an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Dan Accidentally Hoists Himself on His Own Petard

In the comments to one of Dan’s standard miserable rants, appears this gem

In answer to Whateverman asking ‘Is absolute certainty possible without omniscience?’ Dan says ‘I would say no…’

Brilliant, there’s maybe hope for the man yet! I’ll address the following directly to Dan – Dan, now that you’ve realised that absolute certainty is impossible without omniscience, how do you explain that favourite phrase of yourself and $ye ‘We have had the truth revealed to us in such a way as we can be certain of it’? By YOUR OWN REASONING you CANNOT be certain of anything unless you are omniscient – so, which is it? Are you lying when you say that you have ‘had things revealed to [you] in such a way that you can be certain of them’ knowing that you would need to be omniscient to be certain, or are you omniscient yourself?

Which is it? Are you a liar, or do you think yourself to be a god?

Single Post Navigation

27 thoughts on “Dan Accidentally Hoists Himself on His Own Petard

  1. Now that I do like. 🙂

  2. I had noticed that, but thought it was simply too juicy to post follow-up comments.

    Dan clearly doesn’t understand the nature of his own ideas..

  3. >> By YOUR OWN REASONING you CANNOT be certain of anything unless you are omniscient – so, which is it?

    Wrong yet again. It is not “unless I am omniscient” as you tried to change and ADD yourself, you need to reread the question that was asked. Is omniscience required to know things? Yes, but it is not mine, it’s God’s that reveals things to us.

    Remember, the only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.

    Quite telling that you isolated one comment out of context of the thread, much the same you do with Scripture. Sad.

    • Dan, you your self said it was not possible to be certain without being omniscient, THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS.

      Now, please explain to the class how you are able to be certain that the revelation you claim to have had is truly from the creator of the Universe if certainty is NOT POSSIBLE without being omniscient (according to you).

      Then I’ll ask you again –

      Are you a liar, or a god?

      • >> Dan, you your self said it was not possible to be certain without being omniscient, THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS

        Access, access. One cannot be certain without access to omniscience.

        The question: ‘Is absolute certainty possible without omniscience?’

        Vague as it it I took it as “without any access to omniscience”

        I am sure you wish to take that anger out more on that dead horse but I have a game to watch.

      • “Access, access. One cannot be certain without access to omniscience.” – Yet that’s NOT what you said, is it?

        So, are you going to now state that your original answer was a mistake, or will you tell me whether you’re a liar or a god?

  4. Dan…how can one have access to omniscience without being omniscient himself? Even with that nonsense “divine revelation” crap, god does NOT give you ALL of his knowledge, does he?

    If he only gives part of his knowledge then you don’t truly have access to omniscience. You only have access to a LIMITED amount of information.

    • I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?

      Although we might also have such omniscient knowledge someday, I trust God to fully let us know everything He wishes. When He wants to reveal all that to us, as 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 says which, if I understand it properly we may indeed have omniscience when we are with God. I certainly am very excited about that. I will trust Him, and Him alone, until that wonderful day. How about you?

      • “I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?”

        No, wrong.

        The ONLY way one could be certain that this being (once you’d first proved that it exists and wasn’t a figment of your imagination) was telling you the truth would be if you yourself were omniscient and able to ‘fact check’ what you’d just been told.

        So, no Dan, I don’t concede such an idiotic statement as possible.

        Again, are you a liar, or a god?

      • I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?

        By making us omniscient, yes.

  5. Dan
    Remember, the only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything.
    That claim is stupid…one does not need “divine revelation” to know what 2 plus 2 is for instance. One does not need “divine revelation” to know how photosynthesis works. Just study, testing and observations.

    Good grief. One would think that with all the biblical problems that have been pointed out to you on your own site that you’d realize that this “divine revelation” stuff is not what it’s cracked up to be.

  6. Dan
    I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Right?
    I’ve said before: Just because something is possible does NOT mean that it has actually happened.

    And Dan once again repeats the same useless phrase…

    Here’s why it’s useless: Nothing such has been “revealed” to us. You can’t even describe this s0-called “revelation” yourself to show that you have even gotten this “revelation”.

    • And Dan once again repeats the same useless phrase…
      He does so because all he has is dogma, not an actual argument. If he had the latter, he’d be able to extrapolate from it and answer questions his argument doesn’t address directly.

      The fact that he sticks to his script is evidence that he has no argument.

  7. Care to back up your accusation?

  8. “Whatever man, atheistic worldviews hafta lie”

    Evidence please Dan, and you can do us a favour by explaining WHY you think we ‘hafta lie’.

    You see, I have nothing to gain whatsoever by breaking you out of your dangerous and damaging delusion other than the feeling of satisfaction one gets for helping a fellow human being. Your lot, on the other hand, are profoundly driven by your cult’s need for fresh victims, and there are some amongst you (Eric Hovind and $ye spring instantly to mind) who are solely motivated by how much money they can wring from their fellow believers.

    So, looking at the motives it is clear that non-believers have nothing whatsoever to personally gain from pointing out your delusional thinking, whilst the faithful are utterly invested in gaining more believers by any means necessary.

  9. Phlegon on said:

    “Access, access. One cannot be certain without access to omniscience. ”

    Um…So how do you know what you are accessing is actually the omniscience of God and not simply a trick, DAN?

    • He doesn’t, and he’s demonstrated it previously. He has no answer for the problem that an omniscient omnipotent deity might be able to reveal to him something false that he can be (incorrectly) certain of.

      • >> He has no answer for the problem that an omniscient omnipotent deity might be able to reveal to him something false that he can be (incorrectly) certain of.

        Are you certain about this? If so, how? Anyway I just said it to you on the other blog you also touted this illogical point on.

        I, Sye, said:

        Besides, you and I seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’. Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.

        God cannot contradict His own character, as then he would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnipotent and not omnipotent as well (which is absurd, of course).

        It’s also important to note that the ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition.

        So I find it hilarious that you go from blog to blog spouting illogical points as a “getcha” to me. But you got to do what you gotta do. Whatever man.

      • Are you certain about this?
        Given your pathetic unwillingness to address the problem, yes. I am.

  10. Speaking of hoisting and petards, is anyone else sick of this shit from xians?
    (see June 4, 2012 7:20 AM if link doesn’t take you right to the comment)

    Stan
    Reynold,
    The most glaring non-coherence is the Atheist making a moral judgment. Atheism gives no moral guidance whatsoever.

    Probably because atheism is NOT A RELIGION? All it means is that we are on our own to figure out a moral code that we can live by since we don’t figure there’s any “god” out there to tell us.

    Under what system of morals is he judging God and using the term “obscenity”?
    How’s about the the so-called “pro-life position that you people pretend to hold? You know, the syllogism posted at the start of your post?
    The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community*.

    It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.
    Come on! If it’s prima facie” morally wrong” to “kill ANY member of that community” then WHY IS IT OK for biblegod to do it?

    And it’s OUR view that this idiot says is “non-coherent”?

    Stan
    What in fact, constitutes “obscene” in the personal moral system of Thenderf00t? And further, who cares? Thunderf00t has zero moral authority. ZERO

    What a complete tool…The word of someone who actually gives a shit about human life has “ZERO moral authority”!

    Yet the being who acitvely orders babies and pregnanat women killed has ALL the “moral authority”?

    Yet another case I suspect, of a person who only accepts what’s right or wrong only by what his holy book tells him…According to him then, any reason that atheists will give for acting moral (empathy, consequences for indiviuals and society, societal survival, wanting to see our family and friends be able to get along in a safe society, etc) will likely not be accepted.

    If so, then we’ll have another case of a xian who, in rambling about the atheists’ supposed lack of morality and claiming that biblegod is the only “moral authority” has revealed that his so-called “morality” is that of a child who knows his parent is watching him, or perhaps that of a sociopath who knows that he’ll be caught if he tries something.

    Which is truly more moral?

    He digs himself in futher with this, referring to the Thunderfoot video I linked to over in his blog:
    Further, he has actually zero evidence to demonstrate whether there actually is a creating deity or not: not a single piece of physical evidence.
    Uh…so doesn’t that kind of give his side trouble here? Has this guy just said that he’s actually “agnostic” as oppsoed to an actual xian? I doubt it. I guess he’s not heard of hypothetical arguments.

    Stan
    So as far as he actually knows, there might be such a deity. Thus the pretension of having moral authority to judge such a being is absurd and without any logical weight or truth value whatsoever.

    Uh, no. It’s your side Stan, that’s flying against logic here, specifically that syllogism at the top of your own post.
    Plus, Pascal’s Wager appears in there too.

    What’s really stupid? He says in one comment:

    (May 29, 2012 10:25 AM )
    When that right is taken on, the slippery slope has been entered; there remains no limit to redefining people into subhuman categories, because it has become totally subjective and dictated by whim or prejudice.
    Hello? That is what you people have: subjective morality. If your god says to kill babies, then it’s OK. If he says not to, it’s not ok.

    If your so-called “pro-life’ stance was truly based on “objective morality”, then you’d say that killing babies is wrong, period. No matter who says it is.

    And again here

    (June 4, 2012 4:39 PM):
    Either right or wrong exist or they do not exist. Under Atheism there is no objective right or wrong; it is only subjective or non-existent.
    That last comment of his is just FULL of, uh “win”?

    Fun…fun. Now to post something like this on his blog. Eventually, when I get around to it…

    • Ok, what I just posted here is crap: Spelling mistakes, points missed:

      Maybe if possible, just delete or not post that and post this instead if it’s not too off-topic (I couldn’t resist replying to this idiot

      (see June 4, 2012 7:20 AM if link doesn’t take you right to the comment)

      What I’ve actually posted at Stan’s blog as a reply:
      ===========
      Stan
      Reynold,
      The most glaring non-coherence is the Atheist making a moral judgment. Atheism gives no moral guidance whatsoever.

      Probably because atheism is NOT A RELIGION?

      All it means is that we are on our own to figure out a moral code that we can live by since we don’t figure there’s any “god” out there to tell us.

      At least we’re not trying to to be as contradictory as your system is. (ex. this “pro-life” position of yours)

      Under what system of morals is he judging God and using the term “obscenity”?
      How’s about the the so-called “pro-life position that you people pretend to hold?

      You know, the syllogism posted at the start of your post?

      The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community*.

      It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.
      Come on! If it’s prima facie“morally wrong” to “kill ANY member of that community” then WHY IS IT OK for biblegod to do it?

      And it’s OUR view that you say is “non-coherent”?

      Stan
      What in fact, constitutes “obscene” in the personal moral system of Thenderf00t?
      And further, who cares? Thunderf00t has zero moral authority. ZERO

      The word of someone who actually cares about human life has “ZERO moral authority”?

      Yet the being who acitvely orders babies and pregnant women killed has ALL the “moral authority”?

      Yet another case I suspect, of a
      person who only accepts what’s right or wrong only by what his holy book tells him.

      According to you then, any reason that atheists will give for acting moral (empathy, consequences for indiviuals and society, societal survival, wanting to see our family and friends be able to get along in a safe society, etc) will likely not be accepted.

      If so, then we’ll have another case of a xian who, in rambling about the atheists’ supposed lack of “objective morality” while claiming that biblegod is the only “moral authority” has revealed that your so-called “morality” is that of a child who knows his parent is watching him, or perhaps that of a sociopath who knows that he’ll be caught if he tries something.

      Which is truly more moral?

      Stan digs himself in further with this, referring to the Thunderfoot video I linked to:

      Further, he has actually zero evidence to demonstrate whether there actually is a creating deity or not: not a single piece of physical evidence.
      Uh…so doesn’t that kind of give your side trouble here? Have you just said that you’re actually “agnostic” as opposed to
      an actual xian?

      I doubt it. I guess Stan’s not heard of hypothetical arguments.

      Stan
      So as far as he actually knows, there might be such a deity. Thus the pretension of having moral authority to judge such a being is
      absurd and without any logical weight or truth value whatsoever.

      So much for being able to follow Matthew 5:48 if we can’t judge how “perfect” your god is. In fact, how can you people say that your god is “good” “perfect” or “holy” unless some kind of judgement IS made?

      Besides, it’s your side Stan, that’s flying against logic here, specifically that syllogism at the top of your own post.

      Plus, Pascal’s Wager appears in there too.
      ========================

      My second post there (due to word limit):
      =========
      Stan says here:
      (May 29, 2012 10:25 AM )
      When that right is taken on, the slippery slope has been entered; there remains no limit to redefining people into subhuman categories, because it has become totally subjective and dictated by whim or prejudice.

      You people have subjective morality. If your god says to kill babies, then it’s OK. If he says not to, it’s not ok.

      If your so-called “pro-life’ stance was truly based on “objective morality”, then you’d say that killing babies is wrong, period. No matter who says it is.

      And you complain about atheists having “subjective morality”?

  11. Ydemoc on said:

    Hi again, Dan:

    First, thank you for replying to my post over on your blog. I hope to respond to it at some point in the future.

    Second, you wrote above: “Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God,” and “It’s also important to note that the ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition.”

    Given what you’ve written, does this mean you also preclude **learning** and **belief** from the scope of omnipotence (or omniscience)? If you do, do you use the same standard, i.e., that **learning** and **believing** are “logically impossible” and that the “ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition”? Would yo say that learning and believing are contradictions, hence weaknesses?

    Also, would say that your god needs or could have **faith**? Please explain. And what about Satan?

    Also, could you tell me whether or not your god, an omniscient, omnipotent being, would have its knowledge in the form of concepts?

    Also, given your standard above, why wouldn’t **choosing, **planning** and **goals** also be precluded from the scope of omnipotence? Or maybe you do preclude these? Please explain.

    Thanks.

    Ydemoc

    P.S. I was going to open my comment with some small talk about the game you said you had to run off and watch the other evening, but maybe I’ll hold off on doing so until a future post.

    Ydemoc

  12. Ydemoc on said:

    Dan,

    Correction: I see that I may have been mistaken in attributing your above quoted material to something *you* wrote rather than what Sye may have written or said. If so, my bad.

    An attempted answer to my questions would be appreciated, although if you prefer not to, given that the words above may not be yours, I understand.

    Ydemoc

  13. “I, Sye, said:”

    So are you now $ye, Dan? Or are you allowing $ye to use your log in?

  14. Holy shit. Get a load of this set of screeds against atheism that this so-called “40-year atheist” lays out.

    Yeah, sure….an atheist for 40 years.

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: