December 28, 2012

Praise the Lord!

I cannot think of a more fitting post as the last one of the year, simply as a reflection of what has been going on for these years. We have been discussing things with Atheists for a while now, because we love them after all. Perfect love is a constant confronter.

This is Sye Ten Bruggencate discussing things with an Atheist named Dan Courtney and it reveals, quite eloquently, everything that we are all trying to do here. Praise God.

The Atheists are certainly glorifying God in their defiance, and we're hopeful that they will someday ditch this absurd worldview in repentance, so we all can have great laughs about these times together. For all you Christians out there, please support Sye in his efforts. God willing, we will see more of him in the coming years. We all know how instrumental he has been for me, and this blog.




Please understand that we love you, and are concerned for your railing against the God you know exists.

With that, thanks to everyone on this blog. I have great times here, and I love all of you. I lift a glass of Lemonade to all of you in love. I hope to give all of you here a big hug someday, and hope we all are, or soon will be, repentant in Christ that we all know exists.

Bring 2013 on! Cheers!



bit.ly/PraiseLord

77 comments:

  1. Oh please, not this arrogant bullshit again: your railing against the God you know exists.
    ? Really? How would you deal with say, a Muslim who said that crap to you about you already believing in his god?

    It. Is. Bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, where you said this shit?

      I thought this was an evolutionary survival of the fittest world or at least according to your worldview.

      Seals promote rape so why not us?

      If you were truly living in an evolutionary world you would condone it.

      Uh no. Here's why: The parent has to have emotional bonding with the kid to better raise him/her. Neither the rapist nor the victim will really have that.

      Plus the Bible was making rules of punishment for the heinous crime of rape. Marry the woman you rape.

      Dinner conversations and Christmas with the in-laws would be...Awkward!

      The Bible says that you must right your wrongs about rape. You don't agree?

      Fuck no. The bible makes things worse for the woman!

      Yeah, the poor rapist..."awkward conversations with the in-laws".

      What about the woman he raped? Her entire LIFE is "Awkward"! You complete tool. Just sell the rapist off into slavery or something and give the proceeds to the woman.

      Dan, that link doesn't even answer the bloody problem I brought up in the first place!

      Delete
  2. Has Sye explained how he can be "absolutely certain" when he's not omniscient? No? What a shocker...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having access to an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being certainly could get you to knowledge. You disagree?

      Delete
    2. It could, but as is shown more than once that knowledge is flawed a lot of the time. So, that rules out the bible writers having access to an "omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being".



      Besides, what the hell is so "omnibenevolent" about a being who makes a woman marry her rapist?? Or, for that matter sends the alleged "fallen angels" to earth to let them deceive man instead of just tossing them away where they can't screw with us in the first place? We would still have free will.


      Related to this "omnibenevolent" claim is this article:

      It is also wholly unpersuasive to claim, as some try, that God’s values have always been the same even as he has given his people moral codes that fit their times or their understanding at each of their stages. Such a claim quite conveniently, but with no evidence so unpersuasively, reads divine guidance back into what is observably a haphazard, unguided, organic process of cultural evolution, indistinguishable from other naturally explicable processes of social progress.

      Such a claim leaves us with a truly weird kind of “morally perfect” God who first creates humans totally unequipped by their nature to figure out how to be morally ideal and civilized on their own and then guides them towards greater culture only through the use of barbaric, inferior, training-wheels moral codes which are so crude and awful by ideal standards that in a few thousand years they look outright embodiments of evil.

      Delete
  3.      Personally, I think Dan was more interesting back when he actually believed in his god. Back then, he tried to find things he thought were evidence. Now he just responds with things like "Having access to an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being certainly could get you to knowledge." And he basically claims that his liar doesn't lie because he lied and said he doesn't lie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally, I think Dan was more interesting back when he actually believed in his god.

      I agree completely. Back then he was sincere and more honest.

      Delete
  4. I still give evidence silly. It's just now I say all evidence, even your ability to reason about evidence, is evidence for God.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dan:

         You don't give evidence. You don't even give anything that might plausibly be believed to be evidence. You give nonsense lines like "all evidence, even your ability to reason about evidence, is evidence for god." And that's what tells me you don't believe in your god. There cannot be evidence for your god unless you can identify something that would be evidence against your god. That is the nature of evidence. Anything that is evidence for a belief has a logical counterpart that is evidence against that belief. When we come to conclusions about what is true, we take into considerations which bits of evidence we actually find in reality. If you deny that anything (even things not actually found in reality) could be evidence of your god, you really mean there can be no evidence for your god either. You are not trying to present evidence. You do not believe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspect that Dan does still believe, but since the evidence has continually been shot down, he's latched onto this presuppositionalism stuff as a last ditch psychological ploy to hold onto his faith.

      Delete
  6. D.A.N. said...

    Having access to an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being certainly could get you to knowledge. You disagree?

    No, but then a brain fart could get you to knowledge just as easily. Of course we're not talking about "could". You're claiming that it has - and that that knowledge is absolutely certain. Any chance you'll back up this claim with a real argument anytime soon? One that explains how, despite having gaps in your own knowledge, the actual truth and veracity of any claimed revalation couldn't possibly be in those gaps would be good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> No, but then a brain fart could get you to knowledge just as easily.

      Was that one, with your knowledge claim you just made? D'oh!

      BTW, You get your knowledge that way? :7)

      >> You're claiming that it has - and that that knowledge is absolutely certain. Any chance you'll back up this claim with a real argument anytime soon?

      It certainly has. Do you have evidence for the implicitly positive claim God hasn't revealed Himself to all?

      >> One that explains how, despite having gaps in your own knowledge, the actual truth and veracity of any claimed revalation couldn't possibly be in those gaps would be good.

      Wait a minute! Are you completely misunderstanding the argument? I never have claimed God revealed all things, rendering us omniscient. The claim is God has indeed revealed certain things to us, like His existence, such we can be certain about it. If you disagree, you're going to have to provide that evidence for your claim, that He hasn't.

      Delete
    2. D.A.N. ...

      >> No, but then a brain fart could get you to knowledge just as easily.

      Was that one, with your knowledge claim you just made? D'oh!

      You cited a way we "could" get knowledge. Considering that the knowledge gained in such a way isn't at all certain never mind absolutely so - at least you haven't managed to explain how it is anyway - then pretty much any way "could" be a means of gaining knowledge. That includes imagination, brain farts, hallucinations etc... If you disagree then you're going to have to show how your way leads to absolutely certain knowledge, care to try?

      BTW, You get your knowledge that way? :7)

      Which way? Your uncertain revelation or brain fart? Whilst they're both as valid as each other I'd try to avoid calling anything gained from either "knowledge".

      >> You're claiming that it has - and that that knowledge is absolutely certain. Any chance you'll back up this claim with a real argument anytime soon?

      It certainly has.

      Baseless assertion.

      Do you have evidence for the implicitly positive claim God hasn't revealed Himself to all?

      Shifting the burden of proof. No matter, I haven't received any such revelation and there are others on this blog who have stated that they haven't received any revelation either ergo He hasn't revealed Himself to all.

      >> One that explains how, despite having gaps in your own knowledge, the actual truth and veracity of any claimed revalation couldn't possibly be in those gaps would be good.

      Wait a minute! Are you completely misunderstanding the argument?

      Nope, but I suspect you're about to. I'll leave it up to the individual to decide whether you're doing it deliberately.

      I never have claimed God revealed all things, rendering us omniscient.

      I have never accused you of making such a claim.

      The claim is God has indeed revealed certain things to us, like His existence, such we can be certain about it.

      And I have pointed out that the only way you could be absolutely certain would be for your God to grant you omniscience. In all the time we've been having this same discussion you've never once explained how you could be both absolutely certain AND fallible (i.e. not omniscient).

      If you disagree, you're going to have to provide that evidence for your claim, that He hasn't.

      Shifting the burden of proof again. See my earlier response to this very same question. Now you can present us with the evidence for your explicit claim that He HAS revealed Himself to all and also your argument for how you're absolutely certain while not being omniscient.

      Delete
    3. >>Now you can present us with the evidence for your explicit claim that He HAS revealed Himself to all

      Have, Ad nauseam, Romans 1:18-23 is all the evidence you need, but not the only evidence.

      >>and also your argument for how you're absolutely certain while not being omniscient.

      God cannot lie, and His revelation, such we can be certain about it, even with our fallible mind. Is it now your claim that it is impossible that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being [God], cannot reveal things to a fallible mind such they can be absolutely certain of it, and be correct?

      Delete
    4. "18 For k the wrath of God l is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be m known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, n have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they o became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 p Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and q exchanged the glory of r the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things."

      CONTEXT DAN!! This verse is CLEARLY talking about people who had become idolaters! This has been pointed out dozens of times to idiots quoting these verses, yet you NEVER seem to learn!

      "Is it now your claim that it is impossible that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being [God], cannot reveal things to a fallible mind such they can be absolutely certain of it, and be correct?"

      YES! That's what we've all been claiming all along! IT IS IMPOSSIBLE - from our point of view because that being DOES NOT exist, and from yours because you CANNOT trust anything that being says UNTIL you have trusted it! FUNDIE FAIL!

      Delete
    5. >>This verse is CLEARLY talking about people who had become idolaters!

      You certain? How are you absolutely certain about that, in your atheistic worldview?

      >>IT IS IMPOSSIBLE - from our point of view because that being DOES NOT exist, and from yours because you CANNOT trust anything that being says UNTIL you have trusted it!

      Is it true that God "DOES NOT exist"? Now, besides asking you to provide evidence for that implicitly positive claim, you appear to believe in truth...what is truth?

      Delete
    6. "You certain? How are you absolutely certain about that, in your atheistic worldview?"

      My 'worldview' has NOTHING to do with it, as I base my opinion on the fact that i can FUCKING READ.

      "Is it true that God "DOES NOT exist"? Now, besides asking you to provide evidence for that implicitly positive claim, you appear to believe in truth...what is truth?"

      Yes, it is true that gods do not exist, including your particular version of your particular god.

      Truth is that which conforms to reality.

      BTW, why do you think posting a link to Sye being a dishonest cockbag and ambushing people with meaningless questions is at all relevant to the mess you're in right here?

      Delete
    7. But really, it is entirely evident that you're avoiding answering. Dodger Dan, dodging as usual - nothing ever changes.

      Delete
    8. Dan, it seems that you have not read my reply from earlier.

      As far as the Romans verse goes, I'll just point out that it was observations of the world around us that refuted the young-earth theistic view as opposed to nature itself supporting it.

      Delete
  7. "Having access to an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being certainly could get you to knowledge. You disagree?"

    And how do you know this being is what it claims to be? Answer: YOU DON'T UNLESS YOU ARE ALSO OMNISCIENT AND CAN FACT CHECK IT!! If you aren't you cannot, *by your OWN ARGUMENT*, know for certain that the revelation is genuine!

    As you would say - SLAM DEBUNKED.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you absolutely certain that it is a "slam debunk"? If so, HOW?

      Or are you denying knowledge claims, with a knowledge claim? D'oh!

      Delete
    2. Please explain to us how you can be certain that the revelation is genuine given that you claim that certainty is ONLY available to the omniscient or those who know the omniscient. Remember, until you have confirmed the being revealing to you IS omniscient you have (again, by your OWN argument) NO WAY of knowing if it is telling you the truth.

      D'oh indeed!

      Delete
    3. Well? Going to explain? Or are you going to do your typical 'Dan runs away'?

      Delete
    4. I cannot explain it logically to you because you have already denied that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being certainly could reveal Himself to all. #intellectualdishonesty

      Delete
    5. I've explained to you WHY this being couldn't do these things. Additionally, such a being is logically impossible, as at least two of its characteristics are mutually exclusive.

      So don't try and cite logic when you fail so miserably at it.

      Try again with the explanation, tell me how you can be sure that the being is what it claims to be BEFORE you have proved that it is omniscient and can therefore be trusted - remember, BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT this is apparently impossible.

      Delete
    6. Still waiting Dan, starting to think you genuinely can't answer. Perhaps you should ask your pal Doofusman Seger? He came up with an reply that stretched the bullshit-o-meter to breaking point.....

      Delete
    7. 3 days later and I'm STILL waiting...

      Delete
    8. 4 days later: still waiting for Dan to answer

      Delete
    9. 6 days later, still no reply from Dan

      Delete
    10. A week on, and STILL no reply from Dan

      Delete
    11. 8 days, and Dan continues to fail to address this issue.

      Delete
    12. Are you absolutely certain that I have not replied? If so how are you certain?

      For your benefit, here is what I said, " I cannot explain it logically to you because you have already denied that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being certainly could reveal Himself to all. #intellectualdishonesty"

      Delete
    13. "Are you absolutely certain that I have not replied? If so how are you certain?"

      Yes, because I can read, Dan

      "For your benefit, here is what I said, " I cannot explain it logically to you because you have already denied that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being certainly could reveal Himself to all. #intellectualdishonesty""

      Dan, the reason it is impossible is down to the being described being logically impossible. However, if such a being *could* exist (which it can't) then the ONLY way you could know that the 'revelation' was legitimate would be if that being granted you omniscience to enable you to fact check.

      So, please tell me how you can trust this being before you have been granted the knowledge you claim you need to be able to know ANYTHING.

      You've had more than a week so far, and I'm still waiting for an answer.

      Delete
    14. 9 Days, and all Dan has done so far is restate an irrelevant point from earlier in the conversation. He has still failed to answer my question.

      Delete
    15. >>Dan, the reason it is impossible is down to the being described being logically impossible.

      How? Yes, you assert this, but how?

      >>However, if such a being *could* exist (which it can't) then the ONLY way you could know that the 'revelation' was legitimate would be if that being granted you omniscience to enable you to fact check.

      Are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain without granting omniscience, if so, how are you certain of this?

      >>So, please tell me how you can trust this being before you have been granted the knowledge you claim you need to be able to know ANYTHING.

      What? THAT was your question? You're asking how do I have prior trust in the God who is revealing Himself to me at the time? Is that your question here? It is worded weirdly for me. Can you rephrase that?

      God being the precondition for the intelligibility of any knowledge, is not saying that God revealed that His revelations will be valid and trustworthy prior to said revelation. Again, I am not understanding your question maybe. A clarification would be needed to further your request of an explanation.

      Delete
    16. Dan, are you retarded? Or are you just being deliberately thick in an attempt to avoid having to answer a question you are completely flummoxed by?

      "God being the precondition for the intelligibility of any knowledge, is not saying that God revealed that His revelations will be valid and trustworthy prior to said revelation."

      So, you are now saying that your god does NOT reveal the truth of his revelation BEFORE the revelation takes place? That you HAVE to go through the revelation to be able to then have access to absolute certainty? OK, that completely fucks your point of view then, as you claim absolute certainty of ANYTHING is impossible without this revelation.

      With that in mind I'll ask you again - how do you know PRIOR to the revelation that the being claiming to be your god actually IS? Remember, you've told me that you cannot know anything with any certainty WITHOUT revelation. So how do you decide that the being that is claiming that it is your god actually is?

      Do you accept that a being of sufficient power could fool you into thinking you'd had a revelation from your particular version of your particular god?

      Delete
    17. As for you other question -

      ">>Dan, the reason it is impossible is down to the being described being logically impossible.

      How? Yes, you assert this, but how? "

      It is impossible to be simultaneously all knowing and all powerful, as having one characteristic prevents the possession of the other characteristic. Put bluntly if your god is all knowing then he knows what he is going to do next, with 100% accuracy, stretching ahead for eternity, meaning that he can never ever change his mind.

      Now, you're no doubt going to fire back with a new definition of 'all powerful' or 'all knowing' that stops either meaning 'all powerful' or 'all knowing' - I'm guessing you'll say something like 'God cannot do that which is logically impossible, or that ultimate power cannot do', yet what I've described is NOT logically impossible, and the ability to change one's mind is NOT outside the realms of 'ultimate power'....hell, I can change my mind, why can't your god?

      You've had this explained to you by literally dozens of us literally dozens of times, but you're so fucking mentally broken that you're unable to acknowledge the gaping holes in your 'worldview'.

      Delete
    18. Do you hinge your worldview on this point?

      First you say that, " It is impossible to be simultaneously all knowing and all powerful, as having one characteristic prevents the possession of the other characteristic."

      Then, next you say, " yet what I've described is NOT logically impossible, and the ability to change one's mind is NOT outside the realms of 'ultimate power'."

      So, which is it? You're setting the parameters, after all.

      So let's explore it. You say to be God, omnipotent and omniscient, you cannot change your mind, and in the same breath say it is not logically impossible to do such a thing? What you're saying is God cannot look into His future plan to destroy a few of His creation, but changes what He would do to them because of what Moses did or says. God then expresses that to Moses for Moses' benefit. Why, again, is that impossible?

      Delete
    19. Dan Dan Dan.... *I* am able to change my mind because I do not know the future.

      The point I was making was that the usual Creatard excuses used to slither around this problem did not stand, as you well know.

      More dodging from you, typical of someone who is such a wretched piece of lying shit as yourself.

      I think I'll clear off for another six months, and pop back in the summer to see if you've learned a SINGLE FUCKING THING.

      Delete
    20. Do you think things are true because you claim it? Also, do you know what a narcissist is? Never mind.

      You're fascinating in that you demand people answer you in an extremely annoying and demanding way, and bail on questions posed to you, with the proclamation of bailing for 6 months. Wow. The questions still stand if, and when, you ever return.

      I do forgive you for your complete rudeness. #crudeness

      Delete
    21. "Do you think things are true because you claim it?"

      No, that's your MO

      "Also, do you know what a narcissist is"

      Yes, just look at Sye.

      As for "demand[ing] people answer... in an extremely annoying and demanding way", what was it that Peter said about being 'always ready with an answer'?

      You're a minnow in a pond full of presup idiots! Christ, Dan, you're out of your depth in a pool of people who think the same moronic crap as you! You're like a child dressing up as a fireman and thinking he can put out a raging furnace.

      The FACT that you NEVER get beyond the basic intro to Circular Sye's 'argument' indicates to me that you probably don't even understand it....or that you actually realise that it's bullshit, but deny it to yourself (probably in unrighteousness)

      Here's my take on you, Dan. You are man desperately trying to shore up his crumbling faith. A man who has realised (like Sye and Eric and all the other presubullshitters) that evidential apologetics are dead, that the evidence DOESN'T support your 'worldview' at all. You are a man who has mislead his children by 'un'schooling them in fucking nonsense and now lays awake at night worrying that you've sown future disaster for them, and dreads the day when they turn round and say 'Dad, all that stuff you told us as kids was bollocks, why did you do that to us? What kind of father are you?'. You are terrified that you've walked your whole family into a dead end and you can see no way out of.

      I pity you Dan, you've done everything you can to turn your children into atheists or (if they cling to your insane beliefs) social pariahs when they are adults, and you know it.

      Delete
    22. Thanks Alex.

      BTW, you avoided the question yet again. Nice

      Delete
    23. Dan, I've answered every question you've asked - if you think you've asked another you need to go back and check that it's been worded in such a way as it can be recognised as a question.

      I hope you think long and hard about the falsehoods you're telling your children, about the LIES you are telling your children, because they will one day come back to bite you.

      Delete
    24. >>Dan, I've answered every question you've asked

      Even these?

      "You say to be God, omnipotent and omniscient, you cannot change your mind, and in the same breath say it is not logically impossible to do such a thing?"

      Right? That is your claim?

      "What you're saying is God cannot look into His future plan to destroy a few of His creation, but changes what He would do to them because of what Moses did or says. God then expresses that to Moses for Moses' benefit."

      Right?

      "Why, again, is that impossible?"

      *crickets*

      Delete
    25. "You say to be God, omnipotent and omniscient, you cannot change your mind, and in the same breath say it is not logically impossible to do such a thing?"

      I can change my mind. Yet your god, if all knowing, cannot. Why? To be able to change ones mind is NOT logically impossible, so the 'yhwh cannot do that which is logically impossible' defence won't fly.

      "What you're saying is God cannot look into His future plan to destroy a few of His creation, but changes what He would do to them because of what Moses did or says. God then expresses that to Moses for Moses' benefit."

      If he has perfect foresight then he knows what he will do with 100% certainty, so he knew what Moses would say before he said it, and he knew what his response would be. Yet again he is unable to change his mind. Or are you now redefining the level of perfection with which your imaginary friend is able to see the future?

      ""Why, again, is that impossible?"

      See above.

      "*crickets*"

      ...are what I expect to hear when now asking you to respond.

      Dan, you're a moron.

      Delete
    26. And we're back to waiting on Dan explaining how he can be sure of the validity of the source of a revelation that he claims is essential for surety BEFORE he gets said revelation...

      14 days, and counting.

      I expect another dodge from Dan in a couple of days

      Delete
    27. Glitch in browser prevented me from commenting here for a few days. Even my browser is sick of my comments...go figure.

      >>I can change my mind. Yet your god, if all knowing, cannot. Why?

      You're asking me? This is YOUR argument. I say He can.

      >>To be able to change ones mind is NOT logically impossible, so the 'yhwh cannot do that which is logically impossible' defence won't fly.

      You're confused WHO actually is trying to make this argument.

      >>If he has perfect foresight then he knows what he will do with 100% certainty, so he knew what Moses would say before he said it, and he knew what his response would be.

      YES!!! I agree. God can and does.

      >>Yet again he is unable to change his mind.

      You have yet to make your argument. You claim God cannot but not have stated why. Present your argument. Try it in a syllogism, if you feel that will help make your case.

      >>Dan, you're a moron.

      You make me desire a banhammer in Blogger. :7)

      Delete
    28. "You're asking me? This is YOUR argument. I say He can."

      Then explain how. If he is all knowing then he knows what he will do next - please tell me how one can change one's mind if one knows what one will do next with 100% accuracy. If I knew what I was going to do next (and every moment after that, into eternity) then I could never do something other than that. Now, I (due to not being all knowing) CAN change my mind, yet your particular version of your particular god apparently cannot (due to having the characteristic of omniscience). So, do you say he CAN? If so do you acknowledge that this is contradictory and denies logic?

      "You're confused WHO actually is trying to make this argument."

      I've heard Creationists and other religious halfwits use the 'YHWH cannot do that which is logically impossible' argument as a rescuing device, so I am NOT confused over who is trying to 'make this argument' - I was merely pointing out that there was no point in YOU trying to use it, as it has already been shown to be bullshit. Have you got a different way out of this problem? If so I'd love to hear it.

      "YES!!! I agree. God can and does. "

      - ?? so you agree that your version of your particular god knows with 100% perfect foresight what he will do next? Good, so you then also agree that your god cannot do anything other than that which he knows he will already do!

      "You have yet to make your argument. You claim God cannot but not have stated why. Present your argument. Try it in a syllogism, if you feel that will help make your case."

      Does being deliberately thick make you feel more holy or something, Dan? I've explained very clearly why your god cannot change his mind, you've even acknowledged my points in your replies, so to claim that I haven't yet presented my argument shows how deep your desire to hold onto your delusion actually runs.

      "You make me desire a banhammer in Blogger. :7)"

      And you make me desire social services coming to your house to rescue your kids, but what are ya gonna do?

      Delete
    29. >>And you make me desire social services coming to your house to rescue your kids, but what are ya gonna do?

      So there is a "standard" morality that you're appealing to for that claim? Thanks for admitting that your worldview is not the one you appeal to. :7)

      Do you have a wife with a blessed womb, i.e. have kids? Or did you choose to be gay, are you court ordered to stay away from children, or ... ?

      Delete
    30. "So there is a "standard" morality that you're appealing to for that claim? Thanks for admitting that your worldview is not the one you appeal to. :7)"

      No, because your behaviour was once seen as acceptable, but is no longer. DAN FAIL

      "Do you have a wife with a blessed womb, i.e. have kids? Or did you choose to be gay, are you court ordered to stay away from children, or ... ?"

      Oh, here we go, in absence of an answer Dan is now using the Sye 'accuse your opponent of being a danger to children' technique!

      As for the rest - Dan, you do know that NO-ONE 'chooses' to be gay, don't you? Mind you, I shouldn't be surprised that you'll happily trot out a homophobic lie like that!

      And whether I have children or not is none of your damned business.

      Now answer my questions, you craven worm.

      Delete
    31. 16 days and, despite a lot of dodging (as is his MO), Dan has STILL not answered.

      Delete
    32. Answer what? We've been talking this whole time. You're a dork. BTW, any kids?

      Delete
  8. Watching the video - Sye's 'argument' has become even less coherent during the last year, he's almost reached the point of making random noises and assuming that those will make his point.

    Has he had a stroke or a break down or something??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that an appeal to ridicule, or a relativist fallacy?

      Delete
    2. It's just a simple pointing out of the facts - Sye is sounding brain damaged.

      Delete
    3. Is it possible you are? Is it possible you're strapped to a bed in a mental ward hallucinating about discussing things on a blog? If not, how are you certain you're not?

      Delete
    4. "Is it possible you are? Is it possible you're strapped to a bed in a mental ward hallucinating about discussing things on a blog? "

      No

      "If not, how are you certain you're not?" because I'm not a fuckwit like you, Dan.

      Delete
    5. Good argument as usual there Alex!

      Delete
    6. Actually, it was just a piece of snark....yet it was STILL a BETTER argument than ANYTHING you've EVER said, Sye!!

      How funny is THAT!?

      Delete
    7. And just what argument do you have, Sye, that is not circular? In other words: Does not assume from the start that your god exists, then goes on to use that assertion as evidence that your god exists.

      Delete
    8. Dan, tossing out irrelevant arguments now:
      Is it possible you are? Is it possible you're strapped to a bed in a mental ward hallucinating about discussing things on a blog? If not, how are you certain you're not?
      How do you know that you're not? Is there a bible verse or something that says that you're not?

      How can you trust your senses Dan, since things like optical illusions exist, whether one is a believer or not. Does you god prevent you from falling for optical illusions?

      Delete
  9. Let me also add, that if I WAS 'strapped to a bed in a mental ward' that would do NOTHING to help your cause, as your argument would be reduced to the ramblings of a mad man......just like it is in REAL LIFE!

    DOUBLE LOL!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. D.A.N. said ...

      >>Now you can present us with the evidence for your explicit claim that He HAS revealed Himself to all

      Have, Ad nauseam, Romans 1:18-23 is all the evidence you need, but not the only evidence.

      And here you're assuming a couple of things about your "evidence".

      1) That your God exists - you are yet to demonstrate that this is so. You claim revelation as your proof but have so far failed to show how you can be "absolutely certain" about the source and veracity of that revelation.

      2) That He divinely inspired the book known as the Bible. Of course assuming that the Bible is evidence for God, because you already believe God exists, is question begging.

      I have also pointed out my own lack of a revelation (as have others) and this contradicts your claim.

      >>and also your argument for how you're absolutely certain while not being omniscient.

      God cannot lie,

      This is not true. The Bible - the book you consider to be God's word - has examples of God lying (1 Kings 22:23, 2 Chronicles 18:22, Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11).

      and His revelation, such we can be certain about it, even with our fallible mind.

      And the best thing about all this is that, whether God can lie or not is irrelevant. It is your fallible mind that constantly undermines your claim. Even if an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being did exist you couldn't know with absolute certainty that it was who it claimed to be and that the things revealed were actually true unless it granted you omniscience.

      Is it now your claim that it is impossible that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being [God], cannot reveal things to a fallible mind such they can be absolutely certain of it, and be correct?

      That is not now - and never has been - my claim. I've always conceded that, should such an omnimax deity exist, it could grant you omniscience in order that you could be absolutely certain of what it was revealing to you. You've always denied being omniscient so we can safely say that such a revelation has not happened.

      Unless, of course, you have some argument that shows how you can be absolutely certain without being omniscient? So far all you keep doing is asserting that God exists and claiming that He has done what you say. When asked to show how, you instead twist things and make your silly demand that we show how it's "impossible that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being [God], cannot reveal things to a fallible mind such they can be absolutely certain of it". I've already conceded that it could - by granting you omniscience. If you think there's another way then please, present it.

      Delete
    2. Is it now your claim that it is impossible that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being [God], cannot reveal things to a fallible mind such they can be absolutely certain of it, and be correct?

      Delete
    3. D.A.N. said...

      Is it now your claim that it is impossible that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being [God], cannot reveal things to a fallible mind such they can be absolutely certain of it, and be correct?

      That is not now - and never has been - my claim. I've always conceded that, should such an omnimax deity exist, it could grant you omniscience in order that you could be absolutely certain of what it was revealing to you. You've always denied being omniscient so we can safely say that such a revelation has not happened.

      Unless, of course, you have some argument that shows how you can be absolutely certain without being omniscient? So far all you keep doing is asserting that God exists and claiming that He has done what you say. When asked to show how, you instead twist things and make your silly demand that we show how it's "impossible that an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being [God], cannot reveal things to a fallible mind such they can be absolutely certain of it". I've already conceded that it could - by granting you omniscience. If you think there's another way then please, present it.

      Delete
    4. I asked him to do so over a week ago, and he went mysteriously silent.

      Delete
    5. Dan, any chance you could respond to F_D's request?

      Delete
  10. Dan:

         Your god is incapable of changing his mind because he is described as timeless and unchanging. Further if he can effect events contrary to his foresight, his foresight is fallible. It is fallible because it did not see those events.

         As an aside, Wordpress seems to think that you are a spambot. I can't determine what made it decide that; but I manually approved your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  11. D.A.N. said... (while opting to interact with a throwaway comment from Alex, in a desperate attempt to avoid answering Alex's questions concerning the fundamental incompatibility between omniscience and omnipotence)

    Alex: "And you make me desire social services coming to your house to rescue your kids, but what are ya gonna do?"

    Dan: "So there is a "standard" morality that you're appealing to for that claim?"

    It certainly isn't the Christian worldview which reduces to "might makes right" and debilitating relativism, whereby genocide is supposedly bad but it's perfectly OK for God to commit (or order) genocide, lying is wrong but it's OK for God to lie etc.... So much for absolute Christian morality.

    Dan: "Thanks for admitting that your worldview is not the one you appeal to. :7)"

    Ignoring the fact that Alex would be pefectly right to appeal to his atheistic worldview for morality, it is after all the only worldview that can reasonably account for the objectivity that is required on which to base a standard, the link you give here is so woeful it's funny.

    The author is totally up front in his motivations - "Trolling for atheists" - although he'd be better advised to call it "Lying and stealing for Jesus" as that's actually what he does. He lies and steals to build a strawman version of atheism that he then proceeds to burn to the ground in his defence of Christianity.

    From the article linked we can see that he seems to like using the concept "objectivity", a concept he has to steal from an atheistic worldview because it cannot be accounted for from within his inherently subjective Christian worldview. He then tries to use this stolen concept to deny the very worldview it relies on to give it meaning i.e. that objects exist independently of the subjects that are aware of them.

    He talks about good and evil as if they are what they are regardless of what anyone or anything wants/thinks/feels/demands etc... when, on his Christian worldview, good and evil are entirely subjective. It's how his God can do things that we would call evil - genocide for example - and have them called good or just.

    Nowhere in his little diatribe does he bother to make an argument for his main claim:

    "There wouldn't be a knowledge of evil unless there was also a standard of good, and there would not be an objective standard of good unless Creator God existed."

    He simply asserts that this is so and moves on. Of course this is in perfect keeping with his worldview, which, in essence, says that "wishing makes it so". He conveniently ignores that, were his God to exist, any "standard" would be wholly subjective.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dan said "Answer what? We've been talking this whole time. You're a dork. BTW, any kids?" (http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2012/12/praise-lord.html?showComment=1358483722448#c1142523032381814188)

    Wow, I knew you were desperate to avoid difficult questions - I mean, I've seen your behaviour on this blog over the last couple of years - but I didn't think I'd ever see the day when you straight out pretended that you hadn't been asked anything, despite the FACT that the questions are plain to see for anyone who just scrolls up the page!

    So, here they are again, let's see if you can make your kids proud for once in your sorry existence and actually give a straight answer -

    1. Please explain how you can be certain a revelation is genuine when you lack the ability to know anything ‘for certain’ (by your own argument) before said revelation.

    2. Explain how your god isn’t illogical when he displays traits which are mutually exclusive.

    Oh, and you also failed to answer this - Do you accept that a being of sufficient power could fool you into thinking you'd had a revelation from your particular version of your particular god?

    So that's three questions that you've dodged. Please answer them, or you're simply going to prove to everyone that you're a fraud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>1. Please explain how you can be certain a revelation is genuine when you lack the ability to know anything ‘for certain’ (by your own argument) before said revelation.

      Hardly by my argument. God revealed Himself to ALL MANKIND, so you're confused as to the point God revealed Himself. Scripture makes that point clear (Galatians 1:15, Jeremiah 1:5, Psalm 139:13) as I knew God before I was even born.

      >>2. Explain how your god isn’t illogical when he displays traits which are mutually exclusive.

      He doesn't displays traits which are mutually exclusive, that is YOUR confusion, Not God or my problem, but yours.

      >>Do you accept that a being of sufficient power could fool you into thinking you'd had a revelation from your particular version of your particular god?

      Not at all. You're widely mistaken or do not understand the definitions of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being, [God]. We are not talking about created beings but the Creator. Instead of red herrings and moving goal posts how about staying focused.

      Delete
  13. As for "You're a dork. BTW, any kids?"

    1. rather a 'dork' than a deluded, self deceiving moron who knowingly lies to his children.

    2. again, as I said before, none of your damned business.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>rather a 'dork' than a deluded, self deceiving moron who knowingly lies to his children...again, as I said before, none of your damned business.

      Yes, you claim I lie to my children, and I am sure I have at one point in their lives although I cannot think of anything.

      But more importantly, IF you did have children, you deny their existence ALSO!!! Either that or you're incredibly ashamed of them. Sad really.

      Bringing my children up and threatening their livelihood is beyond low, but exposes you as a person, so I tolerate it. Denying that you have children, or refusal to talk about yours, after threatening mine, is an entire category of low that all are here to see.

      Delete