Friday, March 14, 2008


AP guys have effectively said that they cannot answer my argument about the prophets, so they left that one alone. They said that you cannot interpret language logically, and so need not deal with the logic of my argument. They repeated their misunderstanding of determinism, saying that there can be no means if God determins everything, and saying that we are nothing but robots. I have shown that some things that were determined had means, and I have also given a logical argument which they chose not to challenge the truth of the premises. I also am not impressed by Arminian straw men regarding determinism. But if they want to play the part of the ignorant fool, I won't stop them. Since I can recognize when someone doesn't have anything else to say, but just has to say something, and this is one of those cases, I can conclude that they have been overwhelmed and have no rational rebuttal to my arguments. Either they can actually deal with my arguments in detail, or they can post just to post. But, until my arguments are dealt with I won't waste my time responding. If they don't want to respond to my arguments, but want to say they put up something in order to cater to their fans, then I'll graciously allow them to bow out of the debate.


  1. is there a function for Triablogue where it doesnt show the entire post, but rather the first few paragraphs and then you can click on "More..." to expand it.


  2. So Paul,

    It is surprising for you to be claiming victory like this and never address my comments, which, as I have said, I believe overturn your argument quickly and simply with a small but critical point.

    I don't have a lot of time, and will probably leave it to Ben and Josh to follow up if necessary.

    God bless.

  3. Josh, Ben, or whoever,

    I did address your chomment. I pointed out you made classic straw men blunders regarding determinism.

    You don't think it is a means because God ordained it.

    All you were doing is *repeating* libertarian assumptions.

    You can't "defeat" my argument by saying, "First, you are begging the question by trying to define intercessory prayer as a means in your argument." If you don't know why, let me explain.

    I am not begging the question, as you said, since they were offering an INTERNAL critique. You you guys keep missing is that I answered Ben on his own terms. if you want to move the goal posts and make your argument this:

    "Arminian is inconsistent with Calvinism."

    Then I gladly conceed. You have beat me straight up.

    But since that *wasn't* the initial critique, I am allows to use MY SYSTEM to answer it. If I have to individually prove all the parts then don't call it an inconsistency BETWEEN two of my beliefs. The one argument is:

    "Prove Calvinism."

    The other is:

    "Prove HOW Calvinism has the resources to address what looks to be an internal tension."

    I hope you're starting to get an inkling of why your "response" was ridiculous. I mean, perhaps that kind of response would work in OTHER areas, but not the specific context I was opperating in.

    There, I hope that clears things up for you.

    You wrote: "The point is that if God decides to irresistibly cause someone to get saved, and therefore irresisibly causes someone to pray for the person to get saved, that request God irresistibly caused to be asked to himself cannot reasonably be caused a means to the person getting saved."

    This is an *assertion.* I have covered this objection NUMEROUS times in the archives. So has Steve. So has Gene. In fact, oh master of the self-refutation, YOU just begged the question. SInce this wasn't an *argument,* you just *assumed* libertarian assumptions to disprove my argument!

    Same with the rest of your comments. You simply 8assume* libertarianism. You simply fail to place the dialogue in its proper context. And, you gusy should re-name your objection. Rather than saying:

    (a) "Calvinis has internal problems within itssystem."

    (b) You should have just said,
    "We disagree with Calvinism. It is wrong for external reasons."

    You can't set the debate up according to (a), then when I appropriately answer by the terms of (a), you switch to (b)!

    So, I have not "declared victory" (even though you have (see your comments) and both Ben and J.C. have), I simply said you guys are chosing to not answwer my question, I am right about that, and I am letting you guys bow out.

    For those who read the exchanges, all of them (even though I doubt even any one Arminian has read the entirety of my responses), there can be no question of who got the better of who.

    Look, at this point, when one denies the logical translation of Jesus' statements, does not address my reasons, and repeats blunders, I am not under an obligation to carry on.

    Look, I'm find ending the discussion as it stands.

    I have offered about 85% substance to their 15% substance coming back at me. But they focus on the 15% "trash talk" and the discussion has no degenerated to nonsense.

    If you guys are not fine where the discussion stands at this point, I fully understand. I would too if I were in your shoes. But, I do not have to continue when at this point nothing has been said to advance the discussioon, my points have not been refuted, etc. I mean, I know you may *think* you have refuted my points, but as I showed you above with your own points, perception does not = reality. I am under no obligation to try to continue to prove something to people who can't keept the argument straight, and can't seem to muster proper responses to my arguments. Indeed, I never wrote these post for you guys. I was under no allusion that you guys would try to seriously interact with the arguments. I wrote it more for Calvinists and those non-Calvinists who come here. Seems to me that goal has been fulfilled. Whining about it won't do anything. You saw how I dealt with your objection quickly and decisively. I could have done that on the main page. But I didn't. Because I'm done. I got out of this what I intended.

  4. BTW, Ben, Josh, or whoever,

    You would notice if you had read everything that some of the same points Josh used to say that prayer was "meaningful" or had a "point" on his scheme, were things I also said. This showed that I answered the original argument (even though I went way beyond all of that). If those things were not "points" or "meanings" for me, then they weren't for Josh and Ben and thus you guys still have the problem that prayer for you gusy is useless and pointless.

    That you guys couldn't be honest enough to recognize that I answered the original argument, and then I set up Josh and got him to use some of the same answers that I did, is another reason why I do not feel compelled to continue going round 'n round with you guys.

    So, glad I could answer your comment.