent with the Reformed theological doctrine of Scripture, you will have to deal with that.

    ReplyDelete

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