Sunday, September 03, 2006

The only objections are stupid objections

JL: Steve Hays over at Triablogue has responded to a comment of mine by saying: "DC is simply a convenient repository for stupid arguments against the faith. Since the only objections are stupid objections, DC will do as well as anyone else."

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/09/only-objections-are-stupid-objections.html

Continuing:

JL: There are a whole host of Occidental thinkers throughout the ages who have rejected Christianity, including Bertrand Russell, while nearly all Oriental thinkers have rejected Christianity. But all of our objections are stupid ones? Really?

SH: Several issues to sort out:

1.As far as Occidental thinkers are concerned, there are some first-rate thinkers who were unbelievers. Off the top of my head, the following names come to mind: H. N. Castaneda, Chomsky, Dirac, Einstein, Feynman, Frege, Freud, Gell-Mann, Hintikka, Hume, Kripke, Mandelbrot, McTaggart, Mill, Pauling, Penrose, Poincaré, Quine, Russell, Turing, von Neumann, and Witten, to name a few.

2.But the problem with Loftus’ contention is that most of the brightest minds in secularism don’t bother to attack the Christian faith in any rigorous or systematic way.

3.That job is generally delegated to second-rate thinkers and popularizers like Dawkins. Dawkins is not a great scientist. He’s never made a great scientific discovery.

Or you may have a first-rate thinker like Russell who does attack the Christian faith, but he reserves his attacks on the faith for his potboilers. Hackwork.

4.Or you may have a first-rate thinker like Mill or McTaggart who will attack a particular aspect of Christian theism, such as the problem of evil.

Even then, their line of attack is conceptually flawed.

5.Or you may have a first-rate thinker like Hume or Freud who launches a general attack on the faith, but, again, their attack is conceptually flawed.

6.To take a comparison, both Russell and Mackie critique the Christian faith. Mackie is not as smart as Russell, but his critique is more tightly-reasoned—albeit conceptually flawed.

7.As far as Oriental thinkers are concerned, most of them never rejected the Christian faith because they never considered the Christian faith in the first place.

In Asia, philosophical theology has centered on Hindu/Buddhist polemics.

8.As for Islam, Islamic countries are closed societies. The law of apostasy is a very effective deterrent to open debate.

9.Or, take Algazel. Here was a great intellect. And he once wrote a book against the deity of Christ. Unlike most Muslim polemicists, he did not resort to the charge of textual corruption.

Instead, he tried to argue that the NT had been misinterpreted. That the NT does not, in fact, testify to the deity of Christ.

Well, I guess he was sincere. And being a Muslim no doubt made it easier for him to read it that way.

But it’s a hopeless argument.

JL: Hays believes that Calvinistic Christianity (his brand) is intellectually superior such that all one needs in knowledge to see the truth.

SH: A palpably false statement. Calvinism has never maintained that knowledge alone is sufficient to instill conviction. There must be a predisposition to believe. A receptivity to the truth. Apart from regeneration, truth has the effect of hardening the unbeliever.

JL: This statement of his tells more about him and probably his team members than it says anything about his case. He's certain that he's correct. But subjective certainty says nothing about his case.

SH: It’s true that I enjoy subjective certainly. However, I’ve never deployed my subjective certainty as an argument for the faith.

I’ve always mounted rational or evidential arguments for the faith.

JL: No wonder he treats anyone who disagrees with him with such distain.

SH:

1.Another falsehood. Just recently I was asked to evaluate an article by W. L. Craig. I disagreed with it. But I didn’t treat Dr. Craig or his argument with disdain. I could give other examples.

2.Now, it’s true that I’m often disdainful. But that’s not because I’m automatically disdainful of those I disagree with. Rather, that’s an incidental consequence of my selection criteria.

I have apologetic priorities. For the most part, I have no occasion to pick a fight with those I respect, but disagree with.

JL: All the rest of us are stupid, even those Christians who disagree with his brand of Calvinistic Christianity.

SH: Another blatant falsehood.

1.To begin with, it’s not only Reformed theism which is intellectually superior to secularism. Thomism is intellectually superior. So is Scotism. So is perfect being theology (Anselm).

Same with J. W. Montgomery (Lutheran).

Same with Paul Barnett, C. S. Lewis or Basil Mitchell or J.B. Mozley or N. T. Wright (Anglican).

Same with Swinburne (Orthodox).

Same with Geach or Newman or Pascal (Catholic).

Same with Archer, Bock, Blomberg, Craig, Dembski, Habermas, Keener, Moreland, or Plantinga (generic Evangelical).

Over on the sidebar I have a number of links to apologetic blogs and websites that do not subscribe to Reformed theology. Loftus is making a series of easily refutable claims.

JL: Such an attitude is extremely sophmoronic and naive. He will never consider any argument against his faith because he has already presupposed that they are all stupid objections.

SH: Oh, but I do consider them: I consider them to be stupid. And I give my reasons why.

JL: But Hays has a monumental task ahead of him to convince people of this, since Christianity is losing ground in the marketplace of ideas.

SH: Is that a fact? Seems to me that secularism is losing ground, which is why it resorts to speech codes and judicial rulings.

JL: This is not someone I care to have a conversation with. I only want conversation/debate partners who will treat me as a dignified person who has sincere objections.

SH: It’s secularism or naturalism or atheism (whatever you want to call it) which degrades human beings, stripping men, women, and children of all inherent dignity or worth.

JL: Hays & Company cannot do this. He's blinded from being a freethinker…

SH: Yes, and isn’t that a loss. My epitaph will say “Christian” while his epitaph will say “free thinker.” I guess that makes his tombstone better than mine.

JL: and can no longer be taken seriously as a serious conversation/debate partner…

SH: Loftus talks like a teenage girl who’s tortured by the question of which dress to wear to the prom. He lives for social approval. A pat on the head.

JL: By his idiosyncratic interpretation of the Bible

SH: Perhaps he’d like to point out two or three of my “idiosyncratic” interpretations of the Bible.

JL: What has probably never occurred to him is that it is quite possible that the evidence for Christianity is not stronger than the objections to it…

SH: This assumes that I’m unacquainted with the major objections to the faith.

JL: And I can argued this based on his own Calvinistic grounds. It's quite possible that the total evidence is against Christianity but that Hays' God simply makes/decrees him believe against the evidence.

SH: Even if we were to credit that hypothetical, it presupposes the very existence the existence of the Calvinistic God. Hence, it assumes that Calvinism is true even if all of the apparent evidence were arrayed against it.

In that event, as long as my belief is true, notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary, who cares? At the end of the day, I’m right and he’s wrong.

Moreover, the two positions are asymmetrical: If I’m wrong and he’s right, it makes no ultimate difference; but if I’m right and he’s wrong, it makes all the difference.

JL: That would make Hays' arguments stupid ones which are accepted by stupid people who believe.

SH: It would make my arguments superfluous. I’d be right even without my supporting arguments. How is that a problem?

JL: Since this is very possible given his Calvinistic God, perhaps he ought to look once again at our objections, but this time do so seriously.

Or, Steve Hays can show me why I'm wrong when I argue for this here, and here based upon his own Calvinistic theology. It's his choice. But as of yet I have not seen Hays & Company argue against what I wrote.

SH: The fact that I don’t reply to every little thing he’s written doesn’t mean that I haven’t responded to that sort of objection before. I’ll frequently ignore his objections because I’ve dealt with that sort of objection elsewhere.

54 comments:

  1. Teddy, are you trying to tell us that mommy kept you up past your bedtime again?

    Drink some warm milk and go to bed, Teddy, and leave the arguing to adults.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve likes to blather on and on, but he still doesn't KNOW that his "God" isn't simply an alien.

    Subjective certainty indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  3. hostus twinkius9/04/2006 10:42 AM

    Apollyon,

    You have been playing this harp string about "God might be an alien" on almost everthing you've posted, and you want to accuse Steve of blathering on and on. That's a good one, perhaps you should listen to yourself...

    ReplyDelete
  4. And yet, the point stands....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Apollyon,

    Ifyou mean that God is the same bing as found in the Bible, no difference, but you just want to call him "alien" and not "God" then your harp string is uninteresting.

    If you don't meant that, then God revealed who he is, and based on His authoritative say-so I know he's not an alien.

    There is no higher authority, or more sure evidence, than God's word, in my worldview. So, I'm perfectly within my epistemic rights to claim knowledge based on His word.

    Now the ball's in yoru court.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Klaatu says:

    "Ifyou mean that God is the same bing as found in the Bible, no difference, but you just want to call him "alien" and not "God" then your harp string is uninteresting."

    Well, not sure what a "bing" is, but even a "bing" might be possible.

    "If you don't meant that, then God revealed who he is, and based on His authoritative say-so I know he's not an alien."

    Blah blah blah blah...

    Man wrote a book...the book says something...man says what it means... hardly godlike

    "There is no higher authority, or more sure evidence, than God's word, in my worldview. So, I'm perfectly within my epistemic rights to claim knowledge based on His word."

    Nifty. But you don';t KNOW you're right.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Christians can't KNOW that God isn't simply an advanced alien...and yet they blather on and on and on...

    And Steve has blathered far more than me on the topic. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  8. It seems to me that the main secular objection to Christianity is that there is no reason to think that the personality ('soul', 'spirit') survives death. If you don't find the idea of survival at all plausible then arguments about how many women were at the tomb, and whether the 'many saints' of Matthew rose from the dead before or after Jesus, etc etc, are surely moot.

    In other words, if your worldview is one of biological naturalism (John Searle's phrase) there is no more reason to argue against Christianity or Islam than animism or Easter Island giant-head worship. All are founded on premises for which there is inadequate evidence.

    Russell in his characteristically generous way said that perhaps some research into psychic phenomena might someday give a reasonable man a basis for believing in the survival of the self, but so far there had been none.

    I haven't done a special study, but I do work with life scientists in a university, and I'm quite confident that the notion that the personality survives death and floats away to some sort of afterlife is not at all common.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Skip,

    So you're saying that if you assume a phsyicalist view of man's constitution then you'll find theism unlikely to be true?

    Good stuff!

    And, it may not be "common" among "life scientists" but that doesn't really affect the truth of the matter, now does it?

    Anyway, biological naturalism and its propety-thing view of man has enogh problems of its own. You see, forget about your person surviving death, your person does not even survive the next minute! There's no identity through time on your view.

    So, no thank you, I'll opt for the theist's position rather than the prima-facie absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  10. its cute to see Paul Manata posting under 'fake names.'

    Discomfiter indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Verataniktu and Apollyon,

    V said, "Well, not sure what a "bing" is, but even a "bing" might be possible."

    Notice that rather than engage my argument he simply attacks the fact that I forgot to put the "e" in being."

    V: "Man wrote a book...the book says something...man says what it means... hardly godlike."

    K: Notice that this is simply an assertion. With all this talk about "knowing" I'd like to see how Verataniktu "knows" this.

    V: Nifty. But you don';t KNOW you're right.


    K: What is "don';t?" I looked it up in the dictionary but couldn't find it.

    Other than that, I just told you how I know and you simply assert that I "don';t!"


    Apollyon,

    I gave you the argument and here's you big response:

    A: "Christians can't KNOW that God isn't simply an advanced alien...and yet they blather on and on and on..."

    That's it! That's all! We've been listening to your broken record for weeks now and this was your big comeback?

    Well, at least other's (ooops, I mean, "other';s") will see that you were nothing but hot air.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Skipchurch,

    Two basic issues:

    1.Dualism is a live philosophical option. There's a raging debate on this very issue in the philosophical literature.

    2.Even if dualism were false, the afterlife can be grounded in the doctrine of the general resurrection rather than the immortality of the soul.

    I, myself, regard both as true, but if, for the sake of argument, the existence of the soul were denied, postmortem survival would still be possible--albeit postponed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pauls stalker9/04/2006 12:44 PM

    Hi Paulsbuddy,

    It's cute to see you posting under another moniker as well.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Steve,

    On some complementarian's (and substantival monists) it does not even need to be postponed since when we die we are immediately given another body to dwell in while we wait our resurrection body.

    I don't hold this view but it still shows that there ios more out there than Skip takes account of.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Everyone take note:

    Steve still can't claim to KNOW that his god isn't an advanced alien race.

    And yet he blathers on.

    Steve...release the pride...admit your faith.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Everyone take note, Apollyon still refuses to engage my argument, yet he blathers on.

    Apollyon...release the pride...admit your faith.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Klaatu,

    What argument?

    You blathered on about the Bible and made some assertions...

    I missed the argument.

    And why does Steve need his little tblogger trolls to stick up for him? Why can't he respond personally?

    Is it PRIDE? FEAR?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Poor Stevie Weevie needs big Toughie Woughie Paul Manata, the spirit-filled Christian, to stick up for him.

    Big Paul...so angry....so transparent....

    ReplyDelete
  19. John Loftus wrote:

    "But Hays has a monumental task ahead of him to convince people of this, since Christianity is losing ground in the marketplace of ideas."

    Quinton Smith disagrees:

    http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_4_2.htm

    ReplyDelete
  20. Apollyon,

    The argument I gave above. Do you need to re-read it?

    I take it on God's say-so. It's an argument from ultimate authority.

    If an all knowing being told you something, wouldn't that be good (the best) reason to accept something?

    If an all-knowing being, who is never wrong, and never lies, told you X, then you'd say that you knew X, right?

    Now, you can ask what standard I subject this presupposition to. The problem is that this begs the question. If God is the *ultimate authority* than there is nothing more sure, higher, or more authoritative, than His say-so. So, there can be nothing that I can appeal to that lets God off the hook. He's the highest court of appeals.

    So, again, I know because an all-knowing being, who is never wrong and never lies, told me so.

    Since we cannot appeal to anything more ultimate that does not imply that there are not rational and evidential arguments for this being. So if you want to see those check this out:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/weapons-of-our-warfare.html

    There, no you have your argument. You aksed how I know, that's how I know.

    And, I'm not a "t-blogger troll." I'm a t-blogger.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Pauls stalker9/04/2006 4:20 PM

    Pauls buddy, I'm obsessed with Paul Manata too.

    Would you like to come over and play Paul Manata with me?

    I get to be Paul because I have a fake bald head mask.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Of course, I answered apollyon's question a long time ago.

    I'd just add, though, that if he's going play the role of hypersceptic, then he doesn't know that I exist, in which case it's rather unreasonable of him to demand an answer from a nonentity.

    So as soon as he can prove that I exist, then I'd be happy to answer his question (one more time).

    The ball is back in your court, apollyon.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Of course we know Steve already answered Apollyon, but even if he didn't, it's wrong to infer that he can't do something because I gave an argument against Apollyon.

    The way I look at it is like this: Steve ownes a restaurant. He can take out the garbage. That is, he's capable. But, because he hires a minmum wage guy to do his dirty work, doesn't mean that he can't take the garbage out.

    So, in case you're really dense:

    I'm the minimum wage guy, your argument is the garbage. It stinks and so I removed it from the premises.

    ReplyDelete
  24. And Apollyon has NEVER engaged with the answer I gave about a week ago, either. I won't repeat it, because he can check back. Suffice it to say, the central premise is that Christianity is not flexible enough to be the product of an advanced alien race. Now, Hinduism, with its multiple avatars of multiple gods, looks far more likely the sort of thing an advanced alien race mightmanufacture, as allowing for multiple interventions whenever these are required. Christianity, with its closed prophetic canon and single appearance of the deity is too open to bad things happening.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Steve,

    Actually, you never directly answered the question.

    You meandered off into asking ME all sorts of things, but avoided a direct answer yourself. As if somehow my views had something to do with your ability to answer the question.

    Hiraeth, and even Calvindude did answer the question. Not sure why its so hard for you though.

    Paul...you're a clown. No matter what fake name you post with.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hiraeth said:

    "Suffice it to say, the central premise is that Christianity is not flexible enough to be the product of an advanced alien race."

    Or so it seems to you. So, if something 'seems that way' to me, that's acceptable?

    "Now, Hinduism, with its multiple avatars of multiple gods, looks far more likely the sort of thing an advanced alien race mightmanufacture, as allowing for multiple interventions whenever these are required."

    Or so it seems to you.

    "Christianity, with its closed prophetic canon and single appearance of the deity is too open to bad things happening."

    Or so it seems to you.

    You've already admitted you don't KNOW if God is "God," but that it sure seems likely.

    Or so it seems to you.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Apollyon wrote:

    "Paul...you're a clown. No matter what fake name you post with."


    Well, I just want to point out that Apollyon fails, AGAIN, to interact with my argument.

    I may be a "clown" but this fact does nothing to refute the substance of my argument. Classic ad hominem tactic on your end.

    So, the "clown" gives arguments and the "serious one" offers ad hominems.

    It appeas then that it is Apollyon is the clown. The question I have then, are you just a clown when you post under the name Apollyon, or no matter which name you post under?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Klaatu said:

    "I take it on God's say-so. It's an argument from ultimate authority."

    So you say.

    "If an all knowing being told you something, wouldn't that be good (the best) reason to accept something?"

    Reading words in a book doesn't equate with "an all knowing being told me so," especially in a book so obviously written by ignorant morons who thought the sky was a hard dome holding back the water.

    Not interesting.

    "If an all-knowing being, who is never wrong, and never lies, told you X, then you'd say that you knew X, right?"

    God is not all knowing ("Adam, where are you?" and God can lie, ableit indirectly, according to the Bible, so there goes that argument.

    BBBBZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTT!!!!

    Next.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Apollyon is A, Klaatu is K.

    Klaatu said:

    "I take it on God's say-so. It's an argument from ultimate authority."

    A: So you say.

    K: Well, you asked how *I* know that God is not an alien. How else could *I* tell you how *I* know other than *me* saying how I know.

    And, for the record, "so you say" is not a defeater of an argument. if it is, "so you say." ;-)

    A: Reading words in a book doesn't equate with "an all knowing being told me so," especially in a book so obviously written by ignorant morons who thought the sky was a hard dome holding back the water.

    K: And begging the question, poisoning the well, attacking straw men, misrepresenting the data, and giving false analogies, coupled with ad hominems does not suffice to refute someone.

    A: God is not all knowing ("Adam, where are you?"

    K: God is all knowing. Her certainly knew where Adam was:

    Thou thoughtest that I was altogether such a one as thyself: (but) I will reprove thee, and set (them) in order before thine eyes." (Psalm 50:21)

    "The eyes of Jehovah are in every place, keeping watch upon the evil and the good." (Proverbs 15:3)

    And there is no creature that is not manifest in His sight: but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." (Hebrews 4:13)

    “If I say, Surely the darkness shall fall on me, even the night shall be light about me; indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, but the night shines as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to You.” (Psalm 139:11,12)

    "Where art thou" need not be talking about where you are physically, especially when the rest of the Bible is taken in to context.

    For example, a man may cheat on his wife and then loose her and his family. A friend might ask him, "where did that get you?" Is he asking "where were you latitudinally?"

    Frequently in Genesis God uses language like this prior to judgment, cf. Gen. 3:11-13; 4:9, 10; 11:5; 18:21; etc.

    So, God investingating the situation as a judge would do, prior to handing out judgment. "Where are you" refers to the *state* Adam was in (i.e., the sinful state).

    A: and God can lie, ableit indirectly, according to the Bible,


    K: No he can't. Causing someone to believe a lie is not lying.

    A: so there goes that argument

    K: Sorry, mere assertions and fallacious question begging epithets aside, you didn't touch diddly.

    Care to try again? Oh, and before you do, would you care to define what you mean by "know?" What is it to "know" something in your worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  30. klaatu -

    You can twist words to mean anything you want them to mean, as you obviously are doing with the words in the Bible. You start out with a theology you want to achieve, based on what you've been told to think by others, and VOILA, that is what you find in the Bible!

    Hardly amazing.

    The believer then blurts...

    "But you must read the text in context."

    "Exegesis is key!"

    "Ah, you're reading the wrong version."

    "Heresy!"

    :::YAWN!::::

    You flounder and blather, but still do not know.

    The best you can offer up is to ask someone else how THEY know what the say. Kind of like the creationist whining about evolution.

    "there's a fossil missing!"

    "Where did matter come from?"

    "Ha! Evolution is destroyed, therefore biblical creation is true!"

    "I'll nitpick over people's "worldviews," that makes mine true! But if they nitpick mine, they are wrong! I'll presuppose I'm right!"

    :::YAWN!:::

    The point is, you don't KNOW what you claim to know, Paul. What "I" know has no bearing on this. Neither of us KNOWS, but I am honest enough to admit it, and most believers are not.

    So take your vitamins, read some more Van Til, keep spending fruitful time interacting with 'fools' online, and continue to pat yourself on the back like a good t-blogger.

    You still don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  31. You know, Apollyon, you're right. That's how it seems to me. I can only tell it as it seems to me.

    I have also explained why it seems that way to me.

    Your point is?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Apollyon,

    I'm sorry you're getting so emotional over this. Acting like this makes me think you used to be a fundamentalist preacher who didn't know his Bible but held to the motto: Scream loud and wave your hands if your points are weak.

    Again, Apollyon is A and Klaatu is K.

    A: You can twist words to mean anything you want them to mean,

    K: Well alert the media.

    Guess what, you can also.

    Furthermore, so you say.

    A: as you obviously are doing with the words in the Bible.

    K: Well, if it's so obvious, why not show everyone?

    I gave an argument, you made, yet another(!), assertion.

    Since arbitrariness is a fickle friend I'll respond thusly: You obviously have twisted the words in the Bible.

    Oh, one more thing: so you say.

    A: You start out with a theology you want to achieve, based on what you've been told to think by others, and VOILA, that is what you find in the Bible!

    K: Well, even if true, this commits the genetic fallacy. The above does not mean that I'm *wrong.*

    Secondly, where's the proof, or is assertion all you got?

    Third, let me perform a reversal again: You start out with a atheology you want to achieve, based on what you've been told to think by others, and VOILA, that is what you find in the Bible!

    Fourth, so you say.

    A: The believer then blurts...

    "But you must read the text in context."

    "Exegesis is key!"


    K: Oh, so you shouldn't read things in context and you shouldn't apply exegetical principles? Okay, I think I like that. Well, I grant you that if you take the Bible out of context you can find many errors, so I guess you've defeated me, how can I fight against someone who can take things out of context, supply no meaning as to why he understands the text to be saying what it is saying, and then accuse the other person of not reading it properly!

    Second, if exegesis and context are unimportant, than how can you criticise *my* reading? You can't. So, you've gained a pyrrhic victory.

    Third, so you say.

    A: You flounder and blather, but still do not know.

    K: No, I do know. You've still not even so much as put a dent in my argument. We'll be waiting.

    And, so you say.

    A: The best you can offer up is to ask someone else how THEY know what the say. Kind of like the creationist whining about evolution.

    K: No, I offered an argument and the best you can do is to say that we shouldn't read things in context and showing how you draw the meaning out of the text is unimportant.

    The best you can do is to print in caps and say things like: BBBZZZZZTTTT.

    The best you can do is shout and hope people will think more of your argument.

    The best you can do is not interact with my argument.

    I gave an argument. I then asked what you mean by the word "know." For example, if you think that the only way to 'know' something is when pink faries whisper sweet nothings into your ear, then I grant I don't 'know' that God is not an alien.

    Are you applying an internalist constraint. Is knowledge JTB? What counts as J?

    So, the best you can do is not define the words *you use.*

    Oh, one more things, so you say.

    A: "I'll nitpick over people's "worldviews," that makes mine true! But if they nitpick mine, they are wrong! I'll presuppose I'm right!"

    K: You're still in grade school, aren't you?

    You asked how *I* know, and I told you how *I* know. Then, when you can't beat my argument, you engage in schoolyard tactics. Well, nee ner nee ner nee ner, you don't have a weener.

    So, so you say.

    A: The point is, you don't KNOW what you claim to know, Paul.

    K: The point is, I do. And, I gave an argument to back it up.

    And, so you say.

    A: What "I" know has no bearing on this.

    K: I asked you to *define* a term. You don't think you need to define terms? If you mean 'know' like how I said above, then you're right. So, Apollyon is saying that a pink fairy never whispered sweet nothings into my ear. How uninteresting. If you don't meant that, then care to define what 'know' is?

    Secondly, so you say.

    A: Neither of us KNOWS, but I am honest enough to admit it, and most believers are not.

    K: Oh, so you don't KNOW that I don't KNOW that God is not an alien? If so, how do you KNOW that I don't KNOW.

    Secondly, Romans 1 says that you do KNOW who God is. So, to say you don't KNOW who God is is to say that Romans 1 is false. Do you KNOW Romans 1 is false? If not, why hold a position that implies that it is false. So, you don't even KNOW that you don't KNOW.

    Third, so you say.

    A:So take your vitamins, read some more Van Til, keep spending fruitful time interacting with 'fools' online, and continue to pat yourself on the back like a good t-blogger.

    K: So, offer some more ad hominems, that's what you're best at.

    One last thing, so yuou say!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Apollyon said: "Steve likes to blather on and on, but he still doesn't KNOW that his "God" isn't simply an alien."

    And,

    "Neither of us KNOWS, but I am honest enough to admit it, and most believers are not."


    K: So, since you admitted that *you also* don't KNOW, then I assume you won't be "blathering on?"

    If you continue to "blather on" while not knowing then why mention Steve "blathering on" while not knowing?

    Are you a self-refuter?

    Isn't that the worst, when you refute yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Paul, I mean Klaatu said:

    "lots of blather....."

    and

    "One last thing, so yuou say!"

    You can't even spell correctly in an insult. Classic Manata.

    In the words of Manata:

    "You loose!"

    ReplyDelete
  35. Apollyon wrote: You can't even spell correctly in an insult. Classic Manata.


    Klaatu: Above, post 9/04/2006 9:14 PM, Apollyon wrote,

    "God is not all knowing ("Adam, where are you?" and God can lie, ableit indirectly, according to the Bible, so there goes that argument."

    Notice he can't even close his parenthesis out. Classic Apollyon.


    Also notice that he blathers on.

    Above at 9/04/2006 10:55 AM Apollyon wrote:

    Everyone take note:

    Steve still can't claim to KNOW that his god isn't an advanced alien race.

    And yet he blathers on.


    But at 9/05/2006 4:15 AM he wrote,

    "Neither of us KNOWS, but I am honest enough to admit it, and most believers are not."

    So, Apollyon gets to "blather on" but Steve doesn't, even though eh says they *both* don't "KNOW."

    You see, I don't even need to argue anymore, there's enough fodder here in this combox to tie Apollyon up like a pretzle.


    Apollyon wrote: In the words of Manata: "You loose!"

    K: How does the fatc that I made a typo translate to the fact that "I loose?" Care to tie that together for us?

    Okay, I'll cut you some slack. Yes, Apollyon, I lost. You defeated me. I made a typo and so that means my argument is wrong. You're the big winner. Hip hip, hooray. Hip hip, hooray. Three cheers for Apollyon, the big winner.

    ReplyDelete
  36. BOOM!!!

    You heard it here folks. Paul admits what many have already learned...he is a loser.

    (however, he will be a winner come judgement day!)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Is that Apollyon blathering on again, even though he doesn't know.

    Hey Apollyon, could you catch Klaatu's sarcasm? It was pretty thick.

    Unfortunatley for you, you just got worked in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  38. g-unit - you don't know either.

    BOOM!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Apollyon,

    I'm sticking with Klaatu's answer. So far, it's not been refuted by you.

    But, why are you blathering on while you don't know either? Boom!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Step aside g-unit...I don't converse with admitted losers, or their sidekicks...from this post foreward.


    YOU LOOSE!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Apollyon said:

    Paul, I mean Klaatu said:

    "lots of blather....."

    and

    "One last thing, so yuou say!"

    You can't even spell correctly in an insult. Classic Manata.

    *********

    But how does apollyon KNOW that Klaatu misspelled the word?

    Maybe an alien made apollyon misperceive the word?

    BTW, how does apollyon KNOW that I didn't answer his question? Maybe I did answer, but the alien made apollyon forget the answer?

    ReplyDelete
  42. That's cute, Steve.

    But you still haven't answered.

    Tough for your pride to admit you don't know something, isn't it? Especially something so important.

    Why do you care what I know? You can't even answer simple questions!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Steve did answer, and you admitted he was correct and that you wanted to massage his feet while he sipped Mai Tai's on the beach.

    Remember, you said Steve was the man and he answered your question with brilliance.

    You think not?

    How do you KNOW that he didn't? Maybe an alien is deceiving you?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Equally, I note, Apollyon, that I did not say I didn't know. In fact, I said I was as sure as I could be. That I cannot be 100% sure is neither here nor there, as one cannot be 100% sure of anything, only reasonably certain.

    'If somethings seems that way to me it's acceptable.'

    If the evidence seems to point in that direction and a suitable argument can be constructed, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hiraeth said:

    "Equally, I note, Apollyon, that I did not say I didn't know. In fact, I said I was as sure as I could be. That I cannot be 100% sure is neither here nor there, as one cannot be 100% sure of anything, only reasonably certain."

    Tell that to the drones here at t-blogg. They think they KNOW with 100% certainty.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Apollyon said:

    That's cute, Steve.

    But you still haven't answered.

    Tough for your pride to admit you don't know something, isn't it?

    ********************

    Well, in order for me to admit that I don't know something, I'd have to know that I don't know something.

    But according to you, I can't know what I know, in which case I can't know what I don't know.

    So if I were to say I was wrong, I might be wrong to say I was wrong.

    Those pesky aliens might make me believe I was wrong when I was really right all along.

    Unfortunately, you've made it impossible for me to answer you question in the negative.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Steve, you do know that Cary Grant "played for the other team," right?

    Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    ReplyDelete
  48. pesky aliens9/06/2006 11:31 AM

    Steve,

    You're right, Apollyon is wrong. Actually he's a lab experiment gone awry. We will destimulate his artificial consciousness and put him back on "the bus". Thanks for putting up with him...

    ReplyDelete
  49. Guys, enough.

    I'll be the first to admit, I don't *know* if I'm saved. But that doesn't change the fact that I think I am.

    duh.

    ReplyDelete
  50. what do you mean by 'know?'

    ReplyDelete
  51. know = justified true belief

    gut feeling

    intense feeling of knowledge

    I know, cuz I know.

    Boo yeah!

    ReplyDelete
  52. It’s secularism or naturalism or atheism (whatever you want to call it) which degrades human beings, stripping men, women, and children of all inherent dignity or worth.

    I'm sorry -- I must've misread my bible. I'm pretty sure I saw several instances in which degradation of human beings (slavery), stripping men of inherent dignity (murdering them for living in a land god decreed belonged to someone else), stripping women of inherent dignity (keep your traps shut in church, equating women with property in the tenth commandment), stripping children of inherent dignity (slay all the young males and non-virgin women, taking the virgin women and girls as slaves and concubines)...

    Oh -- I see what you're getting at. You're saying that "secularism or naturalism or atheism (whatever you want to call it) [implicitly] degrades human beings, stripping men, women, and children of all inherent dignity or worth", whereas Abrahamic religion explicitly "degrades human beings, stripping men, women, and children of all inherent dignity or worth."

    That is a position from which you may argue. The subject of that particular debate would be the assertion that secularism implies the degradation of humanity.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  53. As to Paul (Monata), who wants to have his cake and eat it, too:

    I take it on God's say-so. It's an argument from ultimate authority.

    You realize, of course, that you are asserting (or presupposing) both god's existence and that the say-so you perceive is indeed his, yes?

    You also realize, that even were these assertions true, you'd be committing the fallacy of arguing from authority, right?

    How does this help your case?

    Well, even if true, this commits the genetic fallacy. The above does not mean that I'm *wrong.*

    No, but appealing to authority doesn't make you right, either. Tit for tat?

    Secondly, where's the proof, or is assertion all you got?

    Is that the only form of argument which can be found on this site? It seems that the most popular objection to any non-believer's post is that everything in it is an assertion.

    Look, people, if both parties in a debate agree with a particular assertion, it is acceptable to use. It's silly and juvenile to constantly cry foul that everything your opponent says is an assertion. Paul made two assertions in one breath in my first quote of him above, but it is irrelevant -- I pointed it out only to demonstrate that Paul, too, was guilty of assertions. The failure of that first quote was the appeal to authority:

    So, again, I know because an all-knowing being, who is never wrong and never lies, told me so.

    You "know" because you attribute the perception of another being as having declared itself to be all-knowing and always true ('never wrong' is redundant) as the being your perceptions of its declarations describe.

    Too confusing? You "know" because you believe, not because you actually know. You presuppose that the voices in your head (or however you perceived this "divine" communique) are who they say they are, and you presuppose that their statements are true.

    Your statements belie the truth that Apollyon asks that you admit:

    You don't know what you claim to know.

    Steve's petulant interjections regarding Apollyon's lack of knowledge regarding the number of aliens inhabiting Steve is both asinine and apt. Sure, we don't know how many aliens it takes to present the spruced-up arguments of a retard, but we also don't claim to know.

    It is both entirely possible, and not awfully unlikely, that 'Paul' (under the moniker 'Klaatu'), 'Steve', and 'Apollyon' are all one individual typing away using multiple profiles.

    The fact that I can understand the statements from each, and engage them, indicates that I accept some risk in things about which I do not know, but which I am satisfied to assume. I assume that at least one person typed these statements, and I admit that I know nothing about any such individual.

    A reciprocal admission regarding your claims to divine knowledge seems to be in order.

    (Of course, I also admit that no one is likely to read and/or respond to this, since it is so old, and that even if someone does, I am unlikely to engage in any resulting discussion, for much the same reason -- I reached this and a few other older posts through Steve's (unclickable) URL offerings in other archived posts. Drive-by blogophilia, if you will)

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete