tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post7728132094556361203..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: Inconsistent Worldview D. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-78634220023352068532017-05-02T16:43:32.512-04:002017-05-02T16:43:32.512-04:00You're building a tall strawman here breh.
I ...You're building a tall strawman here breh.<br /><br />I say "atheistic worldviews", not atheism is a worldview silly. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />THIS is why God said repentance comes before knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26<br /><br />It sure is frustrating though. I'd much rather you beg for your repentance instead of arguing in such a nonsensical and illogical manner.<br /><br />I love you buddy. PLEASE beg for that gift of repentance. For ALL of our sake.<br /><br />Also, remember the purpose of logic: <br /><br />Logic represents a transcendent moral imperative for correct thinking.<br /><br />“Folly is a joy to him who lacks sense, but a man of understanding walks straight ahead.” ~Proverbs 15:21<br /><br />"I. Logic is the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from incorrect reasoning.<br />B. Logic differs from psychology in being a normative or a prescriptive discipline rather than a descriptive discipline.<br />1. I.e., it prescribes how one ought to reason; it's not concerned with how one actually does reason.<br />2. Logic is concerned with laying down the rules for correct reasoning.<br />3. Consequently, logic seeks to distinguish good arguments from poor ones."<br /><br />RIGHT or WRONG, CORRECT, and OUGHT are all prescriptive terms. Care to restructure YOUR reasoning about things? More importantly, care to repent? :)<br /><br />http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/nature_log.html<br />Debunking Atheists https://www.blogger.com/profile/09738373112032154790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-13101134378427516092017-05-02T07:10:18.969-04:002017-05-02T07:10:18.969-04:00I couldn't find the part where Colt even START...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. <br /><br />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". <br /><br />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. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13630047639388608058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-67812615572417612282012-12-21T19:35:46.678-05:002012-12-21T19:35:46.678-05:00Screw it...if "god" is the precondition ...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.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-35832423644526247622012-12-14T10:28:23.976-05:002012-12-14T10:28:23.976-05:00D.A.N. said...
>>I should jump to the concl...D.A.N. said...<br /><br />>>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?<br /><br /><i>Maybe I should of said a larger number, like some 300 games (Prophecies) instead. Maybe you would get the point then?</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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...<br /><br />>>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?<br /><br /><i>Wow are your comprehension skills seriously lacking tonight!</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>I certainly do trust in the Lord, but that is not what I was saying. Is that clearer?</i><br /><br />Crystal.freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-57042358754184967542012-12-14T10:18:09.438-05:002012-12-14T10:18:09.438-05:00Dan:
Unfortunately, christians have a grand ...Dan:<br /><br /> Unfortunately, christians have a grand total of <i>zero</i> prophecies going for them. That's right, not a single one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-46087508662635329882012-12-14T06:02:24.538-05:002012-12-14T06:02:24.538-05:00>>I should jump to the conclusion that you&#...>>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?<br /><br />Maybe I should of said a larger number, like some 300 games (Prophecies) instead. Maybe you would <i>get the point</i> then?<br /><br />>>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?<br /><br />Wow are your comprehension skills seriously lacking tonight! <br /><br />I said "So, in my scenario, it would come down to...trust." which means <i>since</i> I am not God and don't have the power to relay things such you're certain about it, <i>than</i> 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? D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-82147716869691158412012-12-14T05:04:16.936-05:002012-12-14T05:04:16.936-05:00D.A.N. said...
Great, so when the team I told you...D.A.N. said...<br /><br /><i>Great, so when the team I told you to bet on wins...it should give you pause.</i><br /><br />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...<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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?freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-53407988181687320662012-12-13T13:30:30.096-05:002012-12-13T13:30:30.096-05:00Great, so when the team I told you to bet on wins....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.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-9769813677083789702012-12-13T04:31:18.526-05:002012-12-13T04:31:18.526-05:00D.A.N. said...
>>It seems the only logical ...D.A.N. said...<br /><br /><i>>>It seems the only logical way you could be 100% certain is if God granted you omniscience<br /><br />Why?</i><br /><br />Logic.<br /><br /><i>You keep barely asserting it, but never have clarified.</i><br /><br />Lol, I've explained it many, many times Dan. It even stems from <i>your</i> 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.<br /><br /><i>God certainly reveal certain things to us so we're certain.</i><br /><br />Only by granting you omniscience.<br /><br /><i>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?</i><br /><br />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.freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-5572282728761778332012-12-12T16:09:37.334-05:002012-12-12T16:09:37.334-05:00God is the precondition for intelligibility requir...<b>God is the precondition for intelligibility required for your hypothetica</b><br />Huh? What makes you say that? I've never seen "god" in any equation or logical hypothesis.<br /><br /><b>So, once again, it is impossible for God to lie.</b><br />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?<br /><br /><br />Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-59638002801853708942012-12-12T13:02:10.199-05:002012-12-12T13:02:10.199-05:00You're not addressing my argument.
It's th...<b>You're not addressing my argument.</b><br />It's the only way he can avoid revealing the flaws in his.Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-14084232653091158252012-12-12T13:00:37.630-05:002012-12-12T13:00:37.630-05:00he was appealing to a standardand judging
How is a...<b>he was appealing to a standard</b><b>and judging</b><br />How is asking a question "judging"?<br /><br /><b>to bring it up in a "gotcha" moment</b><br />What does timing have to do with my question? Sounds like someone felt convicted by his own worldview...Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-69884601410817792902012-12-12T12:02:39.703-05:002012-12-12T12:02:39.703-05:00Dan:
More empty assertions? You may as well...Dan:<br /><br /> 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-4362860372199157322012-12-12T01:27:31.393-05:002012-12-12T01:27:31.393-05:00God is the precondition for intelligibility requir...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 awayD. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-29251286907678124002012-12-11T23:57:29.802-05:002012-12-11T23:57:29.802-05:00What do you know about his worldview? He's ju...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?Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-39510766347404055662012-12-11T23:56:16.407-05:002012-12-11T23:56:16.407-05:00No it isn't. Read the bible. Remember the st...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?Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-58202660899293775742012-12-11T23:10:40.692-05:002012-12-11T23:10:40.692-05:00Because God has revealed it such that WE can be ce...<b>Because God has revealed it such that WE can be certain of it.</b><br />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.<br /><br />Also, why the capitalized "WE"? I sure as fucking hell never got any such revelation.<br /><br />Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-33070125801609441922012-12-11T21:55:07.561-05:002012-12-11T21:55:07.561-05:00Dan:
I did read what you said. And I did no...Dan:<br /><br /> 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."<br /> 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.<br /> 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-1930231863202719912012-12-11T19:51:31.730-05:002012-12-11T19:51:31.730-05:00>>Lying is not impossible for an omnipotent ...>>Lying is not impossible for an omnipotent being. <br /><br />Strawman. That is not what I said. Read what I said: "it is impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being to lie."<br /><br />>>If I were to take the bible as even remotely accurate, I would have to conclude that its god was evil.<br /><br />With a moral law, or standard, that does not comport with your worldview. At least you're consistently inconstant. D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-44413027272471081392012-12-11T13:52:30.641-05:002012-12-11T13:52:30.641-05:00Dan:
Lying is not impossible for an omnipote...Dan:<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /> Would you like to try a <i>real</i> 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.<br /><br /> 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-55257138163614699632012-12-11T12:49:48.905-05:002012-12-11T12:49:48.905-05:00>> He may not have clarified. But I did. Any...>> 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.<br /><br />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. D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-35399698033889265572012-12-11T12:17:20.826-05:002012-12-11T12:17:20.826-05:00 "Why? You keep barely asserting it, but ... "Why? You keep barely asserting it, but never have clarified. God certainly reveal certain things to us so we're certain."<br /><br /> He may not have clarified. But <i>I</i> did. Any sufficiently powerful being could "reveal" a lie to you in such a way that you would <i>say</i> you were certain it was the truth. But it gets worse. You keep saying we already believe your nonsense. We <i>know</i> that's not true.<br /><br /> 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-66063196937377959932012-12-11T08:33:40.950-05:002012-12-11T08:33:40.950-05:00>>It seems the only logical way you could be...>>It seems the only logical way you could be 100% certain is if God granted you omniscience<br /><br />Why? You keep barely asserting it, but never have clarified. God certainly reveal certain things to us so we're certain.<br /><br />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?D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-66531074194787973932012-12-11T08:23:51.145-05:002012-12-11T08:23:51.145-05:00Oh come on! Granted, I smiled at your point, but h...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? <br /><br />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.<br /><br />But, I doubt I will ever divorce Presup, it was love at first sight.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-83538681756906097772012-12-11T08:13:25.092-05:002012-12-11T08:13:25.092-05:00What moral law, or standard, are you appealing to ...<b>What moral law, or standard, are you appealing to in order to make this claim?</b><br />Point to the claim I made.<br /><br />And answer the question, coward.Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.com