December 8, 2012

Inconsistent Worldview

If any of you wonder why we ask, "Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how?" to the Atheists, here is the explanation behind it all. Dr. Chris Bolt did such a nice job over at Choosing Hats articulating it, that I can only play ode to the post by linking to it. So, I hope you read it.

The Consistently Inconsistent Worldview Objection

by C.L. Bolt on November 29, 2012


Suppose someone posits that his or her worldview is consistently inconsistent. He or she admits that there are many inconsistencies within the worldview. In this case, inconsistency is not something to be shunned. Inconsistency is to be affirmed. Embraced. Granted approval. Are there such worldviews? Yes. There are worldviews that come close to rejecting the need for consistency. Buddhism and postmodernism are two examples. How might the covenantal apologist respond?

 First, an inconsistency-affirming worldview is also consistency-affirming. There is nothing more inconsistent with inconsistency than consistency. To be consistent... [Click to read more]

48 comments:

  1.      I don't wonder about it. I recognize it for the dishonest tactic that it is. I have no desire to read any excuses for using the deception. I will state point blank: Anyone who uses that line or pretends it is somehow valid does not believe what he is trying to get his "mark" to accept through the use of that line. You, Dan, use that line because you do not believe the bible to be true or its god to be real. If you did, you would give evidence. You would not say "are you certain of that? How can you know for certain?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> You, Dan, use that line because you do not believe the bible to be true or its god to be real.

      And you're certain of this? Or, more accurately, you're projecting?

      Delete
    2. >>Such a coward...

      Ahh, projecting. Got it. :7)

      Delete
    3. Your unwillingness to honestly answer a question is my projection?

      Dan, how does your behavior on this blog bring the lost, or give glory, to Christ?

      Delete
    4. >>Dan, how does your behavior on this blog bring the lost, or give glory, to Christ?

      What moral law, or standard, are you appealing to in order to make this claim?

      Delete
    5. >>Your unwillingness to honestly answer a question is my projection?

      I was thinking it was more of a Psychological projection on your part.

      To continue the thought though, please learn the group's intentions. Maybe this will help:

      "For though we live in the body, we do not wage war in an unspiritual way, since the weapons of our warfare are not worldly, but are powerful through God for the demolition of strongholds. We demolish arguments and every high-minded thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to obey Christ. And we are ready to punish any disobedience, once your obedience has been confirmed." ~2 Corinthians 10:3-6

      "If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for." ~C.H. Spurgeon

      Delete
    6. What moral law, or standard, are you appealing to in order to make this claim?
      Point to the claim I made.

      And answer the question, coward.

      Delete
  2.      You do not give evidence and instead play the "are you certain" card. Inasmuch as certainty has any meaning, I am certain you do not believe in your god, for the reasons I have stated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Couldn't you? How do you know that things like "divine revelation" are valid?

      Delete
    2. Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it.

      Delete
    3. My revelation says your revelation is wrong, and I'm 100% certain of that. Therefore you must accept my revelation - it's given to all of us so that we may be certain.

      Delete
    4. Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it.
      Uh, Dan? You do realize that I asked you how you know that divine revelation is real, and you answered by saying that you know divine revelation is real because of: Divine Revelation.

      Also, why the capitalized "WE"? I sure as fucking hell never got any such revelation.

      Delete
  3. Dan:

         If you think I am wrong, present some evidence. Otherwise, the hypothetical is not worthy of an answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, so you're not certain and could be wrong then. Otherwise you would not say that. Got it.

      Delete
  4. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/11/north-korea-says-they-unearthed-unicorn-lair/59483/

    Gentlemen, we now have official evidence of unicorns.

    It is surely only a matter of time before we have evidence that the invisible fairy in the sky decided to turn itself into a man in the ancient Middle East desert two thousand years ago for the ultimate purpose of allowing himself to be hung to a tree and savagely tortured to death by a superstitious bunch of ignorant peasants in the most disgusting manner possible as a blood atonement for the apparent sins of his own creation.

    Let's all take a moment and pray that this preposterous, idiotic, asinine, Neanderthal bunch of superstitious bullshit is actually true.

    Praise Jebus. Praise his holy fucking name. And fuck this blood sacrifice, Cro-Magnon bullshit. Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ahh - yes. The "all worldviews are equally flawed so mine is obviously true, because I said so" gambit.

    Once again, Dan fails to accept that Zeus is the supreme being, even though all these arguments work for Zeus as much as anyone else. I haven't heard Dan make an effort to deny this.

    He flounders in darkness, while I know that Zeus exists because He tells me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike just gave up being an Atheist, and becomes a theist. Atheist debunked?

      Delete
  6. And I'm claiming that your entire worldview is wrong and Zeus is superior, and I haven't seen an argument yet. Christian debunked?

    Do you also agree that Islam is superior to your religion? How about Wicca? Satanism? Buddhism? Scientology? Let me know where you think Christianity ranks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Christian debunked?
    Dan did that for us years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan:

         "Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it."

         Got a frog in your pocket? Or are you using the royal "we"? None of the rest of us seem to have received this revelation. And even if I believed you weren't lying about your "revelation," a sufficiently powerful being could "reveal" a lie to you such that you would say you were certain it was true. You will not admit that your position can be wrong. And that is why I consider you asking me if I can be wrong to be disingenuous. The liar who pretends infallibility is trying to abuse the admitted fallibility of the honest.

         "If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for."

         That rings a little hollow. The Presuppositional Baloney that you use makes your "warning" look like a big joke. Give us reason to believe what you say. Don't lie and say that we already believe but are "denying the truth in unrighteousness." Give us evidence!! But you won't, or, more likely, can't.

    ReplyDelete
  9. D.A.N. said

    to Whateverman's question:

    >>Dan, how does your behavior on this blog bring the lost, or give glory, to Christ?

    What moral law, or standard, are you appealing to in order to make this claim?

    What a bizarre non-sequitur. Whateverman made no claim. He asked you a question. Are you so wedded to your presuppositional script that you can no longer see the difference?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh come on! Granted, I smiled at your point, but he was appealing to a standard, and judging, to bring it up in a "gotcha" moment. You are not going to be THAT difficult, are you?

      But, thinking about it, to answer that question I feel strange to think I bring any glory to Christ at all, with my wretchedness. So the answer is "I don't believe I do." Maybe my lashing out at Wem was the knee jerk reaction knowing I had nothing positive to offer.

      But, I doubt I will ever divorce Presup, it was love at first sight.

      Delete
    2. he was appealing to a standardand judging
      How is asking a question "judging"?

      to bring it up in a "gotcha" moment
      What does timing have to do with my question? Sounds like someone felt convicted by his own worldview...

      Delete
  10. D.A.N. said (for the umpteenth time)

    Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it.

    And, also for the umpteenth time, I ask "How?".

    It seems the only logical way you could be 100% certain is if God granted you omniscience - remember, it is your claim that absolute certainty requires omniscience. And yet you concede you are not omniscient. So, how are you absolutely certain?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>It seems the only logical way you could be 100% certain is if God granted you omniscience

      Why? You keep barely asserting it, but never have clarified. God certainly reveal certain things to us so we're certain.

      So, as an example, I was the 12th Dr. Who, traveled ahead in time to see who won the world series. I tell you, you bet on the game, and win. Did you need omniscience to know who won?

      Delete
    2.      "Why? You keep barely asserting it, but never have clarified. God certainly reveal certain things to us so we're certain."

           He may not have clarified. But I did. Any sufficiently powerful being could "reveal" a lie to you in such a way that you would say you were certain it was the truth. But it gets worse. You keep saying we already believe your nonsense. We know that's not true.

           There are a few possibilities here. You may be severely deluded. You may be trolling to get an emotional rise. Or you may be lying to get people to believe what you, yourself do not.

      Delete
    3. >> He may not have clarified. But I did. Any sufficiently powerful being could "reveal" a lie to you in such a way that you would say you were certain it was the truth.

      Sorry to burst your Non sequitur, but it is impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being to lie. You are trying to do something that is rendering your position illogical.

      Delete
    4. No it isn't. Read the bible. Remember the story of Samuel being told by god to lie about the reason for his trip to see David's family?

      Delete
    5. D.A.N. said...

      >>It seems the only logical way you could be 100% certain is if God granted you omniscience

      Why?


      Logic.

      You keep barely asserting it, but never have clarified.

      Lol, I've explained it many, many times Dan. It even stems from your claim that absolute certainty requires omniscience. You try for a get out clause by claiming "access to omniscience" but of course you'd need to be omniscient to know the entity you claim to have access too is a) who they claim to be and b) being truthful.

      God certainly reveal certain things to us so we're certain.

      Only by granting you omniscience.

      So, as an example, I was the 12th Dr. Who, traveled ahead in time to see who won the world series. I tell you, you bet on the game, and win. Did you need omniscience to know who won?

      Lol, destroying your own argument. Thank you Dan. As we now don't need omniscience to know things for certain, I'm certain you're wrong about God revealing things to you. How do you know that the entity that you claim keeps revealing things to you isn't Dr. Who as per your example? How do you know it isn't a lying spirit? Or isn't just your own mind acting up? The answer, of course, is that you don't, but that won't stop you from continuing to keep barely asserting that it's God and we're just supposed to take your word for it that something that doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny is really happening.

      Delete
    6. Great, so when the team I told you to bet on wins...it should give you pause. But you're right, in my example I do not have the power as God to tell you thing such you can be certain of it. So, in my scenario, it would come down to...trust.

      Delete
    7. D.A.N. said...

      Great, so when the team I told you to bet on wins...it should give you pause.

      Pause for what? I should jump to the conclusion that you're Dr. Who and have travelled through time to tell me which sports team will win a specific game? Rather than conclude the more likely probability i.e. that you just managed to pick the winner - perhaps through luck, perhaps through studying the form of both teams etc...

      But you're right, in my example I do not have the power as God to tell you thing such you can be certain of it. So, in my scenario, it would come down to...trust.

      What has trust got to do with anything if you've got absolute certainty? Lol, this just gets stranger as we go on. Are you now saying that you simply "trust" that the revelation you claim to be receiving is a) from God and b) true, rather than have absolute certainty of it's source and veracity? Or are you suggesting I should simply trust you when you say you've had a revelation from God, despite the fact that you claim I've had the same revelation when I know that I haven't?

      Delete
    8. >>I should jump to the conclusion that you're Dr. Who and have travelled through time to tell me which sports team will win a specific game?

      Maybe I should of said a larger number, like some 300 games (Prophecies) instead. Maybe you would get the point then?

      >>Are you now saying that you simply "trust" that the revelation you claim to be receiving is a) from God and b) true, rather than have absolute certainty of it's source and veracity?

      Wow are your comprehension skills seriously lacking tonight!

      I said "So, in my scenario, it would come down to...trust." which means since I am not God and don't have the power to relay things such you're certain about it, than you will have to merely trust me and my claims. I certainly do trust in the Lord, but that is not what I was saying. Is that clearer?

      Delete
    9. D.A.N. said...

      >>I should jump to the conclusion that you're Dr. Who and have travelled through time to tell me which sports team will win a specific game?

      Maybe I should of said a larger number, like some 300 games (Prophecies) instead. Maybe you would get the point then?

      It's true that if you were trying to make a point about an extraordinary claim then you should have made the claim extraordinary in the first place. If we did the 300 game scenario I'd be pretty convinced of your claim but I'd also want some evidence that you're actually Dr. Who - possibly with a trip in your TARDIS as some proof. Then I'd be pretty certain that your claim was true. Not 100% though as there remains the possibility that you're not the "actual" Dr. Who but, instead, that you're just someone who has knicked his TARDIS and you're using it for some fancy proselytising.

      Of course your scenario here still doesn't come close to being analogous to the situation you're trying to get us to believe - where God has revealed things to you such that you are certain of them. Mostly because there's no claim of "absolute certainty" here but also because you'd actually be providing evidence of your claims i.e. by appearing to me and conversing with me + having the results and the whole TARDIS trip. Shame your God can't be arsed to do something as mundane as provide evidence of His existence despite allegedly being omnipotent and wanting everyone to believe He's real...

      >>Are you now saying that you simply "trust" that the revelation you claim to be receiving is a) from God and b) true, rather than have absolute certainty of it's source and veracity?

      Wow are your comprehension skills seriously lacking tonight!

      Lol, trying to blame my comprehension for your lack of writing ability. It's your analogy Dan. However, because it isn't at all analogous to the situation at hand (revelation from God) you can hardlyu blame me for getting something different out of your example than you expected.

      I said "So, in my scenario, it would come down to...trust." which means since I am not God and don't have the power to relay things such you're certain about it, than you will have to merely trust me and my claims.

      So why bring up this scenario at all. We were discussing how you could be absolutely certain of a revelation from God whilst not being omniscient yourself. All you've bought up in response is a bizarre episode of Dr. Who which has some decent evidence but still ultimately requires me to trust you.

      Quite unwittingly you've actually made my point for me. I don't have a clue who you are or that the claims you make are, in fact, true, which is exactly the position you are in regarding your revelation from God. You cannot convince me to the point of absolute certainty because my lack of omniscience means there's always the chance that part of the information I'm not privy to contains your true identity and the veracity of your claims i.e. you're actually Dr. Whom and you're only doing this while Dr. Who is off sick with the flu.

      I certainly do trust in the Lord, but that is not what I was saying. Is that clearer?

      Crystal.

      Delete
  11. Dan:

         Lying is not impossible for an omnipotent being. And a being that has that great a control of your perception cannot be independently verified as benevolent.

         Would you like to try a real response? I am not impressed with "Honest John's" claim that he cannot lie. You see, he was lying when he said that. Ultimately, you keep relying on "trust the malevolent liar; he says he's all-good." Yeah, he says that. But he lies when he says that.

         A benevolent being could never perpetrate most of the actions attributed to the god in the bible. If I were to take the bible as even remotely accurate, I would have to conclude that its god was evil.

    ReplyDelete
  12. >>Lying is not impossible for an omnipotent being.

    Strawman. That is not what I said. Read what I said: "it is impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being to lie."

    >>If I were to take the bible as even remotely accurate, I would have to conclude that its god was evil.

    With a moral law, or standard, that does not comport with your worldview. At least you're consistently inconstant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you know about his worldview? He's just pointing out that biblegod is not living up to his own alleged worldview, isn't he?

      Delete
  13. Dan:

         I did read what you said. And I did not create a strawman. You, however, saw fit to ignore part of my response. You left out "And a being that has that great a control of your perception cannot be independently verified as benevolent."
         At the very best, you are relying on your god's own claim that he cannot lie. But, even in that instance, he was lying when he said that.
         I am quite aware that you are using your claim of benevolence to assert that he cannot lie. But that claim is vacuous. You would need to be able to confirm that benevolence outside of your god's ability to twist your perception. And, if he's as powerful as you say, you can't do that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God is the precondition for intelligibility required for your hypothetical. So, once again, it is impossible for God to lie. You assert that it is possible, but that just is not the case logically. Assert away

      Delete
    2. God is the precondition for intelligibility required for your hypothetica
      Huh? What makes you say that? I've never seen "god" in any equation or logical hypothesis.

      So, once again, it is impossible for God to lie.
      Huh? Did you miss the example I pointed out earlier with the prophet Samuael? Also, what about the verse where god sends out a "lying spirit" to others?


      Delete
    3. Screw it...if "god" is the precondition for intelligibility, then let's see you use the bible (his alleged "word") to prove that the earth orbits the sun.

      Delete
  14. Dan:

         More empty assertions? You may as well just be putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la la la la la NOT POSSIBLE la la la la la I CAN'T HEAR YOU la la la la." You're not addressing my argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're not addressing my argument.
      It's the only way he can avoid revealing the flaws in his.

      Delete
  15. Dan:

         Unfortunately, christians have a grand total of zero prophecies going for them. That's right, not a single one.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I couldn't find the part where Colt even STARTS talking about us! As far as I can tell, he was arguing with surrealists and complaining that surrealism doesn't make sense. Duh.

    It's possible that you have misinterpreted "Atheism is not a worldview you idiot" as "Atheism is a worldview but we're inconsistant and we like it that way".

    No. It's not a "worldview". The reason you think we're "inconsistant" is that we are unique human beings not brainwashed automatons. We do not get all of our religious, philosophical and political beliefs from 1 thing and, frankly, pity anyone who does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're building a tall strawman here breh.

      I say "atheistic worldviews", not atheism is a worldview silly.

      Do we need to educate you on differences between adjectives and nouns? You're MISTAKENLY ASSUMING the adjective "Atheistic" is magically turning into the NOUN. It isn't. WORLDVIEW is the NOUN.

      THIS is why God said repentance comes before knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26

      It sure is frustrating though. I'd much rather you beg for your repentance instead of arguing in such a nonsensical and illogical manner.

      I love you buddy. PLEASE beg for that gift of repentance. For ALL of our sake.

      Also, remember the purpose of logic:

      Logic represents a transcendent moral imperative for correct thinking.

      “Folly is a joy to him who lacks sense, but a man of understanding walks straight ahead.” ~Proverbs 15:21

      "I. Logic is the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from incorrect reasoning.
      B. Logic differs from psychology in being a normative or a prescriptive discipline rather than a descriptive discipline.
      1. I.e., it prescribes how one ought to reason; it's not concerned with how one actually does reason.
      2. Logic is concerned with laying down the rules for correct reasoning.
      3. Consequently, logic seeks to distinguish good arguments from poor ones."

      RIGHT or WRONG, CORRECT, and OUGHT are all prescriptive terms. Care to restructure YOUR reasoning about things? More importantly, care to repent? :)

      http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/nature_log.html

      Delete

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