tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post553388886113368090..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: Mystery of Life UnlockedD. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-13296361765973088052009-04-16T16:51:00.000-04:002009-04-16T16:51:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10659212150994482317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-14709349919807439322009-03-06T21:50:00.000-05:002009-03-06T21:50:00.000-05:00I think this goes back to my (and others') musings...I think this goes back to my (and others') musings about theists -- especially Christians -- seeking to provide naturalistic explanations for supernatural events in <I>some</I> cases, and simply appealing to 'goddidit' in others.<BR/><BR/>More to the point, and tying in quite nicely with what you just pointed out, if science has proven its ability to explain a certain class of phenomena, which the bible describes in supernatural terms, Christians seek a natural explanation.<BR/><BR/>As an example, the Noachian Flood story describes an event in supernatural terms: a worldwide flood, in which the lone surviving family was provided divine instruction regarding how they could weather (pun intended) the storm, and in which enough pairs of animals spontaneously trekked across the globe specifically to board the vessel in question.<BR/><BR/>The story is told in supernatural terms, but it contains various naturalistic elements: the flood itself, the animals, the boat; all of which raise questions on a naturalistic level, and which sites like AiG seek to answer <I>without</I> appealing to the supernatural, except where it suits them (read: except where they cannot provide an adequate natural explanation).<BR/><BR/>If it's fucking magic, then say it's fucking magic. All they do is point to old stories told by geographical/mathematical/physical/biological/geological/astronomical ignoramuses (if I forgot your favorite science, I apologize -- it, too, likely qualifies here). It's not that they were stupid, they were merely ignorant.<BR/><BR/>Nobody expects them to have known that eight people couldn't possibly have managed a floating wooden zoo for that long, especially when the zoo in question was said to contain no fewer than two of <I>everything</I>.<BR/><BR/>Nobody expects them to have known that the sun cannot have [appeared to have] stood still [to an earth-bound observer], without dire and easily verifiable consequences.<BR/><BR/>Nobody expects them to have known that axe heads cannot float, unless they are quite unsuitable for use as the tool they have been fashioned to be.<BR/><BR/>Nobody expects them to have known that the various foodstuffs forbidden are perfectly safe to eat, and in fact <I>were</I> eaten, in many cases, by various other cultures at the time.<BR/><BR/>Nobody expects them to have known what caused disease, what a virus was, or what genetic disorders were. Nobody expects them to have known what the structure of DNA looked like, or what implications it had on medicine and biology.<BR/><BR/>Nobody expects them to have known that when they described god's first "words" as, "Let there be light," that they'd be obviously guilty of anthropomorphism with respect to the deity, because nobody expects them to have known about the E-M spectrum.<BR/><BR/>No, nobody expects any of this of the ancient Hebrews who wrote what is now compiled as the bible, yet for some reason or another, there are many today who persist in their insistence that despite the lack of expectation on these ancient Hebrews, we are today nonetheless expected to believe everything they said, including these many "miracles" as having occurred.<BR/><BR/>Strange, then, that these very people continue to seek natural explanations for supernaturally described events. If their every intention was to answer, "goddidit," when cornered, then why bother with the smokescreen in the first place?<BR/><BR/>Such a small box, they've found, into which they've crammed their pathetic deity.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-29080747315956742492009-03-06T15:23:00.000-05:002009-03-06T15:23:00.000-05:00Zilch wrote something most fundamentalists do: the...Zilch wrote <I>something most fundamentalists do: they cling to the evidence if it supports them, and explain away anomalies with miracles. Ultimately, there's no way to answer this, except to point out that it's no better than saying that we're brains in vats.</I><BR/><BR/>What I don't get, Zilch, is how such people remain convinced that (in doing so) they're being logical.<BR/><BR/>You're right about this: evidence is cherry-picked to support the hypothesis, and the gaps are filled in with faith. It's a stone-and-mortar bridge that (if history is any evidence) always leads nowhere, or collapses under its own weight.<BR/><BR/>How can fundamentalists not see other failed beliefs lying broken and disheveled along the road-side? Why do they continue to make bold assertions as fact, with nothing more than personal faith in their own perception?<BR/><BR/>And, in the process, claim that everyone else is arrogant and close-minded???Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-21220127590803866332009-03-04T04:35:00.000-05:002009-03-04T04:35:00.000-05:00No, it's too quiet.No, it's too quiet.Debunkey Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355896606457674317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-53513360216389415922009-03-04T03:34:00.000-05:002009-03-04T03:34:00.000-05:00we all get angryonce in a while: that's normalhold...we all get angry<BR/>once in a while: that's normal<BR/>hold to the center.<BR/><BR/>All watched over by machines of loving grace, we are safe.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-72666884589102312722009-03-04T02:32:00.000-05:002009-03-04T02:32:00.000-05:00"are you living inside a haiku? Just wondering."No..."are you living inside a haiku? Just wondering."<BR/><BR/>No, it's dark in here, and I'm being watched, but it's okay. I didn't mean to write a haiku, I just got angry.Debunkey Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355896606457674317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-90858129921443514682009-03-04T02:22:00.000-05:002009-03-04T02:22:00.000-05:00Stan: this tweaking the speed of light reminds me ...Stan: this tweaking the speed of light reminds me of a thread I got bogged down in a couple of years ago, which has, alas, since been pulled: a YEC mathematician proposed a sphere of ectoplasm surrounding the Earth that mediated light in exactly such a way that it gave the appearance of an old Universe. He went into great detail about the kinds of transformations necessary, and when I and others called him on such anomalies as the observations of Cepheid variable stars, he cheerfully added perturbations to account for them. Pretty soon his ectoplasm was a-wigglin' and a-jigglin' like a crazed ball of lime Jello. But he was deadly serious.<BR/><BR/>This is of course just an extreme example of something most fundamentalists do: they cling to the evidence if it supports them, and explain away anomalies with miracles. Ultimately, there's no way to answer this, except to point out that it's no better than saying that we're brains in vats.<BR/><BR/>Kaitlyn: are you living inside a haiku? Just wondering.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-82091101196938457472009-03-03T22:19:00.000-05:002009-03-03T22:19:00.000-05:00You think you know, but you don't know.YOU DONT KN...You think you know, but you don't know.<BR/><BR/>YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING AND THATS WHY<BR/><BR/>Its dark.Debunkey Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15355896606457674317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-78473690515414266992009-03-03T18:20:00.000-05:002009-03-03T18:20:00.000-05:00I'm glad to know that we have established one thin...I'm glad to know that we have established one thing between us.<BR/><BR/>The Bible IS illogical.<BR/><BR/>One step at a time... I think we are getting there Dan. :DA Devil's Chaplainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09034032553656039150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-52362130508303049752009-03-03T18:14:00.000-05:002009-03-03T18:14:00.000-05:00Read my comment properly Dan... I explained it. Je...Read my comment properly Dan... I explained it. Jebus, can't you even read?A Devil's Chaplainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09034032553656039150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-89051276850838583362009-03-03T17:36:00.000-05:002009-03-03T17:36:00.000-05:00Devil's Chaplain,Is that logical?So you pose that ...Devil's Chaplain,<BR/><BR/><I>Is that logical?</I><BR/><BR/>So you pose that if you cannot explain something it is rendered false? Anyway, I want you to read something on the intellect (the wisdom of men), something you are currently using, in a <A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/07/you-just-claim-that-jesus-christ-is.html" REL="nofollow">past post</A>.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-51659596976722092452009-03-03T17:18:00.000-05:002009-03-03T17:18:00.000-05:00What you are saying has absolutely nothing with wh...What you are saying has absolutely nothing with what I'm asking for. I'm criticising your feeble attempt to establish the Bible as the ultimate source of logic and word of God. Quite frankly, it's not.<BR/>For example, it took Moses 40 days to get the Ten Commandments. Why would it take so long for a supercreator to create 2 stone tablets when he created everything else in a week? Is that logical?<BR/>The logical explanation is that Moses used a hammer and chisel to sculpt two tablets from a solid piece of stone. Moses put in his ideas which he thought would bring peace among his tribes then to enforce those new rules, he used God's name to bring fear to people's mind. The whole same bullshit repeats itself in the Bible. The whole Bible is about power struggle among Jewish tribes itself and with Arab tribes. The main question is "who uses God's name better in killing, raping, enslaving, controlling, conquering and manipulating others?". It obviously does not contain any ultimate logic.<BR/>You will neither go to heaven by keeping those rules nor will you go to hell by breaking any of them, because there are no such places. You might end up in jail of course, and I strongly encourage you not to break secular laws unless you want to waste your only chance in life. :DA Devil's Chaplainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09034032553656039150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-80764458956377015612009-03-03T16:37:00.000-05:002009-03-03T16:37:00.000-05:00Trust me, Pvblivs, I agree with that sentiment who...Trust me, Pvblivs, I agree with that sentiment wholeheartedly. <A HREF="http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starlight.asp" REL="nofollow">This article</A> by "Robert Newton," however, is pretty straightforward -- you can easily skim through most of it. I'll try to summarize for you:<BR/><BR/>1. The speed of light is infinite when its direction is toward an observer.<BR/><BR/>2. The speed of light varies when its direction is not toward an observer.<BR/><BR/>3. The variation in the speed of light is such that any measurement will find that the speed of light is constant, irrespective of direction, if we deny (1) and (2), and that the value obtained is the currently held value.<BR/><BR/>4. By maintaining (1) and (2), however, the Genesis creation account can be explained, and the universe is only ~6,000 years old.<BR/><BR/>5. The celestial phenomena we today observe were therefore created at various times less than 15 billion years prior, such that the light from these events reached Earth on Day 4:<BR/><BR/><I>About 4.3 years before Earth is created, ‘the beginning’ occurs for the space near Alpha Centauri. Four days later Alpha Centauri is created. Finally the Earth is created, but the starlight has not yet reached Earth...</I><BR/><BR/>6. "Robert Newton," the name given for the author, is identified as a pseudonym. No named, credentialed contributor to AiG has bothered to sign his/her name.<BR/><BR/>Read it if you want, I guess. It's amusing, at least, if you have the time. I'm mostly interested in comments regarding my simple proposed experiment with regard to "Robert Newton's" claims -- comments from someone who can understand the experiment...<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-26342776028370202812009-03-03T16:19:00.000-05:002009-03-03T16:19:00.000-05:00Re: DaviesI'm pretty sure that's what I said -- th...Re: Davies<BR/><BR/>I'm pretty sure that's what I said -- that we assume the universe to behave rationally, such that we can derive explanations and make predictions.<BR/><BR/>Re: Overbye<BR/><BR/>The only problem I have with that clip is that he leaves ambiguous the term "law"; scientific laws are <I>descriptive</I>, not <I>prescriptive</I>. The "kind of transcendent status" leaves a foul taste in the mouth for much the same reason. I assume that the article from which this was taken was <I>in</I> the NY Times, and we can therefore assume the intended audience consisted of laypersons. I'd guess that his arguments in scientific journals would read much differently.<BR/><BR/>Re: Einstein<BR/><BR/>I have that on a T-shirt.<BR/><BR/>Re: Physics lesson<BR/><BR/>"With a secular viewpoint"?! Who are you kidding? That lesson was effectively identical to any lesson concerning the same subject matter you'd hear from any of the billion physicists who contribute to AiG, or whatever other YEC group you prefer.<BR/><BR/>Re: AiG's spin on presuppositional apologetics<BR/><BR/>That's a far cry from Sye's twisted method. I don't really have any problem with what I read in that article; I don't deny you the right to quote scripture, but when you do so, and simultaneously claim to embrace science, you run into difficulties. AiG pretends to like science, but as I showed with respect to "Robert Newton," what they actually do is make up technical sounding nonsense that fails to stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny -- with no credentialed backing whatsoever, despite the ostensible existence of one or two zillion credentialed scientists under their employ.<BR/><BR/>Re: My proposed experiment<BR/><BR/>Strange, you didn't respond to the explanation I provided...<BR/><BR/>Re: My dealings with Sye<BR/><BR/>Stranger still, you seem to have ignored this section entirely.<BR/><BR/><BR/>No thoughts on those last two? Not daring to engage at all? What's the matter, Dan? Surely you have some original thoughts rattling around in that brain of yours -- let's hear one.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-87520515140661781462009-03-03T16:17:00.000-05:002009-03-03T16:17:00.000-05:00Stan: I am not familiar with Robert Newton'...Stan:<BR/><BR/> I am not familiar with Robert Newton's hypothesis. I do not generally follow AIG and the videos I have watched from Dan have wasted enough of my time. Reading the text would be a lot faster for me. And I don't want to listen to 3-5 minutes of background conversation before the person or people trying to make a point even show up.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-19369289901936447282009-03-03T15:58:00.000-05:002009-03-03T15:58:00.000-05:00Stan,Dr. Paul Davies, a cosmologist at Arizona Sta...Stan,<BR/><BR/>Dr. Paul Davies, a cosmologist at Arizona State University asserted in an article that science, not unlike religion, rested on faith, not in God but in the idea of an orderly universe.<BR/><BR/>DENNIS OVERBYE in the New York times wrote "There is in fact a kind of chicken-and-egg problem with the universe and its laws. Which “came” first — the laws or the universe? If the laws of physics are to have any sticking power at all, to be real laws, one could argue, they have to be good anywhere and at any time, including the Big Bang, the putative Creation. Which gives them a kind of transcendent status outside of space and time."<BR/><BR/>A quote from Einstein “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the lesson, with a secular viewpoint, on the laws of nature (physics). But since we are in a discussion from an AIG link let me provide just <A HREF="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/presuppositional-apologetics" REL="nofollow">one more</A>.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-59143511131425367502009-03-03T15:51:00.000-05:002009-03-03T15:51:00.000-05:00You'll forgive me for oversimplifying. He couldn't...You'll forgive me for oversimplifying. He couldn't grasp the implication of a triangular experiment, so I didn't want to get into photon momentum, finding the magnitude of a vector, etc.<BR/><BR/>What do <I>you</I> think of "Robert Newton's" hypothesis, anyway, Pvblivs? What also do you think of the fact that he's submitted an article under a pseudonym, to which no named, credentialed AiG contributor has signed off?<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-65245735373933165612009-03-03T15:34:00.000-05:002009-03-03T15:34:00.000-05:00 Actually. photons have velocity, too. As any... Actually. photons have velocity, too. As any given photon is moving in a specific (well, as specific as anything else) direction, it can be represented by a vector. The difference between photons and massive particles in this regard is that the speed (the absolute value of the "length" of the vector) is always the same for any photon in a vacuum.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-46355110491975162732009-03-03T15:21:00.000-05:002009-03-03T15:21:00.000-05:00I had asked:You mean, you either don't understand ...I had asked:<BR/><BR/><B>You mean, you either don't understand the physics involved in the discussion...</B><BR/><BR/>To which Dan responded:<BR/><BR/><I>That would be a fair assessment. :)</I><BR/><BR/>See? Doesn't it feel good to be honest?<BR/><BR/>If you would like an explanation, I'll be happy to provide one:<BR/><BR/>In Part 1 of the experiment, the speed of light in a particular direction relative to Observer 2 is measured, by taking the difference in arrival times from the beam sent directly from Observer 1 versus the beam sent first to the mirror, and then reflected directly to Observer 2. If "Robert Newton's" hypothesis is true, then either both beams will meet simultaneously at Observer 2 (which we would not expect to be the case), or the difference measured is a direct measurement of the speed of light with respect to the first leg of the reflected beam.<BR/><BR/>Thus, we have the speed of light in a particular direction relative to Observer 2.<BR/><BR/>In Part 2, we move Observer 2 directly away from the mirror, leaving the mirror and Observer 1 fixed, and otherwise follow the same procedure. If the difference in arrival times of the two beams is different than that recorded in Part 1, then the only reason, according to "Robert Newton's" hypothesis, can be that the speed of light along the first leg has changed -- but nothing changed in that first leg, so this cannot be true.<BR/><BR/>Thus, the only valid conclusion to be drawn is that the change in distance along the second leg was responsible for the change in arrival time. Ergo, the speed of light is independent of its direction of travel.<BR/><BR/>QEDMF<BR/><BR/>[Physics lesson]<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, there is a difference in physics between "speed" and "velocity." Speed is the velocity along a given path -- it is a scalar -- whereas velocity is path-independent -- it is a vector. This may seem a subtle difference to the non-physics student, but it is <I>why</I> we refer to the "speed" of light, rather than the "velocity" of light. Massive particles have velocity, photons have speed. This is effectively what Einstein realized when he formulated the Special Theory of Relativity.<BR/><BR/>[/Physics lesson]<BR/><BR/>Now then, moving on...<BR/><BR/>I had said:<BR/><BR/><I>No matter what, the stars we see were created <B>in fact</B> far earlier than the fourth day, some 6,000 years ago, and this necessarily means that the universe is far older than a mere 6,000 years old.</I><BR/><BR/>To which Dan replied:<BR/><BR/><I>Wide sweeping assumptions here. Where </I>[sic]<I> you there? How do you know that miracles in fact didn't happen? We would have to figure too much out before we get to this asserted conclusion.</I><BR/><BR/>First, there is an issue regarding context which should be addressed. The emphasis placed on "in fact" was based on "Robert Newton's" position. If his hypothesis is accepted, then irrespective of the "observed time" of the winking on of the celestial phenomena, the objects in question <I>were</I> created prior to Day 4. That particular point was merely meant to illustrate to you, the YEC, that Earth wasn't created first.<BR/><BR/>Second, I'm not discussing the existence of miracles, at least not in the general use of the term. I'm discussing the age of the universe, just like "Robert Newton." If his hypothesis is correct, then stars came first, at various times less than 15 billion years prior. Or are you prepared to say he is incorrect?<BR/><BR/>Third, there is really only one operative assumption held in physics, and hence all of science: that the universe behaves rationally, such that we can offer explanations and make predictions. If this assumption is true, then yes, we can determine that the universe is far older than 10,000 years.<BR/><BR/>(If there is a second assumption, it is that one's frame of reference has no influence on the physics; the solution may prove more difficult, but if found, solutions from different frames will agree.)<BR/><BR/>You then apparently misquoted Bahnsen, or at least failed to properly quote him:<BR/><BR/><I>[The atheist] has come to believe what he does, not by observational verification, but on the authority of another...</I><BR/><BR/>Dan's noted addition:<BR/><BR/><I>...or the Discovery Channel</I><BR/><BR/>The funny thing (read: not funny - haha), Dan, is that this is patently false when applied to science. I'd guess that Bahnsen's out-of-context quote refers to the <I>belief</I> that there are no gods, in which case his statement is somewhat fair (I have minor disagreements with it, but they are irrelevant to this discussion). With respect to the application of <I>science</I>, however, both he and you would be quite incorrect.<BR/><BR/>In principle, <I>everything</I> you see done on the Discovery Channel -- every experiment, every discovery, every procedure -- can be replicated by <B>you</B>. Indeed, it is foundational to science that if you <I>do</I> attempt one of these things [under reasonably similar conditions], and if you come up with a different result, <I>then the thing in question must be reexamined and/or scrapped</I>.<BR/><BR/>Funnier still (read: funny - haha) is that you and Bahnsen have the audacity to claim that <I>we</I> take our belief on the authority of another...<BR/><BR/><I>Should Sye or I really get punished if you prefer instead to ostrich on the subject of logic?</I><BR/><BR/>In case you missed it, I didn't ostrich on anything. I attempted to hold an exchange with Sye, from which he disappeared for a while, and upon his return, he flatly refused to answer my question for over a month, until only this week. His answer, however, was merely a dodge, as your statement slightly earlier to the above shows:<BR/><BR/><I>If you cannot be certain of anything, how can you know for certain that you are not delusional at this point?</I><BR/><BR/>The answer to this question is the answer to my question. I have attempted to show Sye (and succeeded, I suspect) that we are all in the same boat with regard to certainty. You, he, I -- we all presuppose the validity of our ability to reason, and from this presupposition we have formulated the 'laws' of logic, and attempted to make sense of our surroundings.<BR/><BR/>Thus far, Sye has refused to admit (publicly) that this is true. The futility of his refusal is evident in his pathetic response to my question.<BR/><BR/>First, the question (again, for posterity's sake):<BR/><BR/><I>Since there are obviously those who believe they are certain (based on revelation), who are not certain (as they are incorrect), how do you know you are not one of these people?</I><BR/><BR/>For the slight of mind, this question shows that one who claims certainty may very well be deluded by a false belief in certainty, and that the only way to escape the apparent conundrum is to question beg, by assuming you are <I>not</I> deluded. Such an admission would, however, be a tacit admission of failure on Sye's part, putting him squarely in the same bin as the rest of us: The assumption that we can reason, and that we are not deluded.<BR/><BR/>From this assumption/presupposition, all other conclusions follow (read: including the conclusion that god does or does not exist).<BR/><BR/>Anyway, here was Sye's response:<BR/><BR/><I>Simple. I do not believe that I am certain, I know it. You on the other hand only presuppose the validity of your reasoning, and cannot differentiate yourself from those who presuppose the validity of their reasoning, whose reasoning is in fact, invalid. You have no mechanism for knowing that your reasoning is valid (or </I>anything<I> for that matter.</I> [sic] (emphasis Sye's)<BR/><BR/>You see?<BR/><BR/><I>I do not believe that I am certain, I know it.</I><BR/><BR/>Despite the attempt, this dodge is tacit admission of failure, plain and simple. He is certain because he knows he is certain. He is not deluded into believing he is certain because he knows he is certain, and those who know they are certain cannot merely believe they are certain.<BR/><BR/>What, I wonder, would someone, who <I>was</I> deluded into believing they were certain, say to my question...?<BR/><BR/>As to the rest of his response, I deny none of it. In fact, it is a pretty fair description of my position, except for one thing, "[y]ou, on the other hand..." should read, "we..." with the verb tenses changed to reflect the subject.<BR/><BR/>Look, Dan, Sye <I>is</I> a douchebag, for he's been spouting this crap long enough that he fully believes it, and he's so inundated with cognitive dissonance that I doubt he <I>could</I> admit failure, but <B>you</B> <I>are not there yet</I>. Surely you can see that, despite the obfuscating rhetoric, Sye's situation is effectively identical to my own: We each presuppose the validity of our ability to reason.<BR/><BR/>From that presupposition, we each draw conclusions as we see fit. He is no more qualified to claim access to certainty than I am, which is to say, not at all.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>Stan<BR/><BR/>(Sorry about the length)Stan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-67441890038545656692009-03-03T15:16:00.000-05:002009-03-03T15:16:00.000-05:00Dan: "You cannot give reasons for the log...Dan:<BR/><BR/> "You cannot give reasons for the logic we use in your worldview."<BR/> And you can't either. Giving reasons is <I>using</I> logic. Logic is assumed in any worldview. But you already know this. The "how do you account for logic" nonsense is only intended to deflect. If you don't have an answer to Stan's question, just say so. Doing that is far more respectable than embracing Sye's lie.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-28597048284661921932009-03-03T14:28:00.000-05:002009-03-03T14:28:00.000-05:00Stan,You mean, you either don't understand the phy...Stan,<BR/><BR/><I>You mean, you either don't understand the physics involved in the discussion</I><BR/><BR/>That would be a fair assessment. :)<BR/><BR/><I>and you prefer instead to ostrich?</I><BR/><BR/>Consider it what you want, but truth is truth. You actually cannot account for your logic and you want me to join you in delusion. Sye is not a douche bag, even if he was you cannot account for your logic. You cannot give reasons for the logic we use in your worldview. <BR/><BR/>Fine, I will appease your delusion. After all you are here for a limited time and I have eternity. <BR/><BR/><I> No matter what, the stars we see were created <B>in fact</B> far earlier than the fourth day, some 6,000 years ago, and this necessarily means that the universe is far older than a mere 6,000 years old.</I><BR/><BR/>Wide sweeping assumptions here. Where you there? How do you know that miracles <B>in fact</B> didn't happen? We would have to figure too much out before we get to this asserted conclusion. <BR/><BR/>I said to Clos earlier: The funny thing is like Dr. Bahnsen said that atheists "criticizes Christians believing things, not by observational verification, but on the authority of another (God)- and yet he himself has come to believe what he does, not by observational verification, but on the authority of another (his teacher!) I added ...or the Discovery Channel <BR/><BR/>So why do I have to accept that? Why cannot I ask to account for your logic. If you cannot be certain of anything, how can you know for certain that you are not delusional at this point. It all comes back to the singular of logic. It isn't about Sye or Dr. Behnsen it's the instructions of God. (Colossians 2:8) <BR/><BR/>Things are changing for the better Presuppositional apologetics are like the Ten Commandments, they act as a mirror to show you the state you are in. You may get quite frustrated in the future here but is that my fault that you cannot account for your worldview. <BR/><BR/>Should Sye or I really get punished if you prefer instead to ostrich on the subject of logic?D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-34719769139770423792009-03-03T14:27:00.000-05:002009-03-03T14:27:00.000-05:00You're better than that.Edit:You've shown that you...<I>You're better than that.</I><BR/><BR/>Edit:<BR/><BR/><I>You've shown that you can be better than that.</I><BR/><BR/>Better?<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-50078518639660729502009-03-03T14:01:00.000-05:002009-03-03T14:01:00.000-05:00Stan wrote You're better than thatWith reference ...Stan wrote <I> You're better than that</I><BR/><BR/>With reference to the last 2 months, this is not supported by the available evidence.Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-23122919851906691742009-03-03T13:54:00.000-05:002009-03-03T13:54:00.000-05:00I will ask how it is possible for you to know anyt...<I>I will ask how it is possible for you to know anything, before I give a answer. You see, if you can’t know anything, then you have no basis for evaluating any answer I give, or whether or not I have even given one, and I would just be wasting my time. Also, what is the justification for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic you wish to use to evaluate my answer? :)</I><BR/><BR/>You mean, you either don't understand the physics involved in the discussion, or you recognize that the experiment I proposed would bust "Robert Newton's" hypothesis outright, and you prefer instead to ostrich?<BR/><BR/>Seriously, man, don't turn into a Sye. He's a douchebag. I asked him repeatedly how he could know that he was certain, given that some people are merely deluded into thinking that they are certain, and he quite explicitly dodged.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, my question of him was in a form he could all too well recognize, as it was identical to questions he had posed to me.<BR/><BR/>Rather than indulge your bullshit wanna-be-Sye pedantry, I'd rather see you take a stab at my experiment. If you instead choose to clumsily employ Sye's sophistry, that's your prerogative, but unless you plan on changing your avatar and alias, please quit pretending to be Sye. You're better than that.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-27995707198467141582009-03-03T13:37:00.000-05:002009-03-03T13:37:00.000-05:00Stan,I really want to see you critique my proposed...Stan,<BR/><BR/><I>I really want to see you critique my proposed experiment, and if you conclude that my experiment would falsify "Robert Newton's" claim, then I would also like very much to hear your next hypothesis plucked from the withering vines of AiG...</I><BR/><BR/>I will ask how it is possible for you to know anything, before I give a answer. You see, if you can’t know anything, then you have no basis for evaluating any answer I give, or whether or not I have even given one, and I would just be wasting my time. Also, what is the justification for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic you wish to use to evaluate my answer? :)D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.com