an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Bob ‘@Piltdownsupermn’ Sorensen, Wrong AGAIN

Unbelievers are afraid of scientific facts that point to a Creator. (original)

Really? Is that what you think, Bob? Want to name just ONE scientific FACT that ‘point[s] to a Creator’? What? You can’t? Is that because such a thing doesn’t exist? It is, isn’t it!

Creatards like Bob would howl it from the roof tops if they had anything that gave their wishful thinking a foot hold in reality, the fact that they don’t is a sure fire sign that they don’t have a fucking thing to back up their delusions.

Think I’m wrong, Bob? Then post your FACTS

Single Post Navigation

159 thoughts on “Bob ‘@Piltdownsupermn’ Sorensen, Wrong AGAIN

  1. That's part of the game. Throw out a claim that attempts to make religious skeptics/atheists look like the rigid thinkers the faithful are. Pathetic and weak attempt at trying to further their cause. Hal

  2. Existence. Beat that.

  3. Existence points out that we don't need a external party to provide us with the ability to have knowledge.

  4. And who told you this there meiser?

  5. Trinity, are you now attempting to use the Primacy of Existence as evidence FOR your god??Incredible

  6. Alex,That's right cup cake. Objectivism pressuposes the Christian God. That's the part Dawson Bethrick couldn't handle. His only resort was to attack me instead of the argument. How devastating.What now?

  7. "Objectivism pressuposes the Christian God."Even more hilarious.So, you're giving up your faith to defend your faith? How peculiar!

  8. Giving up my faith to defend my faith Mind translating this jibberish?Where did misery go?

  9. Ahahahahaha! Fucking classic!! You're truly an idiot, Trinity!

  10. thanks cup cake. you take my breath away

  11. Trinity wrote: "Objectivism pressuposes the Christian God."This is an incoherent statement. It's like saying Objectivism presupposes the imaginary. Trinity, you worship something that isn't there. Trinity wrote: "That's the part Dawson Bethrick couldn't handle."Incoherent statements don't enter the realm of being "handle[d]." For something to be handled, there must be something there in the first place. Your claim as to the existence of an allegedly non-imaginary, all-loving, all-powerful deity, has no substance to it. There's nothing there to handle. It's a claim that amounts and accounts for nothing, because it is nothing — as is any position that violates the primacy of existence. That you have embraced such a position is more than enough to dismiss your claim without further discussion. But Dawson didn't do that. And instead of being grateful to Dawson that he would even discuss these issues with you, here's what you write:Trinity wrote: "His only resort was to attack me instead of the argument."This is a lie. He spent many months patiently explaining to you — through all your spelling and grammar errors, name calling, childishness, refusal to answer questions, straying from topic to topic, fallacies, baiting, etc. — trying to help you understand why your claim that such a being exists makes zero sense. And he has presented arguments to you, not only indirectly through his many writings, but also directly to you in the comments section of his blog.However, your charge doesn't come as a real big surprise. After all, your confessional investment forces you to defend as real that which is only imaginary. So why shouldn't you also to make up stories and level false charges against something or someone that does exist (i.e., Dawson)? You're just staying true to your worldview, just another sheep in the flock of "The Big Arbitrary."Ydemoc

  12. Nice, Weezel, all assertions no arguments. Good work.

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. Trinity wrote: "Nice, Weezel, all assertions no arguments."There are plenty of arguments for you to choose from and interact with, both on Dawson's blog and Thorn's site. Additionally, you have been presented with arguments directly from Dawson, in his exchanges with you in the comments section of his blog — the same blog in which you falsely claim that he made no arguments.Furthermore, to date, these arguments of Dawson's and Thorn's stand unrefuted by you as well as by any and all other "Guardians of the Imaginary" that have ventured onto their respective sites.As for me, I write what I write here out of my own self-interest. I do it the way I choose to do it. If there is something you don't like about what I'm doing, don't blame me, blame the god you say is responsible for everything.That being said, you haven't bothered even making a coherent challenge (let alone a refutation) to the arguments that either Dawson or Thorn have made. Until you tackle their arguments and refute them (like they have done with apologetic arguments), I see no reason to present you with any argument of my own, especially given that your claim(s) — that there exists an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, invisible magic being (3 for the price of 1) and an invisible evil adversary and other invisible magic creatures — contradicts the primacy of existence principle, and therefore is arbitrary. And the arbitrary has no seat at the table of knowledge.Since your claim has no seat at the table of knowledge, it's as if you are continually saying nothing when you make such a claim because, essentially, you have said nothing. Ydemoc

  15. For an example of someone trying to confront another theist with their bullshit, and the results, you can check this out.

  16. Charlatan,More assertions no arguments. Yea, were done.Farewell.Reynold,Thanks for that tertullian quote. It's legendary.Holy kisses.

  17. Trinity wrote: "More assertions no arguments. Yea, were done. Farewell."You won't deal with the arguments that are readily available on Dawson's and Thorn's blog, will you? Why is that? Why won't you tackle those? Why do you need something from me when those have not been refuted? I can post them here if you'd like? Would you like me to do that?Ydemoc

  18. Trinity wrote: "More assertions no arguments. Yea, were done. Farewell"In fact, now that I recall, I already have posted an argument for you to interact with. But you failed to do so. It was one of Thorn's. Do your recall? Let me refresh you're memory:"Considering Mr. Smallwood's Apologetic"(www.oocities.org/athens/sparta/1019/Morgue/Smallwood.htm). Thorn writes:"…an Objectivist argument from objective reality (from the fact of existence)… may proceed along the following lines:1) Existence exists. (We perceive existence directly, via our senses.)2) To exist is to be something specific. {from 1)}3) To be something specific is to have identity. {A is A; from 2)}4) The identity of an entity is not distinct from that entity; an entity and itsidentity are one and the same. {from 3)}5) Consciousness is consciousness of an object (i.e., of existence).5a) Therefore, consciousness presupposes existence. {from 5)}5b) Corollary: Existence does not depend on consciousness. {from 1)}6) The task of consciousness is not to create existence, but to identify it. {from 5)}7) Theism posits consciousness prior to and/or as causally responsible for thefact of existence (e.g., "God"). {theistic claims}8) Theism is in contradiction with fundamental facts of reality. {from 6)}C: Therefore, theism is invalid.Premises 1) though 3) are implicit in all perception, but made explicit in objective philosophy through axiomatic concepts. These truths are inescapable and presumed in all cognition.Premises 4) through 6) logically follow from the Objectivist axioms.Premises 7) and 8) are only necessary once the notion of a universe-creating, reality-ruling consciousness is posited by the mystic.One does not "presuppose" anything about the "Christian triune God" – either that God exists or that God does not exist – when he recognizes the fact that existence exists, even when that recognition is completely implicit. To argue otherwise is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept (for such an assertion would fail to recognize objective conceptual priority and the hierarchical nature of knowledge)."The ball is in your court, Trinity.Ydemoc

  19. Trinity,And just for reference purposes? Thorn's argument was presented to you in the comments section of Incinerating Presuppositionalism on December 03, 2011 at 6:53 PM. Here is the link to the thread:http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11714522&postID=1749023936615252418&isPopup=trueOh, and here are your comments from the thread, after after I posted the above argument. Hezekiah Ahaz said… Dawson, Wishing does make it so. God does whatever he pleases. Call it what you want there's nothing you can do about it. It's God's world and everything in it – Psalm 50 Sye is exactly right. We affirm the sovereignty of God. Once again why coulnt rand keep randbelief? Jesus kept his beliefs why won't you believe him? Accross the desert lies the promise land- Willy Wonka Love in Christ, Richard" December 03, 2011 7:04 PM—–Hezekiah Ahaz said… "Sorry, Gadget, All questions must be submitted by mail. BB, How about it me and you hand to hand right here on your blog: 5 questions each you get the privilege of going first. I'll be waiting. Gadget can moderate if he wants. However all his questions will need to be sent by mail. What say you?" December 03, 2011 7:16 PM——-Hezekiah Ahaz said… "The "contradictions" are only in your mind. So, How about those 5 questions to get things rolling. Your not afraid to debate me also right? By the way so what If affirm the "primacy of concious" really who cares. I think it's funny. Anyway would you prefer opening statements first? P.S. Since Gadget annoys me I wil only accept questions from him by mail." December 03, 2011 10:50 PM———————Yep, those are sure some high-quality "interactions" with Thorn's argument, Trinity. But who would expect anything less from such an intellectual giant as yourself who, by his own admission, affirms, as he puts it, "the 'primacy of concious.'"Ydemoc

  20. Trinity wrote: "God is an axiom."You might want to check with Sye or Dustin on this assertion, Trinity. Because I don't think you're toeing the party line.But at least I have your comment in writing. Lovely. Maybe your error is due to sin.Ydemoc

  21. I'm in agreement with thorn. I think he's hilarious Existence Exist i.e. YHWH

  22. 1. Existence is an axiom.2. God is existence.3. God is an axiom.Beat that.

  23. 2 is a naked assertion.Beat THAT.

  24. "Hezekiah Ahaz said…And who told you this there meiser?"If an external party is required for a conciousness to have knowledge then nothing can be known without reference to that external party, correct?

  25. Alex,Said: "2 is a naked assertion. Beat THAT."Notice how alex doesn't even bother to provide an argument.FM,Said: "If an external party is required for a conciousness to have knowledge then nothing can be known without reference to that external party, correct?"Yea, something like that.

  26. I must give Trinity some credit for attempting to interact with Thorn's argument. First, here is what Trinity came up with: "1. Existence is an axiom. 2. God is existence. 3. God is an axiom."Unfortunately for Trinity, not only is premise 2 "a naked assertion," as Alex pointed out, but there are several other problems, which, interestingly enough, have already been addressed back on June 26, 2005 by none other than Dawson Bethrick in his published work, "Is the Assumption of the Christian God Axiomatic?" (http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2005/06/is-assumption-of-christian-god.html)I highly recommend that Trinity (and others) read Dawson's piece in its entirety. But just in case that doesn't happen, here are a few excerpts that should suffice: [NOTE: For clarity and to personalize the following excerpts, I have replaced the name "Gene Cook" with the name "Trinity" in brackets]Dawson writes: "…it’s unclear how axiomatic concepts could even make sense in the Christian worldview; the term is completely alien to the New Testament, and the idea of axiomatic concepts can only make sense in a worldview in which knowledge is understood in terms of logical hierarchy, and this in itself is foreign to Christianity as well. (Anton Thorn makes this latter point clear in his essay TAG and the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept.) …axioms identify the very foundation of our knowledge and worldview. The term is not to be used lightly. At the very least, axioms are not something we must infer from some prior point of departure. Rather, they name in the most general terms what we directly perceive, what we are first aware of….if [Trinity] wants to defend the position that his "assumption of the Christian god" is axiomatic, he would first have to identify the means by which he has awareness of what he has named "the Christian god." Did he have direct awareness of this god by looking outward at the world? It’s doubtful that this could be the case, because the Christian god is said to be invisible. When [Trinity] looks out at the world, he sees the world of finite objects, not an invisible magic being. If [Trinity] says that the world is evidence of his god, then he runs into the following problems: 1) he admits that his "assumption of the Christian god" is not axiomatic, for now it must be inferred from some prior point of departure (i.e., he is saying that his god's existence is inferred form what he directly perceives, and what he directly perceives comes first), and 2) that which is finite, physical, corruptible and natural cannot serve as evidence of something that is said to be infinite, non-physical, incorruptible and supernatural. A is not evidence of non-A. (See for instance my blog Is Human Experience Evidence of the Christian God?)"(continued)

  27. "…by simply affirming that their god exists, Christians are in fact borrowing from the Objectivist worldview, for the Objectivist worldview alone affirms the fact of existence as its very starting point. In encounters with Christian apologists, I've asked many to explain where they got the concept "exist," for clearly they assume that it has meaning. But none can answer where they got it….those who say that belief in a god is axiomatic performatively contradict themselves whenever they attempt to prove that their god exists by means of argument. Proof is a process of logically securing a position on the basis of inferring its truth from some prior point of departure, one which ultimately has its basis in what we directly perceive. So a position which is inferred from some previously accepted position cannot itself be axiomatic. An axiom is a starting point, not a conclusion to some prior argument. If one presents an argument to secure the conclusion that a god exists, then the supposition that his god exists consequently cannot be his starting point. At the very best, one of the premises supporting that conclusion may be his starting point, but this could only be determined on a case by case basis, depending on the content of the argument so presented. So the apologist needs to decide: is his assumption that his god exists axiomatic in nature, or does this assumption rest on proof?"———————–And this from the comments section of Dawson's published work, "Another Response to David, Part 7: The Anatomy of Legend and the Ruse of Revelation," September 17, 2008; http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2008/09/another-response-to-david-part-7.html "Any argument which attempts to secure a conclusion which assumes or entails the primacy of consciousness can be rejected by virtue of this very condition."And, from the same comments section, in an interaction with someone named "David"…"David: “If God exists then obviously He doesn't violate the primacy of existence, right?”This is like saying, 'If an irrational statement were true, then it wouldn’t be irrational'. But an irrational statement is an irrational statement, even if one wants to pretend it is true. The very notion of a god, especially the Judeo-Christian notion, is ineluctably seated on the primacy of consciousness, so questions like this are futile.David: “How can you say these arguments' conclusion do so without already assuming He doesn't exist?”By recognizing that they could never get off the ground with an intact understanding of the primacy of existence. They seek to establish a conclusion which is inescapably seated on the primacy of consciousness. They are motivated by the desire to centralize the origin of the universe, of knowledge, of norms of knowing, etc., in a *subject*, thus granting the subject of cognition metaphysical primacy over all its objects (for those objects are creations of the subject). This is also known as metaphysical subjectivism. For a few pointers on this, I refer you to a few select articles of mine (there are plenty more, but I thought you could start with these):Confessions of a Vantillian SubjectivistOnly Two Worldviews?Gods and Square CirclesThe Axioms and the Primacy of ExistenceTheism and Subjective MetaphysicsCommon Ground Part 3: MetaphysicsThere are numerous others I could link to here, but this should be sufficient to help you start familiarizing yourself with the relevant issues."—————-Ydemoc

  28. Charlatan,Qouting his mentor, Dawson Bethrick:"Dawson writes: "…it’s unclear how axiomatic concepts could even make sense in the Christian worldview; the term is completely alien to the New Testament, and the idea of axiomatic concepts can only make sense in a worldview in which knowledge is understood in terms of logical hierarchy, and this in itself is foreign to Christianity as well."This is what I call the "if it's not in the bible it must not be true" fallacy.".axioms identify the very foundation of our knowledge and worldview. The term is not to be used lightly. At the very least, axioms are not something we must infer from some prior point of departure. Rather, they name in the most general terms what we directly perceive, what we are first aware of."Exactly, we directly percieve existence which assumes the creator."2) that which is finite, physical, corruptible and natural cannot serve as evidence of something that is said to be infinite, non-physical, incorruptible and supernatural. A is not evidence of non-A. (See for instance my blog Is Human Experience Evidence of the Christian God?)"Is that right Dawson how so?"…by simply affirming that their god exists, Christians are in fact borrowing from the Objectivist worldview, for the Objectivist worldview alone affirms the fact of existence as its very starting point. In encounters with Christian apologists, I've asked many to explain where they got the concept "exist," for clearly they assume that it has meaning. But none can answer where they got it."I got it from the bible, dawson, here:Acts 17:28 "for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children."What now?"those who say that belief in a god is axiomatic performatively contradict themselves whenever they attempt to prove that their god exists by means of argument."That's why, dawson, I never ever ever end an argument with "therefore God exists"Remember God is Logic. He is the source of it. Remember this?That's why we argue by pressuposition. It NEVER proves God it only "proves" him. Enjoy.My argument stands unrefuted:1. Existence is an axiom.2. God is existence.3. God is an axiom."That we argue, therefore, by "presupposition." The Christian, as did Tertullian, must contest the very principles of his opponent's position. The only "proof" of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of "proving" anything at all. The actual state of affairs as preached by Christianity is the necessary foundation of "proof" itself."- Cornelius Van Til.

  29. wow this is crazy."Hezekiah Ahaz said… That's why we argue by pressuposition. It NEVER proves God it only "proves" him. Enjoy. ??????

  30. "Exactly, we directly percieve existence which assumes the creator."So you admit that your statement that 'god is an axiom' is false?

  31. Trinity wrote: "Exactly, we directly percieve existence which assumes the creator."Major blunder, Trinity. Directly perceiving existence is directly perceiving existence. You are seeing (or imagining) things that are not there. Existence would have to obtain before you could even arrive at the concept "creator." Creator of *what*? One day Trinity is in the garden, supposedly praying, but really just talking to himself. He folds his hands together, closes his eyes, and says quietly, "God I know you are the creator."A voice in Trinity's head speaks back and says, "Creator of what?"Trinity replies, "Well, creator of all that exists, all this stuff around me that existed before you, God."Ydemoc

  32. In response to Trinity, I had posted this piece from Dawson:"…by simply affirming that their god exists, Christians are in fact borrowing from the Objectivist worldview, for the Objectivist worldview alone affirms the fact of existence as its very starting point. In encounters with Christian apologists, I've asked many to explain where they got the concept "exist," for clearly they assume that it has meaning. But none can answer where they got it."Trinity responded to this with: "I got it from the bible, dawson, here: Acts 17:28 "for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His children."And then Trinity asks: "What now?"Well, now, your god is no longer the axiom that you unskillfully argued for. For you say on one had your god is an axiom, i.e., a starting point: "An axiomatic concept is the identification of aprimary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed,i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest." Yet, on the other hand, you tell us that you got the concept "exist" from a book, which is not a primary fact of reality — it's a book! with other concepts! You've actually taken a step backwards in your attempt to argue for your god being an axiom. Do you not think things through? Are you unable or unwilling to connect one moment or one thought to the next? Is this how you operate, continually failing to integrate, like a creature caught somewhere between man and beast?Ydemoc

  33. Trinity is a graphic example of what happens when someone who isn't very smart tries to use the TAG to argue for his imaginary god.

  34. Alex,I also find that the following comment from Dawson (which I posted on another thread) fits Trinity's approach perfectly: "We need a conceptually irreducible starting point, but only Objectivism identifies it explicitly with the axiom of existence. Christians are continually stupefied by this axiom as they seek alternately first to discredit it, and then to cohere their god-belief with it" (Dawson Bethrick, "Paulianna Apologetics," 12/13/2006, http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2006/12/paulianna-apologetics.html) This is exactly the behavior which Trinity has displayed: stupefied, seeking to discredit, then attempting to cohere. I'm sure it won't be long before he's back to being stupefied.Ydemoc

  35. Anonymous said: "wow this is crazy."Hezekiah Ahaz said…That's why we argue by pressuposition. It NEVER proves God it only "proves" him. Enjoy. ??????"Did you even bother to read the van til qoute?Alex,"Exactly, we directly percieve existence which assumes the creator."So you admit that your statement that 'god is an axiom' is false?"Not for a second.Charlatan continues:"Major blunder, Trinity. Directly perceiving existence is directly perceiving existence. You are seeing (or imagining) things that are not there. Existence would have to obtain before you could even arrive at the concept "creator." Creator of *what*?"Concepts."Well, now, your god is no longer the axiom that you unskillfully argued for. For you say on one had your god is an axiom, i.e., a starting point: "An axiomatic concept is the identification of aprimary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed,i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest." God is an axiom. He requires no proof only "proof".Alex,"Trinity is a graphic example of what happens when someone who isn't very smart tries to use the TAG to argue for his imaginary god."More ad hominens no argument. Really, is it ever possible to talk to the logically handicapped?Dawson,Said: "We need a conceptually irreducible starting point, but only Objectivism identifies it explicitly with the axiom of existence. Christians are continually stupefied by this axiom as they seek alternately first to discredit it, and then to cohere their god-belief with it"How so?We start with Existence i.e. God.Charlatan,"This is exactly the behavior which Trinity has displayed: stupefied, seeking to discredit, then attempting to cohere. I'm sure it won't be long before he's back to being stupefied."Stupified by what?But more attacks no arguments.Really, is it ever possible to talk to the logically handicapped?1. Existence is an axiom.2. Axioms are self-evident truths that can't proven because they will lead to a contradiction.3. God is Existence.C. God is an axiom and hence a self-evident truth that can't be proven because it will lead to a contradiction.No attacks. More arguments. Great Job Hezekiah.

  36. "Really, is it ever possible to talk to the logically handicapped?"From my interactions with you, I would say 'no'

  37. More assertions no argument. It's not surprising.By the way can you post this somewhere on your blog thanks.http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=64952208216&set=pu.51073693216&type=1&theater

  38. Really? All I see is an answered question.Til was a cunt btw.

  39. "Till was a cunt"How does one even reply to this?The epitome of irrationality i.e. Alex B.What a shame.

  40. God is an axiom. He requires no proof only "proof".Wrong, HA, if by "axiom" you mean a "self-evident truth that can't be proven" then you're screwed. Through the so-called "word" of this "god" of yours, the bible, mistakes can and have been found. Therefore your "axiomatic god" can be proven (or in this case, disproven) therefore he's not an axiom after all.

  41. Hey reynold have you ever been lied to?

  42. And the relevance of your question to the fact that it's been shown that your god can't be an axiom is….?

  43. Reynold,We already went through this. There are plenty of resources that deal with that stuff, for example, Archer Gleason "encyclopedia of bible difficulties" or the hundred of apologetic websites that deal with those "problems". Seek and you will find.But again have you ever been lied to?Better yet how is that your rational?

  44. I had written: "Major blunder, Trinity. Directly perceiving existence is directly perceiving existence. You are seeing (or imagining) things that are not there. Existence would have to obtain before you could even arrive at the concept "creator." Creator of *what*?"Trinity replied: "Concepts."Concepts of what, Trinity? Please tell me what you think concepts are and what they refer to.I wrote: "Well, now, your god is no longer the axiom that you unskillfully argued for. For you say on one had your god is an axiom, i.e., a starting point:"I then quoted from the Ayn Rand Lexicon:"An axiomatic concept is the identification of aprimary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed,i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest."Trinity replied: "God is an axiom. He requires no proof only 'proof.'"Your notion of god fails the test for an axiom in all the ways indicated above. Let's examine these ways again: The "criteria which a philosophical axiom would need to fulfill in order to be genuinely axiomatic. They are:It names a perceptually self-evident factIts truth is not inferred from prior truthsIts truth is conceptually irreducibleIts truth is implicit in all perceptionIts truth is implicit in all knowledge and any statementIts truth must be assumed even in denying it'God is an axiom' "fail[s] to provide knowledge with a starting point which is: – objective – conceptually irreducible – perceptually self-evident – undeniably true – universal"(Source: Dawson Bethrick)This is where the Primacy of Existence Principle comes in quite handy, for you are essentially saying that the Primacy of Consciousness is a fact (according to you, this god of yours created and controls everything, does it not?); but stating this violates the Primacy of Existence Principle. Objects do not obey consciousness, yet you are positing a consciousness that has such power over objects. So you have absolutely no basis upon which to make this claim. You might as well say that "Martians" is an axiom. (Although this would actually be slightly more coherent than your claim).Judgment: Massive fail. By the way, what is the difference between your first usage of proof and your second usage of "proof," which you enclose in quotes?(continued)

  45. Alex wrote: "Trinity is a graphic example of what happens when someone who isn't very smart tries to use the TAG to argue for his imaginary god."Trinity responds: "More ad hominens no argument. Really, is it ever possible to talk to the logically handicapped?"You should really file this complaint with the god you imagine exists. After all, aren't the "logically handicapped" one of his creations? Or are you going to blame this on sin, which would also have to be one of his creations? I would like to also add that when you ask such questions as, "…is it ever possible to talk to the logically handicapped?"– one could also say, "Why, yes it is, Trinity. For example, when you pray, you are really only talking to yourself." I had quoted from Dawson Bethrick: "We need a conceptually irreducible starting point, but only Objectivism identifies it explicitly with the axiom of existence. Christians are continually stupefied by this axiom as they seek alternately first to discredit it, and then to cohere their god-belief with it"Trinity wrote: "How so?"Right on cue, Trinity is stupefied once again. Trinity continues: "We start with Existence i.e. God."And then right on cue, he quickly tries to recover by attempting to cohere his god-belief to the axiom. You can't make up stuff like this!I wrote: "This is exactly the behavior which Trinity has displayed: stupefied, seeking to discredit, then attempting to cohere. I'm sure it won't be long before he's back to being stupefied."Trinity responds: "Stupified by what?"Well, this has turned into a farce, for now Trinity has just doubled-down on being dumbfounded. Trinity wrote: "But more attacks no arguments."In your view, is the concept "attack" in any way connected to what we perceive? Please explain.Trinity wrote: "Really, is it ever possible to talk to the logically handicapped?"See above.Trinity presented the following (modified) argument:"1. Existence is an axiom.2. Axioms are self-evident truths that can't proven because they will lead to a contradiction.3. God is Existence.C. God is an axiom and hence a self-evident truth that can't be proven because it will lead to a contradiction."Massive fail. See above.Trinity wrote: "No attacks. More arguments. Great Job Hezekiah."No attacks!?! I'm stupefied at such a comment! I guess you don't consider "logically handicapped" an attack? I am dumbfounded!Ydemoc

  46. Weezel is it rational to call someone a "cunt"?

  47. @YdemocHi there, so is this were the debate has moved to:)

  48. Hi Justin,Yea, Weezel is over here embarrassing himself as usual. Welcome

  49. Justin wrote: "Hi there, so is this were the debate has moved to:)"Hi, Justin — yep, if that's what you want to call it. To me it's more like administering a spanking.Maybe you can help Trinity out with his "God is an Axiom" argument. I've tried to give him some pointers, but he still insists that "God is an Axiom." I guess those who cling to the notion of t "Conversational Donkeys" won't be much swayed by anything approaching reason or knowledge. Hopefully, there are fence-sitters looking in who will be swayed, even if Trinity isn't.Ydemoc

  50. Trinity wrote: "Weezel is it rational to call someone a "cunt"?"That depends on who you're calling a "cunt." If it's someone like Hitler, sure I think it's absolutely appropriate and rational. In fact, it's much, much too nice a name for someone like Hitler. In fact, we could have easily avoided calling Hitler a "cunt" if someone would have killed him when Hitler was a fetus. Then I could have avoided having to call Hitler a "cunt" as I am doing here today. The same applies to Osama. He is (or was) a "cunt," too. Wouldn't you agree?But since you have said your god is responsible for concepts, I guess you would have to admit that the concept "cunt" is his responsibility, right? Why do suppose your god gave us the concept "cunt"? Ydemoc

  51. So, instead of answering my question.You commit another red herring and ad hominem."Atheism" the epitome of irrationality.Hey Justin can you send me a pic of existence?

  52. How about Van Til is he a "cunt"?

  53. Trinity wrote: "So, instead of answering my question."I thought I did answer you. Then I made some additional comments regarding the concept, "cunt." What's wrong with that? Ydemoc

  54. it's amazing how fallacies you committed in that one post. Just found another one Complex question.

  55. @YdemocI suspect that Nide's assertion that god is an axiom is more in line with what is meant in mathematics by an axiom. A truth or proposition that is accepted as true without any formal mathematical proof. Take for example the axiom of euclidean geometry that the shortest distance between any two points is a straight line. There is no way to prove this with geometry, it must be accepted as true to prove anything in euclidean geometry. It should be noted that there are none euclidean geometries that don't have this as an axiom and are just as internally valid. What I suspect Nide does not understand is that we mean a conceptual axiom. This doubtless stems from his refusal to deal with how concepts are formed and integrated. A conceptual axiom differs vastly from a mathematical axiom. They have more stringent requirements. Among these are that it be ineducable. The concept "the shortest distance between any two points is a straight line" is actually very complex and is composed or rests upon many prior integrated concepts and thus could never stand as a conceptual axiom. Now take god as a concept. I remember when I first learned of the concept of god. I was 5 years old and asked my mom what happens when we die. She explained that some people believe we go to heaven which naturally lead into a discussion of god. What I recall of this exchange is that I had great difficulty in integrating the concept god, the closest I could get at the time was super powerful daddy up in the sky. Think of all of the prior concepts I had to have already to grasp this. Father, sky, power, etc…. and all of these prior concepts of course rest on and derive their meaning from the base concept existence. Now if someone had waved their hand around and said reality, well even at age 5 I got that:)Existence is the irreducible concept that can not be accounted for with any prior concept. Any attempt to do so would amount to a stolen concept fallacy. This is the crux of the issue, Nide, does not grasp this fallacy because he does not grasp the hierarchal nature of concepts, or he does and just cant get around the fact that existence conceptually comes before god or any other concept for that matter. That is why he keeps up with the "god is existence" nonsense. I still do not have any clue what the semantic meaning of that statement is, unless it is a claim to pantheism which coming from Nide would be most strange. Anyway Marry Christmas Ydemoc and yes I got the irony of that:)

  56. @Nidetake a look at my profile pic, there is an example of existence.

  57. Trinity wrote: "it's amazing how fallacies you committed in that one post. Just found another one Complex question."I don't know what you're referring to.Ydemoc

  58. @Nide"Atheism" the epitome of irrationality."atheism only says what is lacking, namely god belief. It says nothing about the reasons for this lack or what is believed concerning anything else. Thus I find you statement something of a non sequitur.

  59. Reynold,We already went through this. There are plenty of resources that deal with that stuff, for example, Archer Gleason "encyclopedia of bible difficulties" or the hundred of apologetic websites that deal with those "problems". Seek and you will find.Yes, we have been over this, and I have dealt with some apologetic bullshit excuses. But again have you ever been lied to?Irrelevent to this topic. But yeah, usually by your fellow theists. If you want examples of this, check out the transcript of the Dover trial where Judge Jones calls out your fellow theists on their bullshit.Better yet how is that your rational? How is it that you are when you refuse to answer questons?The problem that if the bible can be used to check out the accuracy of your god's statements (either for OR against!) then your biblegod is not an axiom as you've previously defined it. Even if there were no mistakes in the bible, even a positive test of your god would show that he is not an "axiom".

  60. Trinity wrote: "Hey Justin can you send me a pic of existence?" He doesn't need to, really, for you have just performatively affirmed existence, consciousness and identity, as well as the Primacy of Existence Principle, merely by typing down your thoughts. You have just affirmed by your action the basis for *all* knowledge. No exceptions.Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Why do you resist it so? Ydemoc

  61. @YdemocI think it is hard for him to grasp because he is confusing the concept for its referent. I suspect he wants a photo of the concept its self! lol

  62. Justin are you existence?

  63. Justin wrote: "I think it is hard for him to grasp because he is confusing the concept for its referent. I suspect he wants a photo of the concept its self! lol"I think you are absolutely right. For instance, look at his response above to what I posted: I had written: "Major blunder, Trinity. Directly perceiving existence is directly perceiving existence. You are seeing (or imagining) things that are not there. Existence would have to obtain before you could even arrive at the concept "creator." Creator of *what*?"Trinity replied: "Concepts."Concepts of what, Trinity? Please tell me what you think concepts are and what they refer to."————He has painted himself into a corner, due to his god-belief. He really has no other choice but to see concepts as originating in some otherworldly realm, just as he has no choice but to defend the notion of a "Conversational Ass," even though I think that he knows it's quite silly. But what can one expect when theists believe first, and then look for reasons to support that belief? The depth of irrationality is without limit to those who make a confessional investment in the imaginary.Ydemoc

  64. More fallacies by charlatan. Now he is claiming that he knows what I know. it's bizzare. Weezel the mind reader.Concepts are abstractions not bound by time or space.Rembember the concept existence "proves" the truth of the bible.

  65. @Nide"Justin are you existence? "I just knew you were going to ask that, I called it 100%. No Nide I am not equal to the sum total of existence, I am just one existent among many. So if you are not asking for a photo of a concept then you must be asking for a photo of the sum total of existence. I think I can get you something close. Would you accept a photo of the sum total of existence known to man minus the earth. I hear NASA has some awesome full 360 panoramas taken by the Hubble space telescope:) Seriously Nide what is the point of this question?"Concepts are abstractions not bound by time or space."I dont understand what this statement is meant to convey"Rembember the concept existence "proves" the truth of the bible. "the concept existence in and of its self does not prove a damn thing one way or the other. It is the starting point of logic and a conceptual premise in any argument. However you are going to need a lot more then just the concept existence to get to and therefore god. If you think it proves god lets see the syllogism.

  66. @YdemocYes, Nide views logic as something forced down on reality by god, logic is something discovered in his world view.

  67. Justin,Existence is invisible. Justin lets avoid a circle here most of this stuff already has been discussed over at Dawson's.Charlatan is desperately trying to make a name for himself. Every where I go he's there.

  68. @Nide"Existence is invisible. "The concept is, all concepts are as they are methods of the mind and not physical objects. However what they refer to is often not. The referent of existence is everything. A lot of everything is very visible. "Justin lets avoid a circle here most of this stuff already has been discussed over at Dawson's."Yes, true, but your failure to integrate conceptually pretty much anything Ydemoc, Dawson or myself have had to say is not my problem:)

  69. Trinity wrote: "More fallacies by charlatan. Now he is claiming that he knows what I know. it's bizzare. Weezel the mind reader."Under your view — that being the primacy of consciousness — mind reading couldn't be ruled out as a possibility, could it?And given your view — that being the primacy of consciousness — you wouldn't be able to tell whether or not I have the ability to know that you consider a "Conversational Donkey" a silly notion, would you? Where do look to check the someone's claim of mind reading? The bible? A book that is filled with all kinds of stories that detail the actions of other-worldly beings and/or spirits? Where devils and demons infest the minds of others? How would you be able to tell if I'm a mind reader or not? I mean, you do take your bible seriously, don't you? Ydemoc

  70. This comment has been removed by the author.

  71. Trinity wrote: "Rembember the concept existence "proves" the truth of the bible." The concept existence, consciousness, and identity as well as the Primacy of Existence Principle have been explained to you many times. This is just you being silly again, trying to point to a book which posits a being, as well as other creatures that violate the Primacy of Existence and embrace in explicit terms the Primacy of Consciousness. The Primacy of Existence would have to be true, and the axioms logically prior to any actions taken by the mystics who wrote the words that make up your storybook. Case closed.Ydemoc

  72. @YdemocYou know we have Nide on record stating that metaphysical subjectivism is invalid. Note how he avoids answering my question is Christianity metaphysically subjective at all costs? I asked like what 50 times? Well Nide should know by now that we both hold it to be metaphysically subjective and thus by his own standard as well as ours invalid. If he wants to make his case he can not any longer avoid this issue. Christianity is metaphysically subjective and thus invalid, as you say case closed!

  73. Yea, case closed. Maybe you will go bug somebody else with you're delusions. Justin what's "everything"?

  74. @Nide"Justin what's "everything"? "If the case is closed and thus the topic of god belief is over, what then could your question pertain too?

  75. Not so fast. buddy.Let's be honest. I have you asked over 50 times what's wrong with God controlling reality. I am still waiting for an answer.I said metaphysical claims based on personal experience are invalid. So, in oder for you to claim victory you have to twist my words. Amazing This question about is Christiany metaphysically subjective is a junk question. Christians don't or can't change reality.So, the battle rages on.So, how about that question whats "everything"?P.S. Trying be a little more honest time. Dont embarrass yourself like Weezel who is shameless.

  76. Let's be honest. I have you asked over 50 times what's wrong with God controlling reality. I am still waiting for an answer.And I answered is this a tack admission that christianty is metaphysically subjective? If yes then you should already know what "our problem" with this is. It would eliminate the metaphysical basis for the concept identity. Without identity there is no non contradictory identification and thus no logic. "I said metaphysical claims based on personal experience are invalid. So, in oder for you to claim victory you have to twist my words. Amazing"Yes I know you have, however if you are making this statement in regard the claim of metaphysical objectiveity, well to make your claim to fact "all metaphysical claims based on personal experience are invalid" would its self be premised on the primacy of existence principle, ie metaphysical objectivism, for if not what objective criteria did you use to make that statement? Also if true it kind of kicks the legs out from witnessing to others don't it?This question about is Christiany metaphysically subjective is a junk question. Christians don't or can't change reality.This right here! this…. this is beyond belief. You have made this statement before on at least two occasions and been corrected both times. Under objectivism's definition Metaphysical subjectivity attains if even one consciousness enjoys a subjective relationship between its subject of consciousness and the objects of that consciousness. It is far wider then if you or some Christan does. Anyone one, ever…. anywhere at anytime!!! I know that I personaly have corrected you on this twice. You know at some point malice and incompetence can not be distinguished from one another. So, the battle rages on.What battle? Nide I seem to have to keep reminding you that I don't care what you believe. Nide's world view… care factor zero.So, how about that question whats "everything"?See what I said about malice and incompetence? I dont believe for a moment that you did not grasp the meaning of everything within the context of my post, and if not, well…. oh well.

  77. Having read these lengthy discussions with Trinity, I am of the opinion that he is either a simpleton or a Poe.

  78. @Alex BI have come to realize that in the end it does not matter. If he is a Poe then the joke is on me and it should now end. If it is malice then he is a person of very low moral character and it should end now. If he is an idiot then there is nothing to be gained and it should end now. See a common theme here. I indulged this as long as I have in order to improve my writing skills and refine my understanding of the arguments. Well there are other ways to practice writing and as for a debating partner, I am fortunate to have found a co worker that I will simply call JF that is a presupper and not a total prick. He is actually well spoken and earnest in his desire to have a intellectually honest debate. I have already had a few very productive verbal discussions/ debates with him. Frankly I would much rather discuss anything with him then Nide, so I think I will not be interacting with him much anymore.

  79. @Ydemoc and Alex BI have invited JF to take part in an on line discussion, wondering if you guys are interested. I can host a RC chat channel on one of my servers, let me.

  80. Trinity wrote: "Yea, case closed."Right! Trinity writes: "Maybe you will go bug somebody else with you're delusions."Who am I bugging? And what makes you think that I am using delusions to bug them? Do you have something against "delusions"? Isn't your god known as the one who *will* send a "strong delusion so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness"? (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12) — even though this doesn't really need to be said, since we are all depraved, deceived, and deluded from birth? In other words how can you delude someone who is already deluded? What gives with your god heaping on an extra helping of delusion when we're all deluded to begin with?! Or is this some more kookiness intended to fill the pages of a storybook and instill a sense of fear in all the pagans? And this wasn't the first time your god dabbled in deceit. For instance, in 1 Kings 22:22 we read: "'By what means?' the LORD asked. "'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. "'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'Again, why get your panties in a bunch over me doing what I'm doing, when apparently what I'm writing is all a part of your god's plan? Explain that one to me — and when you do, in keeping with what is apparently god's plan for you, be sure to make your explanation as incoherent as possible. Something else: Since you think your god is responsible for concepts, does his responsibility include such concepts as rape, pedophilia, incest, infanticide, genocide, etc. If so, did your god think of all these horrible actions first and then give them a name? How do you imagine this process worked? Your god is responsible for *everything* is it not? It created and controls rape, pedophilia, incest, infanticide, genocide, etc. It decides if little boys or girls get abused or raped, does he not? And it's all a part of his plan, right? When he was planning this "pre-programmed" behavior of his creation, don't you think that he had to envision all these things taking place first? Also, "delusion" as opposed to what? Finally, I am enjoying myself writing what I write. I'm sharpening my writing skills, learning as I go. And I think any rationally minded fence-sitter looking will recognize which worldview is rational one, and which is wallowing in irrationality. Ydemoc

  81. @Ydemoc"And this wasn't the first time your god dabbled in deceit. For instance, in 1 Kings 22:22 we read: "'By what means?' the LORD asked. "'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. "'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'"wow just wow. Even if this god of the bible was real, it would not be deserving of my respect or worship.

  82. Jhall if "JF" is really a "presupper" he will come to the same conclusion.God is control of everything that happens. Let me know.

  83. Trinity wrote: "God is control of everything that happens. Let me know."And you know your god hasn't sent you a lying spirit by reference to… what exactly? By reference to the same being who says he sends lying spirits? By reference to the same being who sends lying spirits and who says to have faith in him? By reference to a storybook that says the being you worship sends lying spirits to people? By faith in this being who sends lying spirits? What you believe makes no sense. Trinity, is pedophilia a blessing? Ydemoc

  84. Trinity, if your god sends lying spirits and can deceive people and make them depraved, how do you distinguish your god from the devil?Is child rape a blessing?Ydemoc

  85. HA said:Jhall if "JF" is really a "presupper" he will come to the same conclusion.God is control of everything that happens. Let me know.What do you mean he "will come to the same conclusion."? That is your presupposition, not your conclusion. According to Sye, you have just sinned because you are postulating that you were able to conclude God, which means God is discoverable by knowledge, which completely destroys your position.Reasonable Sanity

  86. Charlatan continues with the landslide of questions. Let's start here why did send lying spirits?RA,Well, I haven't heard What sye said. So, I can't comment. However, you're right that is one of our pressupositions. How did you come tothe conclusion that I came to a conclusion about God?Maybe the wording wasn't the best but yea God's control of everything that happens is our operating base. If "JF" believes in the bible he will also come to this conclusion.

  87. Trinity,Is child rape a blessing?Ydemoc

  88. Another red herring by weezel.Charlatan why did God send lying spirits?

  89. hey charlatan and jhall here let me save you the embarrassment:http://www.gotquestions.org/lying-spirit.html

  90. I think the most amusing thing about HA's posts is the very obvious yawning gulf between his self perceived, and actual, smartness.

  91. More attacks by Alex and no arguments.Alex b irrationality in the flesh.

  92. Trinity wrote: "Charlatan why did God send lying spirits?"Which lying spirits are you talking about? — The evil serpent that your god created, and sent to the garden of Eden? — The lying spirit sent in 1 Kings 22:22?– The "powerful delusion" sent by your god as described in 2 Thessalonians 2:11?– The "evil spirit" sent by your god in Judges 9:23?– The "evil spirit from the LORD" that was sent to torment Saul in 1 Samuel 16:14? — The evil spirit from god in 1 Samual 18:10?– The deception administered by your god in Jeremiah 4:10?– The evil (including spirits) created by your god according to Isaiah 45:7?Trinity, is evil ever morally justifiable?Is child rape a blessing?Ydemoc

  93. "More attacks by Alex and no arguments."Google 'Dunning Kruger', you'll learn what's wrong with you.

  94. Instead of interacting with what I posted, Trinity has directed me to the following site…(http://www.gotquestions.org/lying-spirit.html) I have no problem with him doing this; however, on previous visits to this site, (which Trinity apparently wants to speak for him), I have found it woefully insufficient in its explanations to the questions I have raised with Trinity. For example, it had no coherent response to how a Christian might justify using self-defense.So rather than me going over there and wasting time again, maybe Trinity can simply tell me whether or not this site addresses the following questions:Is evil ever morally justifiable?Is child rape a blessing?Ydemoc

  95. More attacks by Alex and no arguments.

  96. Charlatan when one disregards life he gives up all his rights to life.So, any evil that comes upon him is morally justifiable.

  97. Trinity, as you're nothing more than a troll, I'm well past the point of engaging with you. It's attacks all the way from here on in I'm afraid, you joke.

  98. Alex,Defeat is not easy. You'll get it over.Thanks Darling.

  99. I asked Trinity: "Is evil ever morally justifiable?" and "Is child rape a blessing?"Trinity did not answer my second question, but he did attempt to answer the first question with the following: "…when one disregards life he gives up all his rights to life."Does this standard apply to the god you worship, a being whom both you and your bible have said "has no respect for persons"? If it doesn't apply to your god, on what basis do you can you say your god is good or bad?So if I disregard the life of Osama bin Laden by shooting him in the head, I give up all my rights to life? If I disregard the life of someone who is trying to murder you, and I kill him before he has a chance to injure you, I give up all my rights to life? Trinity wrote: "So, any evil that comes upon him is morally justifiable."How can evil be good? Is child rape a blessing?Ydemoc

  100. Rape is a wicked heinous crime. No, it's not a blessing. Why do you ask?God is life. Therefore he can give or take it as he pleases. Remember he blew the breath of life into man and he became a living soulNo, you can't take justice into your own hand's. That's What we have governments for.Who said evil was good?

  101. @Alex BThank you, I looked up "Dunning Kruger effect". Man I run into this all the time at my work, it is nice to finally have a word for it. You know long ago I told Nide that I frequently self reflect on the validity of my own beliefs and do error correction on my own reasoning for precisely this reason. This is a principle that I have to say is sadly most likely completely lost on Nide.

  102. Jhall,Have a happy Jesus Day.Love in Christ,HA

  103. @Nideheh,My family background is Jewish and I was raised an atheist, but ok whatever, I will be working on the 25th:)

  104. Justin,Common courtesy goes a long way.Merry Christmas buddy.

  105. @Nidetrue… Merry Christmas:)

  106. I asked Trinity:"Is child rape a blessing?"Trinity responded: "Rape is a wicked heinous crime. No, it's not a blessing. Why do you ask?"Well, I guess I ask because if young child should die because of the horrible abuse suffered during such an event as a rape, that child (via saving grace) would go to heaven, right? So why shouldn't the act of being raped and dying from it not be considered a blessing for the child who was raped and is now in heaven? This is what we are told all the time at funerals for such children, aren't we? That they are in a better place? Couldn't anything that leads to a child ending up in heaven be considered a blessing?I also ask because I don't see anything in your bible that explicitly condemns pedophilia or rape. In fact, in many places there is tacit endorsement for such evil, if not an explicit sanction. For example:"…kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:17-18"And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh." Judges 21:7-11I think the very act of determining who was or wasn't a virgin, might also entail violating a young girl's body through forced inspection, don't you? This in itself could be considered, at minimum, molestation.Another reason for asking is because if a child is raped, and the rapist is convicted, thrown into prison, repents, and then finds god who bestows saving grace upon that rapist, couldn't one say that the rape that the man committed was a blessing? since the rape ultimately led the rapist to recognize the error of his ways, his own depravity. (i.e., it led him to stop suppressing knowledge of god?) Also, given the fact that (according to your bible) we don't deserve life but deserve to… what — have no life? Why wouldn't a miserable life be better than no life at all, even if that miserable life included being raped as a child?Also, can someone whom god has blessed, sin?The other reason I ask my question is because I just can't seem to square the idea that "*everything* again *everything* that happens is a part of god's good plan" with the idea that "part of god's good plan would necessarily have to include instances of child rape." I just can't wrap my head around this. Maybe you can help.I mean, if you say child rape is not a part of god's good plan, then your god could not control everything; on the other hand, if you say that child rape is a part of your god's good plan, we have an instance of that which is evil being called good! Trinity continues: "God is life. Therefore he can give or take it as he pleases." So mere pleasure is the ultimate standard of what is good or evil? Yet before you had stated that "…when one disregards life he gives up all his rights to life." I guess I'm just not sure how you square these two notions. Perhaps you are operating under two different standards. Trinity writes: "Remember he blew the breath of life into man and he became a living soul"Yes, this is what we are told in your storybook. I'm not sure it's relevant to what I was asking about, other than its implication that your god can do with its creation what it wants. But this takes us back to being unable to classify what your god does as neither good nor bad. Doing what one wants for no other reason than because one wants to do it, is arbitrary. It is an example of whim-driven behavior. Acting on principle, or with a plan in mind, is the opposite of acting according to one's pleasure.(continued)

  107. Trinity wrote: "No, you can't take justice into your own hand's. That's What we have governments for."Well, here you need to educate yourself a little more. And perhaps this is where your devotion to biblical teaching fails you, for it has little to say about self-defense, as even (gotquestions.org points out). Yes, we have governments to secure our rights. But, as Ayn Rand notes: "No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force." (The Virtue of Selfishness, The Objectivist Ethics,” p. 32)I have every right to protect myself against a criminal who seeks to do me harm. And so do you, with or without the government telling you or I that we can. A government that tells me I have no right to self-defense is a government that isn't in the business of securing rights, for they have obliterated that which provides the source for rights in the first place: My right to my own life. Thank reason we live in a country where the government recognizes that I have the right of self-defense, something your bible fails to address.Now, with all this in mind, let me ask my previous questions again to see if you are going to stick with your previous answers or choose to modify them. Here is what I asked: "Is evil ever morally justifiable?"You responded: "…when one disregards life he gives up all his rights to life. So, any evil that comes upon him is morally justifiable."I then asked some probing questions about this answer you gave. These questions were: "So if I disregard the life of Osama bin Laden by shooting him in the head, I give up all my rights to life? If I disregard the life of someone who is trying to murder you, and I kill him before he has a chance to injure you, I give up all my rights to life?"And let me add this question: "If someone is physically threatening me or my family to the point that our lives are in danger, do I give up all my rights to life by killing the person who is posing this threat?"Please cite biblical support for your answers, especially this last question. I had asked: "How can evil be good?"Trinity responded: "Who said evil was good?"Given the points I raised above, I'm not sure how you can avoid taking the position that evil is good. Isn't *all* that comes from god good, including creation, and his control, management, and manipulation of it? And since *all* means *all," it would have to include evil, (even your own bible tells me so!), would it not?Ydemoc

  108. "Well, I guess I ask because if young child should die because of the horrible abuse suffered during such an event as a rape, that child (via saving grace) would go to heaven, right? So why shouldn't the act of being raped and dying from it not be considered a blessing for the child who was raped and is now in heaven? This is what we are told all the time at funerals for such children, aren't we? That they are in a better place? Couldn't anything that leads to a child ending up in heaven be considered a blessing?"First of all I don't believe children or infants are innocent.There is debate over what happens to infants and children after death.Personally, I think they go to heaven. No, the act of rape is never a blessing. However, God allows for evil to happen in order that life could be preserved. Why does he do it that way? I don't know he never tells us.If God came to you and said hey , ydemoc, Im hungry what would you say?Ydemoc qouted: "…kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:17-18I don't see anything about rape or pedophilia in here.Ydemoc quouted: "And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh." Judges 21:7-11"I don't see anything about rape or pedophilia in here.It was said:"I think the very act of determining who was or wasn't a virgin, might also entail violating a young girl's body through forced inspection, don't you? This in itself could be considered, at minimum, molestation."That's just a bunch of speculation it doesn't say how they determined it.Cont.

  109. It was said:"Another reason for asking is because if a child is raped, and the rapist is convicted, thrown into prison, repents, and then finds god who bestows saving grace upon that rapist, couldn't one say that the rape that the man committed was a blessing? since the rape ultimately led the rapist to recognize the error of his ways, his own depravity. (i.e., it led him to stop suppressing knowledge of god?)"Only by the work of holy spirit can one repent, be shown his depravity and be saved.It was said:"Also, given the fact that (according to your bible) we don't deserve life but deserve to… what — have no life? Why wouldn't a miserable life be better than no life at all, even if that miserable life included being raped as a child?"If you disregard life i.e. God, yea, you don't deserve to live. It was said:Also, can someone whom god has blessed, sin? The other reason I ask my question is because I just can't seem to square the idea that "*everything* again *everything* that happens is a part of god's good plan" with the idea that "part of god's good plan would necessarily have to include instances of child rape." I just can't wrap my head around this. Maybe you can help. I mean, if you say child rape is not a part of god's good plan, then your god could not control everything; on the other hand, if you say that child rape is a part of your god's good plan, we have an instance of that which is evil being called good! God doesn't say why he allowed for evil. Part of God's plan is to let men obey or disobey. The problem is not God but the decisions men make. It was asked:"So if I disregard the life of Osama bin Laden by shooting him in the head, I give up all my rights to life? If I disregard the life of someone who is trying to murder you, and I kill him before he has a chance to injure you, I give up all my rights to life?" And let me add this question: "If someone is physically threatening me or my family to the point that our lives are in danger, do I give up all my rights to life by killing the person who is posing this threat?"In bin laden's case. Is not your duty to go hunting people down. In all other cases you do whatever it takes to preserve life.It was said:"Given the points I raised above, I'm not sure how you can avoid taking the position that evil is good. Isn't *all* that comes from god good, including creation, and his control, management, and manipulation of it? And since *all* means *all," it would have to include evil, (even your own bible tells me so!), would it not?"Everything that God created was Good. Man ruined it by disregarding life i.e. God. Remember what happens to those that disregard life they forfit they right to live. Merry Christmas.

  110. I asked Trinity: "…if young child should die because of the horrible abuse suffered during such an event as a rape, that child (via saving grace) would go to heaven, right? So why shouldn't the act of being raped and dying from it not be considered a blessing for the child who was raped and is now in heaven? This is what we are told all the time at funerals for such children, aren't we? That they are in a better place? Couldn't anything that leads to a child ending up in heaven be considered a blessing?"Trinity responded: "First of all I don't believe children or infants are innocent."I don't think I asked you if they were "innocent." My question has to do with what you call "god's grace" or "mercy" being granted to children who are under the age of accountability.(By the way, this phrase amuses me: We are accused by certain believers of not being able to account for logic, reason, the senses; of suppressing knowledge of your god; yet we are held accountable? How can that be, for (only according to what you believe in) we, like infants, haven't reached the age of accountability! Makes no sense to me, especially if your god allegedly made us to be this way). Anyway, back to the notion of infants not being innocent… They are all depraved, right? This reminds me of my suggestion of a name for my nephew's new baby boy: I said they ought to name him "Sinner." They didn't. But when I am out with certain relatives, say, at a restaurant, and my Calvinistic relative starts fawning over a newborn at the next table, I usually chime in with something like, "Ahhhh, look at that little depraved, sinner. Isn't that cute." My Calvinistic relative doesn't find that too humorous. Why do you think this is?Trinity continues: "There is debate over what happens to infants and children after death."Why do you suppose this is? Is such division a part of your god's plan? Trinity wrote: "Personally, I think they go to heaven."You "personally"… think" they go to heaven? If you believed it, would that make any difference their their status?(continued)

  111. Furthermore, even though you "think" this, that doesn't mean they do, right? I mean, for all you know, all little infants that have died could be suffering eternal agony hell as we speak, right? And if they were in hell, with the flesh melting off their bodies for all eternity, when you die, you would be among those in heaven, laughing and rejoicing over little babies frying, right?And what do you mean, "personally"? I find your usage of this qualifier quite interesting. It's as if there is *your* view and then a *biblical* view of infant salvation. Can you site for me chapter and verse that gives you the authority to venture outside of god's word to posit any *personal* idea of your own and not strictly in accordance with what the bible teaches as it pertains to infant salvation? If you don't know, shouldn't you say "I don't know" like you do below?Trinity wrote: "No, the act of rape is never a blessing." Was Jesus' mother, Mary, blessed? Can the blessed ever sin?Trinity wrote: "However, God allows for evil to happen in order that life could be preserved."Okay. Let's see how this might play out using my example of child rape: God allows a child rape to happen. The child who was raped grows up and rejects Jesus. The rapist continues on with his life, and dies rejecting Jesus. Both rapist and victim are now burning in hell. Under this scenario, what was the purpose of god allowing the rape to occur? Whose life was preserved in such a scenario?Trinity writes: "Why does he do it that way? I don't know he never tells us."In the scenario I presented, I think you already told us why your god does it that way, for you wrote: "God allows for evil to happen in order that life could be preserved."Given your explanation for god's allowance of evil, what would be your response to the above scenario? What is the distinction between allowing evil and actually being evil?Ydemoc

  112. This comment has been removed by the author.

  113. "If God came to you and said hey , ydemoc, Im hungry what would you say?"Well, first of all, such a notion violates the Primacy of Existence and the axioms, so such qualify as a legitimate, because it is incoherent. It's like asking me what I would say if Ralakmo Brond Peap Bothro came to me and said, "Hey, Ydemoc, I'm hungry." The only proper response to such a question is, "Excuse me?"Then if you told me that this was the name of someone or something that created the universe and that it was hungry, the only proper response is to reply, "Is that right?" and then just walk away. Because such a notion is incoherent and arbitrary.But, if I was writing a screenplay, or some other work of fiction, I might find your question very useful. Because, after all, fiction is a product of imagination, right?For instance, I might find some imaginative use for the notion of a god within the framework of a fantasy story. Yet even within such a fictional realm, if a character called "God" walked up to another character named "Ydemoc" and said, "Hey, ydemoc, Im hungry," the first thing I would think to myself as a writer would probably be, "Man, am I having a horrible day coming up with ideas. And what's with my spelling?"But, assuming I looked past all that, and that there was a story and a scene where it made sense for this character of "God" to ask such a question, I might give the character of Ydemoc a line like, "Really? You, God, are actually hungry? Is this quest for food in any way connected to your quest for glory, which you also seem to lack, since other humans are constantly telling me I need to give it to you?" Then I might have the character of God give Ydemoc an angry stare, at which point Ydemoc might say, "Hey, I got an idea, God — if you are so hungry, why don't you do what you did at the last supper and just eat yourself!?"That's how I might respond in a work of fiction. I'm sure if I gave it more thought though, I could come up with something a little less on the nose and a little more punchy. Of course, it all depends on the tale being told, too.Ydemoc

  114. Wrote to Trinity: "Another reason for asking is because if a child is raped, and the rapist is convicted, thrown into prison, repents, and then finds god who bestows saving grace upon that rapist, couldn't one say that the rape that the man committed was a blessing? since the rape ultimately led the rapist to recognize the error of his ways, his own depravity. (i.e., it led him to stop suppressing knowledge of god?)"Trinity wrote: "Only by the work of holy spirit can one repent, be shown his depravity and be saved."Fine. Let's do it your way: "…if a child is raped, and the rapist is convicted, thrown into prison, repents, and then finds god who bestows saving grace upon that rapist, couldn't one say that the rape that the man committed was a blessing? since the rape ultimately led the rapist, via the Holy Spirit, to recognize the error of his ways, his own depravity. (i.e., the Holy Spirit worked in his life to stop him from suppressing knowledge of god.) Why couldn't the rape of the child be seen as a blessing?Ydemoc

  115. @Ydemocyou have the patience of job:)

  116. I wrote: "Also, given the fact that (according to your bible) we don't deserve life but deserve to… what — have no life? Why wouldn't a miserable life be better than no life at all, even if that miserable life included being raped as a child?"Trinity wrote: "If you disregard life i.e. God, yea, you don't deserve to live."Right, that's what before. But maybe I wasn't clear in the rest of my question which you failed to address. So let me rephrase it to get my point across: "In your opinion, if someone ends up burning in hell at the end of a long life, wouldn't you say it would have been much better for that individual if they would have died in childhood, say, due to injuries suffered while being raped, rather than burning for all eternity." I wrote: "Also, can someone whom god has blessed, sin?"I didn't get an answer to this one. I wrote: "The other reason I ask my question is because I just can't seem to square the idea that "*everything* again *everything* that happens is a part of god's good plan" with the idea that "part of god's good plan would necessarily have to include instances of child rape." I just can't wrap my head around this. Maybe you can help. I mean, if you say child rape is not a part of god's good plan, then your god could not control everything; on the other hand, if you say that child rape is a part of your god's good plan, we have an instance of that which is evil being called good!"Trinity wrote: "God doesn't say why he allowed for evil."I'm not asking you why god allows what allows; I'm am asking you how you distinguish between someone who "allows evil" and someone who "is evil?" Is there really any distinction here? Trinity wrote: "Part of God's plan is to let men obey or disobey. The problem is not God but the decisions men make."So is god not in charge and in control of the decisions men make, whether or not these decisions include obeying or disobeying, even though he is in charge?"So if I disregard the life of Osama bin Laden by shooting him in the head, I give up all my rights to life? If I disregard the life of someone who is trying to murder you, and I kill him before he has a chance to injure you, I give up all my rights to life?" And let me add this question:"If someone is physically threatening me or my family to the point that our lives are in danger, do I give up all my rights to life by killing the person who is posing this threat?"Trinity wrote: "In bin laden's case. Is not your duty to go hunting people down."What does "duty" have to do with it?Trinity wrote: "In all other cases you do whatever it takes to preserve life."Where is this made explicit in your bible. Where is the self-defense spelled out?"I wrote: "Given the points I raised above, I'm not sure how you can avoid taking the position that evil is good. Isn't *all* that comes from god good, including creation, and his control, management, and manipulation of it? And since *all* means *all," it would have to include evil, (even your own bible tells me so!), would it not?"Trinity wrote: "Everything that God created was Good."Even the serpent in the garden of Eden? Even Satan? Even evil?Trinity wrote: "Man ruined it by disregarding life i.e. God."Didn't your god make sure this would happen?Trinity wrote: "Remember what happens to those that disregard life they forfit they right to live."See above.Ydemoc

  117. Justin wrote: "you have the patience of job:)"I wish I had a job right now, then perhaps I wouldn't have time for such patience.Actually, I'm enjoying writing these responses. As I've said before, it's a win-win for me.Anyway, I'm starting to lose focus, so I guess I'll hit the sack. Talk to you later.Ydemoc

  118. Wheezy,I responded to some of your fears and worries but I lost it somehowBut here this will help.Westminster Confession of faith Chapter 3:I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5]III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11]VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16]VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.[17]VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

  119. Trinity wrote: "Wheezy, I responded to some of your fears and worries…"What fears and worries were those?Trinity continues: "…but I lost it somehow"What is "it" you lost? Was it "focus" that you lost?Trinity writes: "But here this will help. Westminster Confession of faith Chapter 3:"How do know that posting convoluted dogma will address my inquiries, if you yourself lost track of exactly what my inquiries pertained to? My inquiries were quite specific; and you did answer some of them, but certainly not all of them. You were quite selective and did not elaborate much at all with the inquiries you chose to answer.For example, you did not answer:1. And you know your god hasn't sent you a lying spirit by reference to… what exactly? By reference to the same being who says he sends lying spirits? By reference to the same being who sends lying spirits and who says to have faith in him? By reference to a storybook that says the being you worship sends lying spirits to people? By faith in this being who sends lying spirits? 2. When you asked, "Charlatan why did God send lying spirits?" This is a great question — one that you should be asking yourself! Meanwhile, this inquiry of mine was left unaddressed, "Which lying spirits are you talking about?" So far, you haven't told me which ones you are talking about from the list I provided. 3. What is the difference between a being that "creates" and/or "allows evil," and a being that "is evil"? I think we might all enjoy reading how you draw draw a distinction between allowing evil and being evil. Or is it a distinction without a difference, as in: "I didn't create evil; I just allowed it to flourish"; or, "I didn't push the little girl in front of the bus, I just intentionally allowed her to walk in front of it"; or, "Even though those who believe in me say that I am in control of everything, I didn't cause the little child to get raped and die, I only choreographed and allowed it to take place."4. In your opinion, if someone ends up burning in hell at the end of a long life, wouldn't you say it would have been much better for that individual if they would have died in childhood, say, due to injuries suffered while being raped, rather than burning for all eternity."5. Can someone whom god has blessed, sin?6. When you wrote, "Everything that God created was Good," I replied: "Even the serpent in the garden of Eden? Even Satan? Even evil?"7. When you wrote, "Man ruined it by disregarding life i.e. God," I replied: "Didn't your god make sure this would happen?"(continued)

  120. 8. When you wrote: "In all other cases you do whatever it takes to preserve life," I replied, "Where is this made explicit in your bible. Where is the self-defense spelled out?"9. I wrote: "…if a child is raped, and the rapist is convicted, thrown into prison, repents, and then finds god who bestows saving grace upon that rapist, couldn't one say that the rape that the man committed was a blessing? since the rape ultimately led the rapist, via the Holy Spirit, to recognize the error of his ways, his own depravity. (i.e., the Holy Spirit worked in his life to stop him from suppressing knowledge of god.) Why couldn't the rape of the child be seen as a blessing?"10. You wrote: "Personally, I think they [infants] go to heaven." I responded, "You "personally… think" they go to heaven? If you believed it, would that make any difference their their status?" And if it isn't true that infants go to heaven, will you be among those in heaven, laughing and rejoicing over little babies frying in hell?11. I had asked: "Can you site for me chapter and verse that gives you the authority to venture outside of god's word to posit any *personal* idea of your own that is not strictly in accordance with what the bible teaches as it pertains to infant salvation? If you don't know, shouldn't you say "I don't know"?12. Where specifically does the bible condemn child rape or pedophilia? Please cite chapter and verse. If you cannot cite chapter and verse, then please give me your "personal" view on why you think it is wrong. You should have no qualms about doing so, since you've already offered up your "personal" view regarding infant salvation.13. What distinction do you make in your usage of "proof" in quotes, and just proof without quotes.———–These are just some the inquiries and issues that have yet to be addressed by Trinity. As for the convoluted dogma known as "The Westminster Confession of Faith," perhaps I will get to that later. I will note, however, that my referring to "The Westminster Confession of Faith" as "dogma," should in no way be seen as disparagement of the highly regarded, yearly event known as "The Westminster Dog Show."Ydemoc

  121. Answers to questions:1. Here is the link again how about you read it this time.(http://www.gotquestions.org/lying-spirit.html) 2. Which lying spirits are you talking about?3. Evil people break the 10 commandments. Good people dont. However, based on your reasoning you would have to be labeled as evil since you allow much evil to happen around you.4. What is it with you and rape it's bizzare?5. Like?6. God allowed for the possibility of evil. Satan and men actuated it. 7. No, he allowed it.8. http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/9. Rape is never a blessing. However, God uses the wickedness of men to carry out his plan.10. We have to wait and see.11. ok, I don't know.12.http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.htmlhttp://www.gotquestions.org/pedophilia.html13. Because God can't be put into a syllogism.

  122. To All, Please enjoy this holiday gift from me to you. YdemocThe Westminster Confession of Faith as Hope in the Imaginary and Belief Without Understanding 1 I. According to our Imaginations, informed by tales in a Storybook, a Being from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, even though such a Being would be unequipped the means of doing such a thing, and is a contradiction; and such an assertion reverses the true nature of how men acquire knowledge; and by virtue of positing a this Being, a consciousness having primacy over existence, this statement itself cannot qualify as knowledge; yet we, as believers fail to see this and/or we ignore it, so we go on with our beliefs that are built from this false premise in order that we may make our belief more palatable to ourselves and to those who have serious doubts that we are just pulling their legs; yet so, as thereby neither is this Invisible Magic Being the author of sin, even though we imagine that he created and controls whatsoever comes to pass which would have to include laying the groundwork for original sin and making sure sin occurs according to his plan; and even though, in this Invisible Magic Beings Storybook it says that he “creates evil,” but this has been softened through translation because it presents a problem to those believers who want to maintain otherwise; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established, even though this makes no sense because if this Invisible Magic Being is in control of everything it makes no sense to say that he is not in control of the choices man makes or does not make; to say man is free yet predestined makes no sense; but this doesn’t bother believers because making sense and/or using stolen concepts such as “liberty” in such contexts is of no concern when it comes to believing in an Invisible Magic Being. After all, we believe in “Conversational Donkeys,” and if you believe in that then believing someone rose from the dead, and other contradictions, is a cinch.(continued)

  123. II. Although this Invisible Magic Being knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions, and even though this statement is a contradiction and does not qualify as knowledge; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. In other words, once we accept there is an Invisible Magic Being in existence that violates the Primacy of Existence, our imaginations are the only limit to what attributes we can assign to this Invisible Magic Being.III. By the decree of Invisible Magic Being, for the manifestation of His glory which we imagine men need to give to him, even though he has all the glory he needs, we imagine that some men, and angels (heavenly creatures for which there is no basis in reality for and is therefore an invalid concept, except as it might pertain products of imagination, such as fictional stories) are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others, we imagine, are foreordained to everlasting death, even though there is no really good explanation for why Invisible Magic Being had to go to all the trouble of such things as life, time, belief, faith, creation, the universe — just so that he could, in the end, toss souls in one place or another, when Invisible Magic Being knew all along that’s where they were headed anyway. Therefore, this Invisible Magic Being could also be considered a “Drama Queen.” IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished, at least that’s how we interpret our Storybook.V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, Invisible Magic Being, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen we imagine, in Christ who no one knows much about and there are no contemporaneous historical accounts of anything miraculous done by him, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace, even though the concept “choice” implies alternatives, and an Invisible Magic Being that knows everything, with nothing to gain or lose, would not have to “choose” anything; it would simply just act, willy-nilly, or according to its pleasure; but even this ignores that “pleasure” is a concept that makes no sense if applied to a Being that has been described as not having a central nervous system; and so it is with “purpose,” this concept too would not make sense as applied to an Invisible Magic Being so described, which lacks nothing; for it would have no interest in acting toward a goal and no basis for doing so. Yet, despite these difficulties, our “Hope in the Imaginary” and “Belief Without Understanding” prevails.(continued)

  124. VI. As Invisible Magic Being, a Contradictory Notion, has, as we have imagined, appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, even though mankind along with chimpanzees are descended from a common ancestor and the earth is over 4 billion years old, and the universe older than that, and the theory of evolution has undermined the notion of original sin; and even though the notion of original sin is the ultimate form of racism since it holds the entire human race guilty of something only two people did, even though they really didn’t do it, because science has proven they didn’t; are redeemed by Christ, or so we imagine, even though we can’t really explain how this might work; are effectually called unto Hope in the Imaginary and Belief Without Understanding working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through Hope in the Imaginary and Belief Without Understanding, unto what we imagine to be everlasting life after death, even though we have no evidence for such a thing. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. So there! VII. The rest of mankind Invisible Magic Being was pleased, even though this makes no sense; according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, even though this makes no sense; for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. Even thought all this makes no sense and is quite convoluted, basically, this gives us, believers in Invisible Magic Being, license to laugh at those who will be burning in hell. Even though this makes no sense.VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination — or these ideas which mystics thought of in order shore up or rationalize Invisible Magic Beings actions and words contained in Invisible Magic Being’s Holy Word, or Storybook — is to be handled with special prudence and care, because we need to make the imaginary seem more serious than it really is and scare people, that men, attending the will of Invisible Magic Being revealed in His Storybook, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election, even though hope is not certainty. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of the Imaginary and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Storybook and the Invisible Magic Being.1 (Source for title: Dawson Bethrick, from his blog entries: “Faith as Hope in the Imaginary,” http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2008/06/faith-as-hope-in-imaginary.html and “Faith as Belief Without Understanding,” http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2007/01/faith-as-belief-without-understanding.html)

  125. Hey you ever lied before?

  126. Trinity wrote: "Hey you ever lied before?"Before what?Ydemoc

  127. @Ydemocawesome! truly a very humorous triad of posts. I have referred a couple friends to read it. Got a good laugh:) Thanks. I take a simpler approach however. My discussion with Nide has basically come down to this. He knows my position outlined in the simple argument below.1. Metaphysically subjective world views are invalid2. Christianity is a metaphysically subjective world view3. Conclusion, inference from premise 1 and 2 Christianity is invalid.That's it. All I need to know is that Christianity is a metaphysically subjective world view and nothing Nide has said has assuaged me of that assessment. In fact he has agreed that metaphysically subjective world views are invalid and has stated that “god controls everything” and you cant get more metaphysically subjective then that! Now unless Nide can invalidate either of the premises I am done with this discussion, there would be nothing more to gain from it. Cheers and I hope you are having a good Christmas eve.

  128. Great Jhall wants to keep putting words in my mouth.

  129. @NideI am merely restating things you have said over on Dawson's blog, I can got repost here your statements if you wish?

  130. Jhall, In respect to humans but now your equivocating.

  131. Justin,You wrote: "awesome! truly a very humorous triad of posts. I have referred a couple friends to read it. Got a good laugh:) Thanks."You're welcome! And I'm glad you and your friends enjoyed it. I didn't spend as much time on it as I would have liked. But, you know, given that it had to be in Santa's hands by a certain time, I did the best I could. You wrote: "I take a simpler approach however….1. Metaphysically subjective world views are invalid2. Christianity is a metaphysically subjective world view3. Conclusion, inference from premise 1 and 2 Christianity is invalid."I like this. Dang, I should've used it in my "Westminster" entry. It would've made it much, much shorter and taken up less of my time. I mean, I could've written:I. 'According to our Imaginations, informed by tales in a Storybook, a Being from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, even though such a Being would be unequipped the means of doing such a thing, and is a contradiction because it posits a metaphysically subjective worldview. So anything you read after this is just invalid drivel." You wrote: "Cheers and I hope you are having a good Christmas eve."You, too! Ydemoc

  132. Metaphysical subjectivism is not defined as subjective only “to respect to humans”. It is defined as with respect to consciousness in general, any consciousness. God’s consciousness will do just as well as any other. However if you where under the impression metaphysical subjectivism was restricted only to the possible relationship between the subject of human consciousness and its objects and not consciousness in general, then I must ask do you wish to retract your earlier statement that metaphysically subjective world views were invalid?

  133. Not at all.Since you agreed that views of reality based on human experience are invalid. And your argument is making a claim about reality then how do you justify your argument?

  134. It's interesting that wheezy wants to keep making claims without even bothering to provide any arguments. The boy is logically handicapped.

  135. "Since you agreed that views of reality based on human experience are invalid. "I never agreed to this, in fact I would say that is wrong. Just how am I to learn anything unless thru experience, even if it is reading the recorded experiences of others, I still have to experience it, ie reading or watching a film, so no I do not nor did I agree that. I simply acknowledged that you had made that statement. Further this side steps the issue. I don't really care about what your world view says. So if if affirms this proposition, well bully for you. I however am trying to evaluate the claim that god exists within the context of my world view. In my world view metaphysical subjectivism is invalid. In my estimation Christianity is metaphysically subjective. If you can not address one or both of these I am done considering the existence of god and will dismiss the claim as nonsense.

  136. Great Justin back to this game.How is that your view and claims about reality are reliable?

  137. By the way Justin were talking metaphysically here not about books and movies.How do you justify making claims about what can and cannot exist?

  138. “How is that your view and claims about reality are reliable?”I realize that you might find this unfair but this question is not pertinent. If I were preaching my world view to you then yes I would accept this question, however I am not. I have stated over and over I do not care what you personally believe. I am not on a mission to convert the world to the teachings of Ayn Rand. I am a little interested tho in how your world view handles this but only a little. .“By the way Justin were talking metaphysically here not about books and movies.”Metaphysics is the study of what is, the nature of existence, the intendity of things that exist., do not books and movies exist? are they not book and movies in fact books and movies? Alternately you could be referring the the dichotomy of metaphysical subjectivism vs metaphysical objectivism. If this is the case, well once again I am not currently interested in convincing you of the truth of this dichotomy. All you need to know is that I take it seriously.“How do you justify making claims about what can and cannot exist?”Well by referring to the facts of existence as discovered via the process of reason, ie applying logic (non contradictory identification) to my thinking. Nide I am not interested in your questions. They are irrelevant to my question to you. Further more I am not the one preaching here, at least not anymore. You have amply demonstrated over the last few months that you have no genuine interest in understanding and or grasping the internal logic of competing world views so as a consequence I am not interested debating them with you. I have already made my conclusion, I just want to know if there is anything you can say that might alter that. Now my argument is deductive in nature and is valid if it’s premises are valid regardless of any other considerations. So I want to know only one thing from you, are either or both of my premises invalid and if so why? Stop with the questions as I will just ignore them from here on out until you answer this one.

  139. This comment has been removed by the author.

  140. @NideNow I realize you have stated that metaphysical subjective world views are invalid, but given other things you have said I really do think you should retract that statement and go after premise 1. I cant see how Christianity cant be metaphysically subjective.

  141. Justin,Validity says If the premises are true the conclusion must be true if not it's invalid.Now your argument is valid. But is it sound this is what really matters?What's so invalid about God controlling every thing that happens this is the real question?

  142. Well Justin since we were operating under different premises were gonna have to restate our claims and start over.

  143. By the way Justin validity is based on assumptions.Just something to remember.

  144. Thanks to my fallacy finder weezel has committed another fallacy i.e. irrelevant humor.

  145. Trinity wrote: "Thanks to my fallacy finder weezel has committed another fallacy i.e. irrelevant humor."Au contraire, Trinity. My humor was very relevant. If you want to attack my humor for its quality, well, I'm open to suggestion (in places). Perhaps I've missed an opportunity for humor that you have (somehow) spotted. If so, feel free to chime in if you think your suggestion will improve what I've written today. Ydemoc

  146. Notice what Weezel does again and again and again and again it's ridiculous. More assertions no nono your wrong I'm right. Just believe me why ? because just believe me.

  147. Trinity wrote: "Notice what Weezel does again and again and again and again it's ridiculous."And all this time I thought "Conversational Donkeys" were ridiculous. How 'bout that!Trinity wrote: "More assertions no nono your wrong I'm right."Does certainty bother you?Trinity wrote: "Just believe me why ? because just believe me."I don't think I've written this; nor have I even implied this. In fact, I make it a point to stress that it is vital to look to reality for knowledge, never belief.But even if you have mistakenly inferred this from what I've written, what could you and your ilk possibly have against a creed that states "believe because I say so" or "just believe me" or "just believe"? Ydemoc

  148. Justin,I found something that Dawson wrote that may come in handy in your interaction with Trinity:"…nature is inherently uniform (since existence exists, to exist is to be something, and nature, since it exists, is therefore itself), and that it is such independent of consciousness. Uniformity is not a property which consciousness injects into nature, nor is it the manner in which consciousness regulates nature since: a) consciousness does not regulate nature (the primacy of existence is true), and b) nature is self-regulating (per the law of identity).Since nature is uniform independent of consciousness (the primacy of existence tells us this), nature is uniform independent of any particular being’s consciousness. This means that, if consciousness is to know that nature is uniform, it must discover this fact, not “create” or “cause” it. Uniformity is not a property which consciousness gives to nature, nor is it something consciousness causes in nature….this conception of the uniformity of nature does not make it dependent upon experience…. experience depends on the uniformity of nature (since experience, as the actual relation between a subject and the objects of its awareness, exists and is therefore a part of nature, and thus has identity), since experience is processional over time. It is not an appeal to experience, but rather to the preconditions of experience as such." ("The Uniformity of Nature," Dawson Bethrick, February 12, 2010, http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2010/02/uniformity-of-nature.html)Ydemoc

  149. you are a GOD Ydemoc. thank you. Lurker

  150. That reworked Westminster Confession was amazing and hilarious. / Another impressed lurker.

  151. Agreed, and given its own post as a result.

  152. Yea, I remember talking to Dawson about this."Dawson says it, I believe it and that settles it"- Wheezy"nature is inherently uniform"Ok, Dawson, so nature by nature is uniform?And why is that Dawson?Oh because it just is.Ok, Great."It is not an appeal to experience, but rather to the preconditions of experience as such."What's the precondition for experience Dawson?Is it experience or nature?Happy jesus day.

  153. Thank you to the Anonymous Lurkers who posted their kind remarks:Anonymous wrote: "you are a GOD Ydemoc. thank you."You're very welcome. But by referring to me as a god, don't you think you might be underestimating me a bit? After all, I exist. (smiley emoticon here) Ydemoc

  154. I had posted something from Dawson's blog that I thought might come in handy for Justin in his interaction with Trinity. Trinity replied with his usual commentary, including: "Yea, I remember talking to Dawson about this."Then you should also remember this: "I can’t say which is the bigger impediment for Nide’s understanding, whether it’s his self-inflicted ignorance of his opponent’s position, or his commitment to mischaracterizing his opponent’s position by proposing simplistic implications which in fact are not suggested by that position. But either way, his lack of understanding is persistent and systemic." ("Answering Nide's Questions about the Uniformity of Nature," Dawson Bethrick, September 06, 2011, http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2011/09/answering-nides-questions-about.html)Ydemoc

  155. I take it that Nide is no longer denying that he's Hezekiah Ahaz?

  156. Alex,Before Nide I Am.How's your Christmas going?

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: