Google
 
Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

Manata Ja-ja

Francois Tremblay Permalink   25 comments




Pressing the Antithesis

Posted by Hellbound Alleee

Post a Comment


25 Comments:

At 4/13/2005 3:29 PM, Blogger D declaimed...

It is brilliant, which is to say that it is of excellent quality and of high mind, and that it is quite intelligent and hilarious as well, because my ribs have been tickled by it, and thus I laugh in a non-evil way!

Mmmmooojo Jojo!

 
At 4/13/2005 4:17 PM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Gotta love that Paul. My favorite quotation of his is also from his visits to ExChristian.Net, when he announced quite dramatically that we were about to "reap the whirlwind."

 
At 4/13/2005 4:22 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Maybe if Paul prayed harder things would go his way... LOL

 
At 4/13/2005 4:40 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

I haven't been following this whole Moore-Manata exchange very closely. Is it about the formulation of the presup argument ? If so, Paul, you have the burden of giving us a formal argument. Why don't you go ahead and do that, and I'll answer to it on my next entry.

 
At 4/13/2005 7:51 PM, Blogger D declaimed...

go my way? Anyone of you guys committed to "truth" and "reason" and "honesty" care to actually deal with my two refutations in a row of Moore? How do you expect anyone to take you all seriously when you pick on some little saying I wrote while your "boy" got shredded?

Y'know, Saul sounds an awful lot like someone... but who? Who am I thinking here, I can't quite recall...

Oh, wait, now I remember: Lying, scheming, hateful, racist, trolling, mindless, childish, tantrum-throwing, ignorant, wanna-be self-hating Jew prick mother fucking idiot Emanuel Goldstein II. I thought that whole oeuvre sounded familiar!

 
At 4/14/2005 7:15 AM, Blogger Zachary Moore declaimed...

Franc: I haven't been following this whole Moore-Manata exchange very closely. Is it about the formulation of the presup argument?

Zach: Paul seems to be 'refuting' just about everything I say these days, but the most recent one was about the composition of the Presuppositionalist argument. I tried to distill Van Til's argument, but it was fallacious. Then I looked at Paul's argument, and it was fallacious too. Now Paul is throwing a big temper tantrum because he can't restructure them without using fallacies.

 
At 4/14/2005 1:48 PM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

Zach: "Paul seems to be 'refuting' just about everything I say these days,"

Yes, I think you're right. He seems to be disputing whatever an atheist says just for the sake of disputing as such.

Regardless, Zach, given Paul's habit of resorting to name-calling when the going gets rough, you've shown yourself to be "Moore" of a man than Manata. So regardless of the score on apologetic debate, you won on the character side of things.

 
At 4/14/2005 3:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous declaimed...

So Paul, what *is* the presup argument ? Even Michael Martin can't figure out what it is. Maybe you can educate us ?

 
At 4/14/2005 4:54 PM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

Franc: "So Paul, what *is* the presup argument ?"

The version du jour seems to be "You don't understand my argument, therefore God exists, I win the debate and you're another moron!"

See? Simple, isn't it?


Also, Not Reformed, your comments are right on target. It seems to be a pandemic among presuppositionalists to a) complain that non-believers don't understand their argument, and yet b) they're achingly reluctant to ever produce one for examination.

 
At 4/14/2005 9:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous declaimed...

Well, you see Paul, Martin and I have been putting different arguments on the table, and both our arguments are pretty clearly formulated. Yours isn't. It doesn't really matter what you think : if you have an argument then show it.

 
At 4/14/2005 9:32 PM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

Paul: "Don't you know what the form of a transcendental argument takes?"

Paul, if you recall from our exchange in the comments section of your blog lo sciocco, I suggested to you that "in one of your blogs, you can present your 'tanscendental argument' (if you have any faith in it) and then we can see whether or not you avoid this nasty fallacy."

You seemed open to this suggestion because your response was "Maybe I can."

Today, in response to Franc, you asked a variety of questions (I quoted one above). It seems that, if you have something intelligent to say on these matters on which you inquiry to Franc, your blog would be the perfect place for you to present your ideas. One of the things I'd like to see is how TAG is supposed to infer the existence of the Christian god, and from what premises. I don't think Bahnsen came through on this burden, for my analysis of his opening statement in his debate with Stein shows that he only presented a poof, not a proof.

Perhaps you could explain in your own words precisely what the form, scope and inferential content of the transcendental argument for your god's existence consist of, and then we all can read it and be informed so that we aren't guilty of the stupidity that presuppositionalists so often accuse us of. I for one would really like to know the secret once and for all. If your god exists, and you have the key, by all means, don't hide it!

Think of it as a warm-up for your debate with Derek on April 22.

 
At 4/14/2005 9:42 PM, Blogger Error declaimed...

Franc,

"Well, you see Paul, Martin and I have been putting different arguments on the table, and both our arguments are pretty clearly formulated. Yours isn't. It doesn't really matter what you think : if you have an argument then show it."

But you use a transcendental argument. You keep bragging about "tang" showing such and such. I just want to see if you know what one is? Be honest, this post was just a stall tactic, huh?

 
At 4/14/2005 9:52 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Paul, you can believe whatever you want. I am ready to receive your argument and analyze it on the blog. You know what TANG is and you know what my argument is. So where is yours ?

Or is this some merry-go-round of yours ?

 
At 4/14/2005 10:06 PM, Blogger Error declaimed...

So, Tremblay doesn't know what a transcendental argument is yet he tells us he has one. Bit disingenuous, Tremblay. Tremblay, you empiricists, didn;t you know that transcendental arguments always deal with *a priori* considerations! How is a priori knowledge possible in your worldview?

 
At 4/14/2005 10:09 PM, Blogger Error declaimed...

Dawson, here is an example of a TA but TA's don't really have anything to do with formulation but rather with scope, subject matter, etc.

Step 1 Prove A: God exists.
Step 2 Assume ¬A: God does not exist.
Step 3 If ¬A, then B: there are no laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes.
Step 4 ¬B: There are laws of logic, nature is uniform, and there are moral absolutes.
Step 5 ¬¬A by Modus Tollens.
Step 6 A by negation.
Q.E.D.


This is valid so you can't pick on the form, only the premises. But I already know your arguments against them: subjective, identity, euthyphro, etc

 
At 4/14/2005 10:18 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Paul, save us your fucking girlish whimpering and dilly-dallying. Is the following your transcendental argument yes or no ?

"Step 1 Prove A: God exists.
Step 2 Assume ¬A: God does not exist.
Step 3 If ¬A, then B: there are no laws of logic, uniformity of nature, and moral absolutes.
Step 4 ¬B: There are laws of logic, nature is uniform, and there are moral absolutes.
Step 5 ¬¬A by Modus Tollens.
Step 6 A by negation.
Q.E.D. "

 
At 4/14/2005 11:34 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 4/14/2005 11:35 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Paul, you said that was just an example. Do you care to post a TAG that you support? Or do you support this "example"?

 
At 4/15/2005 10:29 AM, Blogger Bahnsen Burner declaimed...

Paul,

Thank you for presenting your version of TAG. It's a very nice one. I have put your argument to the Geusha Test, and my conclusion is that it fails.

Sorry ol' chap!

 
At 4/15/2005 12:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous declaimed...

Getting anything out of this guy is like pulling teeth ! Paul obviously has no intention of being serious on this blog. What a liar for Christ !

 
At 4/15/2005 5:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous declaimed...

Paul, give an argument for presuppositionalism or I'm banning you from this blog.

 
At 4/15/2005 8:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous declaimed...

Paul... Your last post needed a few changes to fit with reality, so I've done you a favour and made them for you...


Laaaaaadddies and Geeeeentlemmmeeeen, We have yet another stellar response from Paul Manata. Watch as he offers decisive refutations and leaves his opponents lying on the floor. Has anyone matched this man's tenacity for penetrating logical analysis since Forrest Gump? Not in my lifetime have I seen such a devestating, stalwart defender of the religion of TAG. Notice, fight fans, his defensive counters. he is asked to put forth his argument, refuses to, then asks another to formalize his. When the unsuspecting opponent gives his argument, Manata uses fancy footwork and hope the capacity attendance doesn't see that even though the opponent swings Manata never even jabs.

Yes, ladies and gentelmen, this is the kind of tough minded, rigerous, keen and penetrating, cogent argumentation, that is uttered with great profunditiy from the material brain of the TAG user.

 
At 4/15/2005 8:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous declaimed...

hey anonymous, if you noticed above, Paul did give a couple formalizations of his argument you dumb retard. So you look like a jamook.

 
At 4/15/2005 8:40 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

CUT THE FUCKING WHINING PAUL. WHERE IS YOUR ARGUMENT ?

 
At 4/16/2005 1:46 PM, Blogger Francois Tremblay declaimed...

Paulie has been asked repeatedly by many different individuals to provide an argument to justify his position. He has refused to do so every single time, even after I demanded that he do so. Bye bye Paulie !

 

<< Home