I've been looking at your blog for a while, Dan. I have yet to see you debunk an atheist (your occasional claims of "slam debunked" notwithstanding.) If you ever do debunk an atheist, it really will be something new.
So your computer will probably continue to work normally, but accept the possibility that it could stop working without warning, yes? Certainty that your computer will work isn't necessary to use it or rely on it. This is how normal people live their lives, making decisions based on probability. If the weather channel says that its going to rain tomorrow, most people don't ask, "are you certain?" they understand the weather report is not certain but is based on high probability.
But then people leave comments on your blog and you demand certainty. Apparently certainty is something you demand from everybody else in ever aspect of their life, but you can perform tasks like make posts on your blog, and absolute certainty that the hardware will continue to function properly for you to make a post isn't at all necessary.
So please Dan clear up this mystery, exactly which situations do we require certainty and which ones don't we, and how did you come to that conclusion. And the follow up question is what things are you certain of, which is what I'm really interested in finding out.
>>This is how normal people live their lives, making decisions based on probability.
Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how?
>>So please Dan clear up this mystery, exactly which situations do we require certainty and which ones don't we, and how did you come to that conclusion.
I am asking for the account of the atheistic worldview. Most of the time we get, "It just is" but that would not be good enough if we said "God just is" so I am asking you to account for your perceived valid reasoning.
>>And the follow up question is what things are you certain of, which is what I'm really interested in finding out.
Things that have been revealed to us, like God's existence and trustworthiness of Scriptures, as fine examples.
Now your turn, how do you know your reasoning is valid?
Every time you ask a question like this I have to wonder why I shouldn't just shrug and say "so what?" You already admitted that certainty is not required to rely on your computer hardware, and you probably have other areas in your life that rely on probability rather than certainty. Exactly why is certainty required in this specific case? Which areas require certainty and which ones don't and how did you come to that conclusion?
"that would not be good enough if we said 'God just is'"
You do just say "God just is" with no explanation for his existence.
"Now your turn, how do you know your reasoning is valid?"
I don't. I've made enough mistakes in my life to know my reasoning is not perfect. So are you about to make an arrogant claim to perfection, or can you admit the possibility that your reasoning might be mistaken as well?
There are some things that we can be certain about, I figure: Mathematics and logic. So what? Oh yes, that's right...xians like Dan will try to say that biblegod is the prerequisite for both! Even though the bible has mathematical errors in it!
Right...other than that, it's a nice strawman that Dan has portrayed in his pictures in this post.
>>Even though the bible has mathematical errors in it!
O'rly? Such as? Don't get me wrong, I just wish to flesh this absurd point out...publicly. Maybe you're speaking about typo's from scribes, I don't know. Either way I just want to get on that page of yours for a moment.
An error is an error, Dan...you can't go running around claiming to have a book with no errors in it, and then when they're pointed out to you to claim that "oh, it's a scribal error"!
"Maybe you're speaking about typo's from scribes" is your god not powerful enough to make sure that scribes copying his ONLY revelation to us didn't make mistakes?
"Biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5% and none of these copying errors affects doctrinal truths. Dead Sea Scrolls showed how accurately it was transmitted." ~Contradictions everywhere!
Hmm... so I'm willing to be 99.999% certain about something but not 100%, and you claim that that means I actually know nothing. (Though you've never explained your reasoning.)
But the Bible can be "98.5% pure" and you still insist that means 100% certainty. If you apply the same standard to the Bible that you apply to atheists, you would be forced to admit the Bible is completely worthless.
Furthermore, people have been identifying contradictions in the Bible since the Middle Ages. A lot of them are much bigger than mere spelling errors. In my world, your argument might make sense. You, however, are the one claiming 100% certainty. That's a high standard - just one major contradiction punctures your 100%. And I'm guessing you're perfectly aware of those contradictions too.
I cannot see the problems referenced in either "meme".
On the second, can you point me in the direction of the contradiction (or other problem) in:
1. There is no certainty and 2. I am not certain about "1"
If one recasts the above in terms of truth, of course, it falls to the liar paradox
1. There is no truth 2. "1" is true
But that would require equating truth and certainty. That would lead either to Logical Positivism, idealism, extreme relativism or all three. Do you equate truth and certainty? Or have I missed something?
I just don't understand the first. What "absolutes" are we talking about? You are, at any rate, using a noun. How does one adverbally not believe in a noun? ("So you don't believe in leprechauns/gay marriage/unfounded opinions? Do you leprechaunly/gay marriagely/unfounded opinionly not believe in leprechauns/gay marriage/unfounded opinions?")
If God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses memory and reasoning, then I can make determinations about past events such as where I placed my keys.
You claim to no such avenue. So how do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?
How do you differentiate between "feeling of certainty" and "actual certainty"? For instance, I could be certain that a proposition (A) is true only to find out later that (A) is actually false. Would you consider the certainty I had of (A) a "feeling" or "actual" and how would you know?
>> Would you consider the certainty I had of (A) a "feeling" or "actual" and how would you know?
Same way I can be certain of anything, R E V E L A T I O N.
How am I certain that the revelation is valid? Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it. Since you admit that one can BE certain, then that some feel certain does not defeat actual certainty.
You are avoiding the question. You being certain of anything by "revelation" does not go to the question of how you distinguish between "feeling of certainty" and "actual certainty". How can you show that your certainty of revelation isn't just you "feeling certain" and not "actual certainty".
You do realize also that your statement "How am I certain that the revelation is valid? Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it." is viciously circular.
>> You do realize also that your statement "…" is viciously circular.
Did you use your reasoning to make this determination? Problem is, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular.
Greg Bahnsen writes: ”In the Christian worldview, however, the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. We appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible… … The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises.” ~ (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124.
Now, are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if so, how are you certain of this?
You claim there are two different kinds of certainty; "feeling" and "actual". Instead of avoiding the questions why don't you please explain for us what the difference is and how you can tell one from the other.
I cannot answer any of your questions about certainty until you make clear what you mean by certainty and what the differences are between your two different kinds of certainty. If you provide clarification we can move on.
Dan, It's your claim so I am just asking for you to explain the differences and how you tell one from the other. You appear to not be able to answer since you are going to such great lengths to avoid the question. Please answer so we can move on.
>> You appear to not be able to answer since you are going to such great lengths to avoid the question.
Are you certain I cannot? If so, how?
* It's like an unarmed criminal mocking a policeman for not giving up his gun. The reason for the mockery is obvious, but surely it would be foolish for the cop to hand over his gun.
You have a different view of reality then I do. We find a reality in which God exists, you, on the other hand find a reality where that is not necessarily the case.
You see, in our reality, we can attribute things to God whom we know exists, you cannot. For example, if someone asks if X is "good," we can make this determination by seeing whether or not it comports with God's revealed character according to our reality. You, necessarily have another standard for goodness in your version of reality. Both cannot be "true" at the same time and in the same way.
So when I, for example, say that worshiping idols is bad, and you say that it is not bad, how do you determine which is the correct answer since we appeal to different realities?
How do you know whose reality is the right reality?
Dan is actually not able to provide a solid definition of any of this, because deep down he knows that he will be torn to shreds as soon as he tries.
Which is why he keeps repeating his weasel phrase about how we know what we know over and over. And while we wait, let's see if Dan has finally figured out why it would be wrong to marry a 12-year old. My moral code has a very clear reason; Dan's has no response.
Now, are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if so, how are you certain of this?
god, if existing, could possibly reveal things to you. However, the only one who could be certain is god. You are human like the rest of us; how do you know that god isn't lying to you?
So when I, for example, say that worshiping idols is bad, and you say that it is not bad, how do you determine which is the correct answer since we appeal to different realities?
Nope. I say that worshiping idols is pointless because in the collective experience of humans worshiping idols has produced zip. Am I 100% certain? Nope, but that 99.999% certainty tells me that I can live my life with an extremely low possibility of any idol-related events impacting me. And this is actually the approach you use for the vast majority of your decisions in everyday life too, yet somehow it's not valid when I do it.
>> And while we wait, let's see if Dan has finally figured out why it would be wrong to marry a 12-year old.
Finally?
>> My moral code has a very clear reason; Dan's has no response.
First, are you certain I have no response? If so, how?
To answer, God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, conscience, memory, and reasoning such that I can make determinations such as the age appropriate enough to marry.
>> You are human like the rest of us; how do you know that god isn't lying to you?
Because an omniscient, omnipotent being revealed that He isn't.
Oh and are you absolutely certain about the barely asserted 99.999% certainty?
Yes, DAN, we are through (below). Vapid fallacies need not be addressed. I was just establishing that your memes were vapid fallacies.
I thought, though, that I'd point this out for the benefit of others:
"We find a reality in which God exists, you, on the other hand find a reality where that is not necessarily the case."
Here we see how little difference there is between relativism and presuppositionalism. Both have a badly articulated belief that propositions are made true by the reasons ("justification") an epistemological agent has for holding that proposition.
Now if you also accept that a proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to reality it follows that reality is dependant on the reasons an epistemological agent has to hold propositions. DAN has different reasons to believe things from JC, hence DAN believes that there are, at least, two realities: DAN's and JC's.
Presuppositionalists just go a stage further than most relativists and hold that amongst those "realities" is a "real" one (yes, I know it makes no sense, but there you go).
You seem unable to answer my question about certainty so I can only assume at this point that you regret your initial statement that there are two different kinds of certainty. I don't see how you can claim any special standing by claiming certainty when you cannot even explain what it is and why it is necessary.
You asked earlier: "Are you certain I cannot? If so, how?"
Yes I am certain you cannot answer because you have demonstrated your inability to do so.
I have addressed all your questions but you have not addressed mine. I asked, is something relatively true or true? I even explained why I ask this of you. The avoidence is clear here when others read above. You refuse to address the key points.
To recap, you are confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty. One cannot BE certain of something that is not true.
Now, either go run and hide or answer my question: How do you know whose reality is the right reality?
>> Yes I am certain you cannot answer because you have demonstrated your inability to do so.
The above claim is a FEELING of certainty, not actual certainty, as you were mistaken or denied that I did address the question above. Thanks for helping to expose your reasoning failures.
You have not answered the question so here it is again: how you distinguish between "feeling of certainty" and "actual certainty".
As for your first question, something is either true or it is not (law of excluded middle).
Your second question is probably not specific enough. There is only one reality so there is no right or wrong reality. You may be confusing reality it interpretations of reality.
>> You have not answered the question so here it is again: how you distinguish between "feeling of certainty" and "actual certainty".
I am doing my best to help you along in finding the truth. If you knew truth you would not wonder about such things. Actual certainty can only be from divine revelation. Otherwise it is just feeling, or guessing, you're right. We distinguish by revelation from God.
This is also why I asked: How do you know whose reality is the right reality?
The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.
Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?
Your only answer is : I don't. As your reality does not allow for a Creator.
>>As for your first question, something is either true or it is not (law of excluded middle).
Great so you understand that truth is absolute. How do you account for absolutes in your atheistic worldview?
>> You may be confusing reality it interpretations of reality.
Fine, we will run with that. How do you know your interpretation of reality is valid? Could you be wrong about everything you think you know? If not, why not?
After: "I am doing my best to help you along in finding the truth." I should of added,
Keep in mind that Eve did that vary same thing by relying on her autonomous reasoning and look where that got her. She took what God said and what the Satan said and weighed them to her own rational...
So... you can make up your own mind about moral issues because God says you can. So if I was a committed and sincere Christian and I felt that it was OK to marry a 12 year old that would be fine? After all, Jesus might have married one if he had married. If it's good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me.
And you know God gives you this permission because he says so. Even you would have to admit this is a pretty weak argument.
Also, you keep demanding that I show 100% certainty for something. Yet you fail to show that something less than certainty is meaningless. In my world, 100% certainty is a bad thing. It blocks progress, creates bad decisions, and flies planes into buildings. So go ahead and keep asking if I'm certain - when I reply no, that's a strength. Just as Eve made the right choice - knowledge is better than ignorance.
>>So if I was a committed and sincere Christian and I felt that it was OK to marry a 12 year old that would be fine?
Would you believe it to be "just fine" as a Christian? Hardly. That being said, professing Christians believe all sorts of things. Remember, doing blow off a male hooker's butt was perfectly acceptable to Haggard as a professing Christian. All the way to the point he got caught. Then the repentance kicked in. We Christians know that is wrong.
>>It blocks progress, creates bad decisions, and flies planes into buildings.
Are you certain about even this? If so, how?
>>knowledge is better than ignorance
Are you certain of that? If so, how?
(Resume ducking - with obfuscation).
"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his opinion."~ Proverbs 18:2
Would you believe it to be "just fine" as a Christian? Hardly. That being said, professing Christians believe all sorts of things. Remember, doing blow off a male hooker's butt was perfectly acceptable to Haggard as a professing Christian. All the way to the point he got caught. Then the repentance kicked in. We Christians know that is wrong.
There are examples of contemporary Christians believing that marriage to 12-14 year old girls is ordained by God - see FLDS. However, even if this is a minority view now, it was reasonable and accepted for Christians to marry 12-year olds from biblical times until fairly recently. So if "we Christians know it is wrong" now, why was it not wrong then? This is not a case of "oops" and then repenting; these are cases of "no qualms and everybody's OK with it". Why did God change his mind?
>>It blocks progress, creates bad decisions, and flies planes into buildings.
Are you certain about even this? If so, how?
I am certain enough to consider it valid knowledge based on my experience/observations and the experience of others. The difference is that I am willing to change my understanding on this if new knowledge presents itself; you, on the other hand, can only maintain your worldview by claiming 100% certainty and simultaneously ignoring any new information that threatens that certainty.
>> The difference is that I am willing to change my understanding on this if new knowledge presents itself
Then you don't know it for certain. You are confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty. One cannot BE certain of something which is not true. Since you admit that one can BE certain, then that some feel certain does not defeat actual certainty.
Threatens that certainty? You cannot be certain of something that isn't true. Your point fails basic logic.
Hmm - still sidestepping the question of why God changed his mind on pedophilia.
Until you can a) clearly define the difference between a feeling of certainty and actual certainty, and b) a process to distinguish between the two that works for everyone, this is just word salad.
But they are an admirable distillation of the presuppositionalist position. It just that the second is utterly vapid and the first makes no sense. Which leads me to think that presuppositionalism is utterly vapid and makes no sense.
The point about truth is that truth does create a contradiction:
1. There is no truth 2. “1” is true
“Knowledge” doesn’t generate the problem. However you define it knowledge is something more than truth and so:
1. Nothing is both true and X 2. “1” is true
No contradiction, “1” can, quite consistently, be true and not X
Well, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that. You see, without such an account you can't justify knowing that I have not already answered all of your questions.
"Well, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that."
Aha! You cannot give a reason why knowledge is needed.
Thought so. Vapid second meme it is then. I notice you haven't even mentioned the first.
"You see, without such an account you can't justify knowing that I have not already answered all of your questions."
Correct. I cannot "justify" knowing that you have not already answered my questions. But you haven't answered them, and that's a cheap diversionary tactic designed to cover up that fact.
What is the problem referred to in the second meme? What is the first meme going on about?
BTW my answers to any of the "how do you know" questions are "I don't, if I am wrong please tell me where I have gone wrong". (EG "How do you know the memes are vapid nonesense?" A: "I don't, please explain what they mean.")
(Sort of like, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw )
Sye Tenbruggencate "The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!"
I shall so enjoy using that argument tonight, it's brilliant. :-)
Well! I'm convinced. Obviously atheism is wrong and I'm now a committed Christian - it's the only possible choice.
BTW - when does the whole homophobia thing kick in? It's been two hours since I read this argument, and I still don't have an issue with gay people. Is it automatic, or do I have to fill out a form or something?
>> Well! I'm convinced. Obviously atheism is wrong and I'm now a committed Christian - it's the only possible choice.
I sure wish there was a "like" button here.
>> BTW - when does the whole homophobia thing kick in? It's been two hours since I read this argument, and I still don't have an issue with gay people. Is it automatic, or do I have to fill out a form or something?
When you repent, you're displaying a willingness to turn away from sin. Sin becomes your enemy when you place your entire trust in Christ. So sexual immorality, drunkenness, and even blasphemy will become deplorable to you. You will move in your Justification to Sanctification. bit.ly/JustandSanct
*Yes, I know I answered seriously to your snarky question. I will remain hopeful that you will repent from that choice and desire to be wicked, Mike.
But Dan, you haven't given an account for knowledge either. You're just guessing. But there it a difference. The "guesses" of the materialist at least make predictions that can be tested for consistency. Your claims of a god state that it can change the rules at any time and deny the possibility of predictions.
>>Liar. You babble something about revelation and then quickly change the topic before an account is given.
I reject the premise of your statement as YOU too already KNOW God. As we have said it's through God's natural and special revelation we know things for certain, such as His existence. My appeal is above and beyond the temporal realm, my knowledge resides in the only place it can reside, in an eternal realm. I DO NOT reason that MY reasoning is valid in such a viciously circular fashion as your atheistic worldview demands. I use the double blind (faith) study of not only relying on my reasoning but appealing to the source where all knowledge resides in the first place.
NOW, you know this also. The revelation is not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible you are still in the world of natural revelation. As Bahnsen said,
"Man was created as the image of God (Gen. 1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:8). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps. 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom. 1:21)—the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9), and so Calvin declares: For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959)." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Booth, Robert (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith
Hilarious how you just quote mine, and ignore all I said, to achieve your ends. You Sir(?)are a fraud.
>>Meaning that you can not provide an account for it.
Are you certain of this? If so, how?
You deny that I have addressed all your questions by speaking of the revelation of God YOU ALREADY KNOW about. But that does not negate said account.
Remember, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging. Now, I don't expect you to like what I write. Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.
Yeah, you use biblegod to "account" for knowledge, even though it's been shown over and over again that his holy book has errors in it.
Yeah, some basis for "knowledge" that is. Ignoring the above problem Dan, would you care to explain just HOW biblegod is supposed to "account" for knowledge?
Yeah, some basis for "knowledge" that is. To what law, or standard, are you gauging that with? Both self-consistency, mathematics and observations of the natural world around us.
Yeah, you use biblegod to "account" for knowledge, even though it's been shown over and over again that his holy book has errors in it. Do you have errors? Are you absolutely certain you are right? In the case of the bible having mathematical and other errors, yes.
How's about dealing with them then instead of dodging and trying to turn it back on me?
...if so, how? How do you account for knowledge? Knowledge is independent of any so-called "gods". It's a function of our brain's working and being able to figure things out and remember them.
Ignoring the above problem Dan, would you care to explain just HOW biblegod is supposed to "account" for knowledge? How does God accounts for knowledge or how I account for God's knowledge? I don't understand the question. How is it that you claim that you can't account for knowledge without your god, even though he has fuck-ups in the bible. Since that's what you're going on about, how can you not understand the question??
I was very happy to see Sye stand his ground and not get into a foolish rabbit hole discussion with Arrogant Atheists.
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." ~Proverbs 26:4-5
Dan, the true arrogance is when people like you come along and claim that those of us who used to be xians were never actually xians in the first place, even though you may know nothing of the former believer who says that.
That is arrogance. And how in the hell is running away like that "standing his ground"? Holy shit! Think about it. He's gotten into those "foolish rabbit hole discussions" with them before...if he hadn't, then Alex and them wouldn't have said for Sye to bring something new to the table.
"Sure I have, many times. I have justified my reasoning in a non viciously circular fassion." No, you haven't. Indeed, you do what you accuse me of doing. You reason that your resoning is valid. Oh, you add the superfluous claim of "revelation." But you are still reasoning that your reasoning is valid. "Giving an account" is using your reasoning. Your stuck with your own vicious circularity. I, instead strike a bottom because, in my worldview, it is incoherent to call for an account of reason. An "account" is reasoning by another name.
Reynold:
"Since that's what you're going on about, how can you not understand the question??" He is caught in a web of his own lies. His only defense is to feign lack of understanding.
He is caught in a web of his own lies. His only defense is to feign lack of understanding.
Not true. He DOES feign ignorance, though between you or me, there are times when I'm unsure as to whether it's feigned or not. However, his primary defense is to require that other people justify their epistemology (instead of simply answering the question he's been asked).
...it's nothing new.
ReplyDeleteI've been looking at your blog for a while, Dan. I have yet to see you debunk an atheist (your occasional claims of "slam debunked" notwithstanding.) If you ever do debunk an atheist, it really will be something new.
ReplyDeleteDan, I have to agree with Pvbs here - you've never once debunked an atheist.
ReplyDeleteIt's sad that your blog comes to this, Dan.
ReplyDeleteWhat too busy to do a post, and because I am taking my kids to the beach? It is what it is.
DeleteEven the Atheists need a break from the berating, so step away from the keyboard, go to the beach, and enjoy the gifts of God.
It is what it is.
DeleteWhat "it is" is nothing more than trolling the people who make you feel insecure.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI think he means the imagining that you have debunked anyone.
Dan, how does it feel being absolutely a bell-end?
ReplyDeleteSensitive.
DeleteAlex,
ReplyDeleteDo me a favor, get on your knees and smile like a donut.
Sincerely,
Bell-end
Do ME a favour, Dan - stop being an insufferable halfwit.
DeleteDo me a favour Dan and answer my questions (below)
DeleteHere's a question Dan, are you certain that you're computer will not have a hardware failure while you are trying to post on your blog?
ReplyDeleteNo, not at all Max. Why do you ask?
DeleteSo your computer will probably continue to work normally, but accept the possibility that it could stop working without warning, yes? Certainty that your computer will work isn't necessary to use it or rely on it. This is how normal people live their lives, making decisions based on probability. If the weather channel says that its going to rain tomorrow, most people don't ask, "are you certain?" they understand the weather report is not certain but is based on high probability.
DeleteBut then people leave comments on your blog and you demand certainty. Apparently certainty is something you demand from everybody else in ever aspect of their life, but you can perform tasks like make posts on your blog, and absolute certainty that the hardware will continue to function properly for you to make a post isn't at all necessary.
So please Dan clear up this mystery, exactly which situations do we require certainty and which ones don't we, and how did you come to that conclusion. And the follow up question is what things are you certain of, which is what I'm really interested in finding out.
>>This is how normal people live their lives, making decisions based on probability.
DeleteAre you absolutely certain of that? If so, how?
>>So please Dan clear up this mystery, exactly which situations do we require certainty and which ones don't we, and how did you come to that conclusion.
I am asking for the account of the atheistic worldview. Most of the time we get, "It just is" but that would not be good enough if we said "God just is" so I am asking you to account for your perceived valid reasoning.
>>And the follow up question is what things are you certain of, which is what I'm really interested in finding out.
Things that have been revealed to us, like God's existence and trustworthiness of Scriptures, as fine examples.
Now your turn, how do you know your reasoning is valid?
"Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how?"
DeleteEvery time you ask a question like this I have to wonder why I shouldn't just shrug and say "so what?" You already admitted that certainty is not required to rely on your computer hardware, and you probably have other areas in your life that rely on probability rather than certainty. Exactly why is certainty required in this specific case? Which areas require certainty and which ones don't and how did you come to that conclusion?
"that would not be good enough if we said 'God just is'"
You do just say "God just is" with no explanation for his existence.
"Now your turn, how do you know your reasoning is valid?"
I don't. I've made enough mistakes in my life to know my reasoning is not perfect. So are you about to make an arrogant claim to perfection, or can you admit the possibility that your reasoning might be mistaken as well?
There are some things that we can be certain about, I figure: Mathematics and logic. So what? Oh yes, that's right...xians like Dan will try to say that biblegod is the prerequisite for both! Even though the bible has mathematical errors in it!
ReplyDeleteRight...other than that, it's a nice strawman that Dan has portrayed in his pictures in this post.
>>Even though the bible has mathematical errors in it!
DeleteO'rly? Such as? Don't get me wrong, I just wish to flesh this absurd point out...publicly. Maybe you're speaking about typo's from scribes, I don't know. Either way I just want to get on that page of yours for a moment.
An error is an error, Dan...you can't go running around claiming to have a book with no errors in it, and then when they're pointed out to you to claim that "oh, it's a scribal error"!
Delete"Maybe you're speaking about typo's from scribes" is your god not powerful enough to make sure that scribes copying his ONLY revelation to us didn't make mistakes?
ReplyDelete"Biblical documents are 98.5% textually pure. The 1.5% that is in question is mainly nothing more than spelling errors and occasional word omissions. This reduces any serious textual issues to a fraction of the 1.5% and none of these copying errors affects doctrinal truths. Dead Sea Scrolls showed how accurately it was transmitted." ~Contradictions everywhere!
DeleteHmm... so I'm willing to be 99.999% certain about something but not 100%, and you claim that that means I actually know nothing. (Though you've never explained your reasoning.)
DeleteBut the Bible can be "98.5% pure" and you still insist that means 100% certainty. If you apply the same standard to the Bible that you apply to atheists, you would be forced to admit the Bible is completely worthless.
Furthermore, people have been identifying contradictions in the Bible since the Middle Ages. A lot of them are much bigger than mere spelling errors. In my world, your argument might make sense. You, however, are the one claiming 100% certainty. That's a high standard - just one major contradiction punctures your 100%. And I'm guessing you're perfectly aware of those contradictions too.
Dan, why is your god not powerful enough to ensure that his only revelation is 100% accurate?
DeleteHi
ReplyDeleteI cannot see the problems referenced in either "meme".
On the second, can you point me in the direction of the contradiction (or other problem) in:
1. There is no certainty and
2. I am not certain about "1"
If one recasts the above in terms of truth, of course, it falls to the liar paradox
1. There is no truth
2. "1" is true
But that would require equating truth and certainty. That would lead either to Logical Positivism, idealism, extreme relativism or all three. Do you equate truth and certainty? Or have I missed something?
I just don't understand the first. What "absolutes" are we talking about? You are, at any rate, using a noun. How does one adverbally not believe in a noun? ("So you don't believe in leprechauns/gay marriage/unfounded opinions? Do you leprechaunly/gay marriagely/unfounded opinionly not believe in leprechauns/gay marriage/unfounded opinions?")
I don't have a big problem with the memes either. What I find challenging is that Dan's logic is something like:
Delete1: Do absolutes exist?
2: Yes
3: ergo, sex is a sin.
He tends to leave out some detail between steps 2 and 3.
>> Do you equate truth and certainty?
DeleteNo. I equate knowledge with certainty. I'll show you what I mean: tell me one thing that you know absent certainty?
That being said, truth is absolute and truth is narrow. But don't take the memes too seriously as with some of the other posts, some on the sidebar.
It was a lazy way to get Atheists to think a bit. I was trying to play catch up with some other things and enjoy some time with the kids.
No. I equate knowledge with certainty.
DeleteSo if you're not 100% certain about something, you don't actually know it?
Question: If you can't find your keys in the morning, what do you do? Do you:
a) Wait for god to reveal the location?
b) Sit idle for hours because you can't be sure you know anything so therefore you're not sure what information you can trust?
c) Draw on memory and experience to narrow the possible locations and locate the keys?
truth is absolute
It may be. But I'd like you to define what you mean by 'absolute' and give an example of an absolute truth.
If God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses memory and reasoning, then I can make determinations about past events such as where I placed my keys.
DeleteYou claim to no such avenue. So how do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?
Dan, You said you "equate knowledge with certainty". My question to you then is; can someone be certain about something and be wrong?
Delete>> can someone be certain about something and be wrong?
DeleteOne cannot BE certain of something which is not true. You may be confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty.
How do you differentiate between "feeling of certainty" and "actual certainty"? For instance, I could be certain that a proposition (A) is true only to find out later that (A) is actually false. Would you consider the certainty I had of (A) a "feeling" or "actual" and how would you know?
Delete>> Would you consider the certainty I had of (A) a "feeling" or "actual" and how would you know?
DeleteSame way I can be certain of anything, R E V E L A T I O N.
How am I certain that the revelation is valid? Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it. Since you admit that one can BE certain, then that some feel certain does not defeat actual certainty.
How are you certain of anything?
You are avoiding the question. You being certain of anything by "revelation" does not go to the question of how you distinguish between "feeling of certainty" and "actual certainty". How can you show that your certainty of revelation isn't just you "feeling certain" and not "actual certainty".
DeleteYou do realize also that your statement "How am I certain that the revelation is valid? Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it." is viciously circular.
>> You do realize also that your statement "…" is viciously circular.
DeleteDid you use your reasoning to make this determination? Problem is, you use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular.
Greg Bahnsen writes: ”In the Christian worldview, however, the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. We appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible… … The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises.” ~ (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124.
Now, are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if so, how are you certain of this?
You claim there are two different kinds of certainty; "feeling" and "actual". Instead of avoiding the questions why don't you please explain for us what the difference is and how you can tell one from the other.
DeleteI cannot answer any of your questions about certainty until you make clear what you mean by certainty and what the differences are between your two different kinds of certainty. If you provide clarification we can move on.
>> You claim there are two different kinds of certainty; "feeling" and "actual".
DeleteOnly if you believe in two types of truth. Is something relatively true or true? psst, only one answer is right.
Dan, It's your claim so I am just asking for you to explain the differences and how you tell one from the other. You appear to not be able to answer since you are going to such great lengths to avoid the question. Please answer so we can move on.
Delete>> You appear to not be able to answer since you are going to such great lengths to avoid the question.
DeleteAre you certain I cannot? If so, how?
* It's like an unarmed criminal mocking a policeman for not giving up his gun. The reason for the mockery is obvious, but surely it would be foolish for the cop to hand over his gun.
JC,
DeleteYou have a different view of reality then I do. We find a reality in which God exists, you, on the other hand find a reality where that is not necessarily the case.
You see, in our reality, we can attribute things to God whom we know exists, you cannot. For example, if someone asks if X is "good," we can make this determination by seeing whether or not it comports with God's revealed character according to our reality. You, necessarily have another standard for goodness in your version of reality. Both cannot be "true" at the same time and in the same way.
So when I, for example, say that worshiping idols is bad, and you say that it is not bad, how do you determine which is the correct answer since we appeal to different realities?
How do you know whose reality is the right reality?
Dan is actually not able to provide a solid definition of any of this, because deep down he knows that he will be torn to shreds as soon as he tries.
DeleteWhich is why he keeps repeating his weasel phrase about how we know what we know over and over. And while we wait, let's see if Dan has finally figured out why it would be wrong to marry a 12-year old. My moral code has a very clear reason; Dan's has no response.
Now, are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if so, how are you certain of this?
god, if existing, could possibly reveal things to you. However, the only one who could be certain is god. You are human like the rest of us; how do you know that god isn't lying to you?
So when I, for example, say that worshiping idols is bad, and you say that it is not bad, how do you determine which is the correct answer since we appeal to different realities?
Nope. I say that worshiping idols is pointless because in the collective experience of humans worshiping idols has produced zip. Am I 100% certain? Nope, but that 99.999% certainty tells me that I can live my life with an extremely low possibility of any idol-related events impacting me. And this is actually the approach you use for the vast majority of your decisions in everyday life too, yet somehow it's not valid when I do it.
>> And while we wait, let's see if Dan has finally figured out why it would be wrong to marry a 12-year old.
DeleteFinally?
>> My moral code has a very clear reason; Dan's has no response.
First, are you certain I have no response? If so, how?
To answer, God has revealed to me that I can trust my senses, conscience, memory, and reasoning such that I can make determinations such as the age appropriate enough to marry.
>> You are human like the rest of us; how do you know that god isn't lying to you?
Because an omniscient, omnipotent being revealed that He isn't.
Oh and are you absolutely certain about the barely asserted 99.999% certainty?
Yes, DAN, we are through (below). Vapid fallacies need not be addressed. I was just establishing that your memes were vapid fallacies.
DeleteI thought, though, that I'd point this out for the benefit of others:
"We find a reality in which God exists, you, on the other hand find a reality where that is not necessarily the case."
Here we see how little difference there is between relativism and presuppositionalism. Both have a badly articulated belief that propositions are made true by the reasons ("justification") an epistemological agent has for holding that proposition.
Now if you also accept that a proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to reality it follows that reality is dependant on the reasons an epistemological agent has to hold propositions. DAN has different reasons to believe things from JC, hence DAN believes that there are, at least, two realities: DAN's and JC's.
Presuppositionalists just go a stage further than most relativists and hold that amongst those "realities" is a "real" one (yes, I know it makes no sense, but there you go).
Dan,
DeleteYou seem unable to answer my question about certainty so I can only assume at this point that you regret your initial statement that there are two different kinds of certainty. I don't see how you can claim any special standing by claiming certainty when you cannot even explain what it is and why it is necessary.
You asked earlier: "Are you certain I cannot? If so, how?"
Yes I am certain you cannot answer because you have demonstrated your inability to do so.
I have addressed all your questions but you have not addressed mine. I asked, is something relatively true or true? I even explained why I ask this of you. The avoidence is clear here when others read above. You refuse to address the key points.
DeleteTo recap, you are confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty. One cannot BE certain of something that is not true.
Now, either go run and hide or answer my question: How do you know whose reality is the right reality?
BTW,
Delete>> Yes I am certain you cannot answer because you have demonstrated your inability to do so.
The above claim is a FEELING of certainty, not actual certainty, as you were mistaken or denied that I did address the question above. Thanks for helping to expose your reasoning failures.
You have not answered the question so here it is again: how you distinguish between "feeling of certainty" and "actual certainty".
DeleteAs for your first question, something is either true or it is not (law of excluded middle).
Your second question is probably not specific enough. There is only one reality so there is no right or wrong reality. You may be confusing reality it interpretations of reality.
JC,
Delete>> You have not answered the question so here it is again: how you distinguish between "feeling of certainty" and "actual certainty".
I am doing my best to help you along in finding the truth. If you knew truth you would not wonder about such things. Actual certainty can only be from divine revelation. Otherwise it is just feeling, or guessing, you're right. We distinguish by revelation from God.
This is also why I asked: How do you know whose reality is the right reality?
The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.
Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?
Your only answer is : I don't. As your reality does not allow for a Creator.
>>As for your first question, something is either true or it is not (law of excluded middle).
Great so you understand that truth is absolute. How do you account for absolutes in your atheistic worldview?
>> You may be confusing reality it interpretations of reality.
Fine, we will run with that. How do you know your interpretation of reality is valid? Could you be wrong about everything you think you know? If not, why not?
JC,
DeleteAfter: "I am doing my best to help you along in finding the truth." I should of added,
Keep in mind that Eve did that vary same thing by relying on her autonomous reasoning and look where that got her. She took what God said and what the Satan said and weighed them to her own rational...
So... you can make up your own mind about moral issues because God says you can. So if I was a committed and sincere Christian and I felt that it was OK to marry a 12 year old that would be fine? After all, Jesus might have married one if he had married. If it's good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me.
DeleteAnd you know God gives you this permission because he says so. Even you would have to admit this is a pretty weak argument.
Also, you keep demanding that I show 100% certainty for something. Yet you fail to show that something less than certainty is meaningless. In my world, 100% certainty is a bad thing. It blocks progress, creates bad decisions, and flies planes into buildings. So go ahead and keep asking if I'm certain - when I reply no, that's a strength. Just as Eve made the right choice - knowledge is better than ignorance.
Delete>>So if I was a committed and sincere Christian and I felt that it was OK to marry a 12 year old that would be fine?
DeleteWould you believe it to be "just fine" as a Christian? Hardly. That being said, professing Christians believe all sorts of things. Remember, doing blow off a male hooker's butt was perfectly acceptable to Haggard as a professing Christian. All the way to the point he got caught. Then the repentance kicked in. We Christians know that is wrong.
>>It blocks progress, creates bad decisions, and flies planes into buildings.
Are you certain about even this? If so, how?
>>knowledge is better than ignorance
Are you certain of that? If so, how?
(Resume ducking - with obfuscation).
"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his opinion."~ Proverbs 18:2
Would you believe it to be "just fine" as a Christian? Hardly. That being said, professing Christians believe all sorts of things. Remember, doing blow off a male hooker's butt was perfectly acceptable to Haggard as a professing Christian. All the way to the point he got caught. Then the repentance kicked in. We Christians know that is wrong.
DeleteThere are examples of contemporary Christians believing that marriage to 12-14 year old girls is ordained by God - see FLDS. However, even if this is a minority view now, it was reasonable and accepted for Christians to marry 12-year olds from biblical times until fairly recently. So if "we Christians know it is wrong" now, why was it not wrong then? This is not a case of "oops" and then repenting; these are cases of "no qualms and everybody's OK with it". Why did God change his mind?
>>It blocks progress, creates bad decisions, and flies planes into buildings.
Are you certain about even this? If so, how?
I am certain enough to consider it valid knowledge based on my experience/observations and the experience of others. The difference is that I am willing to change my understanding on this if new knowledge presents itself; you, on the other hand, can only maintain your worldview by claiming 100% certainty and simultaneously ignoring any new information that threatens that certainty.
>> The difference is that I am willing to change my understanding on this if new knowledge presents itself
DeleteThen you don't know it for certain. You are confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty. One cannot BE certain of something which is not true. Since you admit that one can BE certain, then that some feel certain does not defeat actual certainty.
Threatens that certainty? You cannot be certain of something that isn't true. Your point fails basic logic.
Hmm - still sidestepping the question of why God changed his mind on pedophilia.
DeleteUntil you can a) clearly define the difference between a feeling of certainty and actual certainty, and b) a process to distinguish between the two that works for everyone, this is just word salad.
How the mighty have fallen. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=144892132303203&id=1651095715¬if_t=mentions_comment
ReplyDelete“(D)on't take the memes too seriously”
ReplyDeleteBut they are an admirable distillation of the presuppositionalist position. It just that the second is utterly vapid and the first makes no sense. Which leads me to think that presuppositionalism is utterly vapid and makes no sense.
The point about truth is that truth does create a contradiction:
1. There is no truth
2. “1” is true
“Knowledge” doesn’t generate the problem. However you define it knowledge is something more than truth and so:
1. Nothing is both true and X
2. “1” is true
No contradiction, “1” can, quite consistently, be true and not X
>> 1. There is no truth 2. “1” is true
DeleteBoth premises are false. No contradictions here. Any questions?
>> Which leads me to think that presuppositionalism is utterly vapid and makes no sense.
How do you KNOW your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid?
"Any questions?"
DeleteYes, my two initial questions:
What is the problem being illustrated in the second meme? What on earth is the second meme going on about?
That should be "What on earth is the first meme going on about?"
DeleteWell, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that. You see, without such an account you can't justify knowing that I have not already answered all of your questions.
Delete"Well, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that."
DeleteAha! You cannot give a reason why knowledge is needed.
Thought so. Vapid second meme it is then. I notice you haven't even mentioned the first.
"You see, without such an account you can't justify knowing that I have not already answered all of your questions."
Correct. I cannot "justify" knowing that you have not already answered my questions. But you haven't answered them, and that's a cheap diversionary tactic designed to cover up that fact.
What is the problem referred to in the second meme? What is the first meme going on about?
BTW my answers to any of the "how do you know" questions are "I don't, if I am wrong please tell me where I have gone wrong". (EG "How do you know the memes are vapid nonesense?" A: "I don't, please explain what they mean.")
Delete(Sort of like, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw )
vapid nonesense? Fallacies, like a straw man, need not to be addressed. I guess we're through here.
DeleteAs far as that video is concerned, how do you know you're right by taking nateralism as a paradigm? Or is it remaining a "guess" as the video claims?
DeleteDan, from your sidebar
ReplyDeleteSye Tenbruggencate
"The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!"
I shall so enjoy using that argument tonight, it's brilliant. :-)
Well! I'm convinced. Obviously atheism is wrong and I'm now a committed Christian - it's the only possible choice.
DeleteBTW - when does the whole homophobia thing kick in? It's been two hours since I read this argument, and I still don't have an issue with gay people. Is it automatic, or do I have to fill out a form or something?
>> Well! I'm convinced. Obviously atheism is wrong and I'm now a committed Christian - it's the only possible choice.
DeleteI sure wish there was a "like" button here.
>> BTW - when does the whole homophobia thing kick in? It's been two hours since I read this argument, and I still don't have an issue with gay people. Is it automatic, or do I have to fill out a form or something?
When you repent, you're displaying a willingness to turn away from sin. Sin becomes your enemy when you place your entire trust in Christ. So sexual immorality, drunkenness, and even blasphemy will become deplorable to you. You will move in your Justification to Sanctification. bit.ly/JustandSanct
*Yes, I know I answered seriously to your snarky question. I will remain hopeful that you will repent from that choice and desire to be wicked, Mike.
Ahh - so when I truly repent, I become a bigot. Good to keep in mind.
DeleteBut Dan, you haven't given an account for knowledge either. You're just guessing. But there it a difference. The "guesses" of the materialist at least make predictions that can be tested for consistency. Your claims of a god state that it can change the rules at any time and deny the possibility of predictions.
ReplyDelete>> But Dan, you haven't given an account for knowledge either.
DeleteSure I have, many times. I have justified my reasoning in a non viciously circular fassion. You reason your reasoning is valid which is.
You deny this, but at least some people arehonest enough to admit it.
Sure I have, many times
DeleteLiar. You babble something about revelation and then quickly change the topic before an account is given.
>>Liar. You babble something about revelation and then quickly change the topic before an account is given.
DeleteI reject the premise of your statement as YOU too already KNOW God. As we have said it's through God's natural and special revelation we know things for certain, such as His existence. My appeal is above and beyond the temporal realm, my knowledge resides in the only place it can reside, in an eternal realm. I DO NOT reason that MY reasoning is valid in such a viciously circular fashion as your atheistic worldview demands. I use the double blind (faith) study of not only relying on my reasoning but appealing to the source where all knowledge resides in the first place.
NOW, you know this also. The revelation is not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible you are still in the world of natural revelation. As Bahnsen said,
"Man was created as the image of God (Gen. 1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:8). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps. 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom. 1:21)—the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9), and so Calvin declares: For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959)." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Booth, Robert (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith
My appeal is above and beyond the temporal realm
DeleteMeaning that you can not provide an account for it.
Game. Set. Match.
PS. if you're going to troll, you really should learn how to not undercut your own arguments
Hilarious how you just quote mine, and ignore all I said, to achieve your ends. You Sir(?)are a fraud.
Delete>>Meaning that you can not provide an account for it.
Are you certain of this? If so, how?
You deny that I have addressed all your questions by speaking of the revelation of God YOU ALREADY KNOW about. But that does not negate said account.
Remember, assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging. Now, I don't expect you to like what I write. Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for God, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that God does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of God.
Hilarious how you refuse to admit that your rhetoric is flawed.
DeleteKeep shooting yourself in the foot and blaming other people for it, Dan. It shines a bright light upon your integrity.
Yeah, you use biblegod to "account" for knowledge, even though it's been shown over and over again that his holy book has errors in it.
ReplyDeleteYeah, some basis for "knowledge" that is. Ignoring the above problem Dan, would you care to explain just HOW biblegod is supposed to "account" for knowledge?
>>Yeah, you use biblegod to "account" for knowledge, even though it's been shown over and over again that his holy book has errors in it.
DeleteDo you have errors? Are you absolutely certain you are right? if so, how? How do you account for knowledge?
>>Yeah, some basis for "knowledge" that is.
To what law, or standard, are you gauging that with?
>>Ignoring the above problem Dan, would you care to explain just HOW biblegod is supposed to "account" for knowledge?
How does God accounts for knowledge or how I account for God's knowledge? I don't understand the question.
Yeah, some basis for "knowledge" that is.
DeleteTo what law, or standard, are you gauging that with?
Both self-consistency, mathematics and observations of the natural world around us.
Yeah, you use biblegod to "account" for knowledge, even though it's been shown over and over again that his holy book has errors in it.
Do you have errors? Are you absolutely certain you are right?
In the case of the bible having mathematical and other errors, yes.
How's about dealing with them then instead of dodging and trying to turn it back on me?
...if so, how? How do you account for knowledge?
Knowledge is independent of any so-called "gods". It's a function of our brain's working and being able to figure things out and remember them.
Ignoring the above problem Dan, would you care to explain just HOW biblegod is supposed to "account" for knowledge?
How does God accounts for knowledge or how I account for God's knowledge? I don't understand the question.
How is it that you claim that you can't account for knowledge without your god, even though he has fuck-ups in the bible. Since that's what you're going on about, how can you not understand the question??
By the way Dan...that "impossibility of the contrary" bullshit is just an assertion, it's not evidence of anything.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of bullshit, here's Sye TenB taking off from Alex.
I was very happy to see Sye stand his ground and not get into a foolish rabbit hole discussion with Arrogant Atheists.
Delete"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." ~Proverbs 26:4-5
Speaking of...did you see JAMES RANDI?
DeleteJames Randi basically told Sye and Eric that they were juvenile! He made them look like idiots in less than 3 minutes!
DeleteAnd Sye running away from the podcast was just icing on the cake, IMO.
Your boyfriend is looking VERY weak right now, Dan!
Dan, the true arrogance is when people like you come along and claim that those of us who used to be xians were never actually xians in the first place, even though you may know nothing of the former believer who says that.
ReplyDeleteThat is arrogance. And how in the hell is running away like that "standing his ground"? Holy shit! Think about it. He's gotten into those "foolish rabbit hole discussions" with them before...if he hadn't, then Alex and them wouldn't have said for Sye to bring something new to the table.
The "arrogant atheists" link Dan, ends with Bahnsen Burner burning you down, by the way...
ReplyDeleteNow, here's an example of "atheist arrogance".
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Sure I have, many times. I have justified my reasoning in a non viciously circular fassion."
No, you haven't. Indeed, you do what you accuse me of doing. You reason that your resoning is valid. Oh, you add the superfluous claim of "revelation." But you are still reasoning that your reasoning is valid. "Giving an account" is using your reasoning. Your stuck with your own vicious circularity. I, instead strike a bottom because, in my worldview, it is incoherent to call for an account of reason. An "account" is reasoning by another name.
Reynold:
"Since that's what you're going on about, how can you not understand the question??"
He is caught in a web of his own lies. His only defense is to feign lack of understanding.
>> Oh, you add the superfluous claim of "revelation."
DeleteYou might want to check out what you're doing that was already pointed out in an older post of ours.
He is caught in a web of his own lies. His only defense is to feign lack of understanding.
ReplyDeleteNot true. He DOES feign ignorance, though between you or me, there are times when I'm unsure as to whether it's feigned or not. However, his primary defense is to require that other people justify their epistemology (instead of simply answering the question he's been asked).
Dan loves presup because he needs presup.
here you go... richard dawkins debunked!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2_ourzcOlg
ReplyDeleterichard dawkins debunked!!
ReplyDeleteNope. He does get captioned with annoying text, and his opinions broken up with amusing video clips, though.
'Are you absolutely certain of that?' - No.
ReplyDeleteReasonable doubt, that's the answer.
ReplyDelete