Getting A Handle on Manata's Evidentialism
Zachary Moore Permalink
61 comments
In his blog entry entitled “A Brief Presuppositional Analysis of Islam,” Paul Manata takes aim at a competing brand of theism for his arguments, rather than atheism. He does so presumably to dispel the criticisms of the TAG which show that, at best, it provides proof for the existence of a personal deity, but not necessarily the Christian god.
Manata delves into an “internal critique” of the Muslim worldview, with the intent of showing it to be contradictory, and thus incorrect. All things being equal, Manata has actually made a quite forceful argument for the inconsistency of Islam, to his credit. But I find it fascinating that Manata has begrudgingly admitted that the presuppositional approach “has a hard time critiquing a religion with a personal sovereign God and a revealed word to mankind.” From his following arguments, Manata seems to make it clear that not only does presuppositionalism have a “hard time,” but it is virtually useless, since he uses exclusively evidentialist tactics. Acknowledging his about-face in apologetic methodology, Manata belatedly insists that “we must do away with the myth that a presuppositionalist cannot appeal to evidences. We can appeal to the facts of history to embarrass our opponents.”
But here the “facts of history” seem to be confined to textual criticism of the Koran. His main thrust is establishing the Muslim contention that the Koran and Bible are as one, followed by showing direct contradictions between the two works of scripture. Some of Manata’s contradictions seem to be fair, others more spurious (not being aware that Miriam and Mary are the same name is a slight mistake, admittedly). I’m not interested in presenting the Muslim rebuttal- there is one, undoubtedly, and it likely uses the same kinds of ‘harmonizations’ that drive atheists mad with frustration- but I am interested in pointing out the opening that Manata has allowed by attacking using evidentialist apologetics.
One of the inspirations for the title of this blog is the phrase, “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” which can be applied to any situation in which the arguments of the theist can be used against him. In this case, since Manata has made the argument that Islam is false because of contradictions within its sacred scriptures, then we are fully justified in making the same argument against Christianity.
I don’t intend to publish a list of contradictions here- there are far too many for this blog to document. But a cursory search of material published in print and on the Internet should give you any number of contradictions within the Bible. I’ve included a few links at the end of this post- these represent just a sample.
What I do want to get across, however, is that apparently the philosophers here have been wasting their time battling presuppositionalism- when his back is up to the wall, Manata becomes a willing evidentialist.
Contradiction Links:
Internet Infidels
American Atheists
Skeptics Annotated Bible
Post a Comment
61 Comments:
Zach,
It is obvious that you did not read, in detail, my post. Next time, please do so and save me the hassel and you the embarrassment.
Paul
Paul-
I'm sorry. I thought you were making a case for being a presuppositionalist while using evidentialist arguments. My mistake.
Zach,
Nope. And so you should either ammend your blog or erase it so that goose the antithesis doesn't put out a major misrepresentation.
Paul
Paul-
Okay... so what is the blog entry about, then?
Hi Zach,
It was showing that *presuppositionalism* uses the *same* tactic as it uses with atheism, or anyone else for that matter. You should be charitable and not that the title is called a *presuppositonal* analys of Islam. So, if you don't think I gave one you should explain this inconsitancy of mine. It is obvious what I thought I was doing from the intro and the title. Also, you should what presuppositionalists say about evidemces and then intersperse that into your blog. You should also compare and contrast evidentialISM and presuppositionalISM, in order to call be an evidentialIST. So, basically your blog, though I appreciate the publicity, was not well-thought-out. It also bore false witness against your neighbor. That is, you lied about my argument. I think if you print it out, mull it over tonight, you should "get it."
Paul
Paul-
So, what part of presuppositionalism involves textual criticism?
Not Reformed-
You just don't get it, do you? Its fine and dandy for Paul to critique other 'gods' and religions by showing contradictions in their holy scriptures...but if somebody does the same thing to paul's 'god,' then they are wrong.
Of course!
Hi Zach,
Despite that child, NR, trying to brown nose you and his fellow gods, you should read what I wrote. Read what I said before and after my use of evidences. Also, I didn't just point to contradictions in the Koran. To imply that I did proves you missed my argument. I did a presuppositional critique of Islam. When I got to the point where I said the Muslim would say that we have corrupted out text I then mentioned two arguments. One was an external criticism-which I noted could be avoided by the presuppositionalist Muslim-and the second was the internal critique which , if my argument was correct, they could not avoid.
Now, since if you're familar with presuppositionalism then you know our claim that all facts prove God's existence. Thus the presuppositionalist can appeal to any fact to prove his position. So, the myth is that presuppositionalists don't use evidences and evidentialists don't use presuppositions. As has been satted by Van Til all the way to bahnsen: The presuppositionalist can appeal to evidences to embarrass unbelievers. but in the final analysis the unbeliever can always run from the facts and so we then need to call into question his philosophy of fact. These might be of interest to you:
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa003.htm
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa016.htm
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa206.htm
http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa206.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0875523536/qid=1117089649/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-6164517-9656742?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
Also see chapter 7 and 8 in Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analyis.
Furthermore, cite presuppositionalist literature and philosophy which says that I can't appeal to evience in the manner that I did. You should be able to do so if you're claiming that I'm inconsistent with my espoused philosophy.
Look, I'm not saying that you can't critique what i wrote, I'm just trying to be honest with you and tell you that you're misrepresenting my position that I have studied for quite some time and pay to take classes on. I should know more about it than you. if you thik you understand the details of my view better than I do, then cite you work. I'll be happy to recant.
Paul
Here's the problem as I see it.
Christians are indoctrinated into type 1 explanations all their lives and are thus unable to understand any other.
The universe is a global type 3 system.
How do we force a brainwashed believer like Paul to an understanding of type 3 systems when he ardently resists any suggestion that his assumed type 1 presuppositionalist explanatory system is really a type 2 system ? If his mind is totally unable to grasp this, then he cannot possibly grasp more complex systems.
The only thing that comes to my mind is to disguise type 3 systems as type 1. The idea of natural laws being gods in a Greek-style pantheon come to mind. Of course, that would make the Christians believe that we are as religious as they are, which is not a good thing.
Perhaps simply borrowing type 1 concepts without really integrating them - as Intelligent Design scammers do - is a better solution. We should then adopt the language of religion in a superficial way, just like ID scammers adopt the language of science in superficial ways. But I don't really know how that would be done.
I wonder what the other atheists here think about this problem. I think we should start using this blog to talk less about the same presup fallacies over and over (because it's obvious that nothing new is ever going to come from our opponents), and talk more about possible ways to break their brainwashing conceptually and psychologically.
Franc,
What the heck did that have to do with what everyone's been talking about??? Be honest, you came up with that while smoking the leagal bud up in Canada and have been dying to try it out on someone, regardless if it was totally out of left field, huh? It's okay, pothead. I think I'll refer to Zach and yourself as Cheech and Chong from now on. Since Dawson's in San Francisco I'll call him Jerry Garcia, and since Aaron's From Orange county I'll call him Gwen Stephanie. Thanks for the morning laugh, Franc, you guys are a hoot!
Paul-
Also, I didn't just point to contradictions in the Koran. To imply that I did proves you missed my argument.
I didn't say that you only used contradictions in the Koran, but that was the bulk of your argument. You also argued that the truth of the Bible can be evidenced by how many copies exist of it, which didn't merit my discussion.
I did a presuppositional critique of Islam.
So you presupposed that Islam was true, and found it to be false? Remarkable. I recall you saying in the past that anyone could presuppose the truth of any worldview and conclude it to be true.
and the second was the internal critique which , if my argument was correct, they could not avoid.
I'm sure you think so, but I'm equally sure that a Muslim could harmonize your supposed contradiction. But that wasn't even the point- the fact that you conclude Islam to be false based on internal contradictions is exactly the same conclusions that thousands of atheists (and others) find with Christianity, using the exact same methods.
Furthermore, cite presuppositionalist literature and philosophy which says that I can't appeal to evience in the manner that I did.
I didn't say that you can't use evidences to argue your worldview, but the fact is that you've suspiciously avoided doing so in the past (at least with me). Whether or not your adoption of them now points to a personal recognition of the insufficiency of your philosophy, I can't say, but I certainly can say that the same approach you use to disprove Islam can be used to disprove Christianity, and you know it.
I have studied for quite some time and pay to take classes on. I should know more about it than you.
Well then, I suppose I don't know anything more about molecular biology than the average person, then, by that logic.
Any savvy Islamic apologist could easily take down Paul's critique of Islam. It would not take a feat of scholarship to do that.
What's curious to me is this statement in Paul's blog:
"...presuppositionalism is devastating to atheistic worldviews..."
I'd really like to see this supposed (presupposed?) devastation of atheistic worldviews. I've read Van Til, Bahnsen, Frame, Platt, et al. at length, and I have yet to find anything they say to be "devastating" to my worldview. Indeed, they seem completely ignorant of my worldview, for they never devote any attention to it. And if they think that their treatments of atheism as such cannot be answered, they're simply deceiving themselves. Granted, they are rather adept at misrepresenting other positions for ease of criticism. But that's not a critique of a rival worldview - it's just a straw man. And when we see time and again that presuppositionalism ultimately boils down to an argument from ignorance (or from incredulity as the case may be), its purported accomplishments aren't really all that impressive after all. But I'm willing to continue examining it in case I've overlooked something.
Apart from Paul's comments (which I blithely ignore), does anyone think my suggestion should be discussed on this blog, or not ?
Franc-
I think we should start using this blog to talk less about the same presup fallacies over and over (because it's obvious that nothing new is ever going to come from our opponents), and talk more about possible ways to break their brainwashing conceptually and psychologically.
We should be doing both, I think. Coming up with new tactics to challenge theistic worldviews is a great thing, but the problem is that most of the tactics they employ are patently fallacious. If we operate under the assumption that those who may be reading this blog are worldview-neutral (or fancy themselves as such), then it would be in our interest, even from an "evangelical" position, to poke holes in their fallacies.
Fair enough.
Hey Paul,
Im from Los Angeles. So I would prefer it if you called me "Zach De La Rocha" ;-)
By the way, according to Islam, you cannot even understand the Quran, much less critizue it, unless you speak Arabic. For Arabic is God's language, and anything you quote in English from the Quran is not accurate for it is in the wrong language. I bet than a Muslim would bring up this point in defense of your Islam blog entry.
Paul, I got a serious question for you in regards to that "presup. is devestating to atheism" thing...
Is it devestating because its presup, or because its Christian?
In other words, is an Islamic presuppositionalist view devestating to atheism? What about a Hindu presup. view? Or is only the Christian presup. view devestating to atheism?
Thats so funny! Especially considering that Muslims considers any non-Muslim view to simply be an "infidel" view or a nonbeliever view.
To quote Stephen Roberts:
“I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Aaron: Is it devestating because its presup, or because its Christian?
Cadman: Any view contrary to Christianity is an atheistic worldview....
That's an interesting thought. If Paul argues that his worldview as a Christian is defined by his presuppositions, and also that there only exist two worldviews (Christianity and Non-Christianity), but realizes that he needs to appeal to evidences to disprove a presuppositionalist Muslim, then the whole concept of presuppositionalism seems to cancel itself out.
Paul: the second was the internal critique which , if my argument was correct, they could not avoid.
Someone once said that you cannot do an internal critique without giving up your own worldview and without accepting that the worldview you are critiquing is TRUE.
That same someone also said that if you test the worldview, then you have ASSUMED IT WAS FALSE and CANNOT DO AN INTERNAL CRITIQUE...
Do you remember saying that, in your attempts to show that Atheists couldn't do internal critiques of Christianity?
By your own argument, you have FAILED TO DO AN INTERNAL CRITIQUE and ASSUMED ISLAM TO BE FALSE. That means your critique of Islam is EXTERNAL and meaningless. (that was what you kept saying to us... external critiques are meaningless)
Hi Everyone,
NR- I'll begin with you. The reason I don't respond to you is that all you do is name call. Now, that would be fine, but you gotta start adding some substance, man. Look at Dawson, he names calls and has something to say (some times, at least).
Zach- Again, I think you're misunderstanding. I didn't use contradictions in the Koran, at all. I never argued that, say: S. 45:65 contradicts S. 9.23. So, when you provided your list of copntradictions *within* the Bible you showed that you didn't understand what I was arguing.
Also, I didn't argue that the "truth of the Bible" was based on, or evidenced by, how many copies existed. To implay this, again shows that you did not carefully read what i wrote.
I presupposed Islam to be true, and then showed, on that assumption, that if true it was false. Read the critique. Now, before I had said that if someone presupposes something is false and then concludes that it is false then this would be uninteresting. So, take better mental notes on what I write.
I've met some Muslims who could not, also I'd get the debate between Dr. Bahnsen, a muslim and a Jew and see how well this professional Muslim scholar reconciles the contradictions. Now, I know that atheists have pointed to contradictions *IN* the Bible, like John vs. Mark, or something. That is not what I did. Anyway, all I can see is that I warned you. I tried to tell you that you misrepresented my argument, do with that info as you wish.
Dawson- A savvy Christian apologist can easily spank you. Look, if all you can do is to make assertions then why bother posting. Or, do you expect your friends to take your word on your own say-so. Pretty hypocritical, Dawson. As far as the supposed refutation you want to see? Dawson, proof is not persuasion. Your argument essentially was: I've looked at the arguments and I don't find them devestating. This is very naive, Dawson. I'll show you how erronious it is by pointing out that you think the POC and POE arguments are devestating to theists. Well, I've read you, Thorn and Rand on the matter, but I'm not converted and I don't see how they are devestating. So, Dawson, why don't you do everyone a favor and show you're not towing party line and tell Zach that he misrepresented my post and tell sansone about his performance. You said you were going to e-mail me back after you listened to the debate, now you're silent???
Aaron- I'll dismmeber islam again for you, if you'd like. Does it say in the Koran that Arabic is God's language and so using english doesn't work? If not, then how do they know? If so, how could they tell you about it in English? So, how would I ever know what they were saying was true unless they spoke arabic to me all the time?
Secondly, look at the context, man. Your question about presuppositionalism vs. Christianity is only based on a desire to misreads someone and place them in as bad a light as possible. If you think about it, you'll find it quite silly.
Santa- You said:
"That same someone also said that if you test the worldview, then you have ASSUMED IT WAS FALSE and CANNOT DO AN INTERNAL CRITIQUE...
Do you remember saying that, in your attempts to show that Atheists couldn't do internal critiques of Christianity?"
I totally deny this and it is ripped out of context. So, shore up your critiques. While you're at it, can you show why it's morally wrong to kill fat bearded people who wear red suits?
Paul:
"While you're at it, can you show why it's morally wrong to kill fat bearded people who wear red suits?"
In a godless world, it is wrong to kill fat people, skinny people, bearded people, clean shaven people, etc... because it is wrong to hurt fellow humans the same way that it is wrong for another to hurt you. The golden rule applies here (which coincides with the objectivist worldview) which is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
But in your Christian world, Paul, killing a fat man in a red suit is only wrong as long as your God arbitrarily says its wrong. You say your Gods nature is unchanging, and I in turn say that it is within Gods "unchanging" nature to arbitrarily demand either the abstaining from, or the committing of, violence/death onto another human, all depending on Gods mood.
If your God exists Paul, then I contend that Yates killed her children at the command of Him.
In a godless world, there is NO EXCUSE or validation for Yates to kill her kids. But in your Christian world, there ARE excuses for Yates to kill her children: "God commanded me to do it! Just as he has before in the Bible!"
Thats what happens when you base your actions involving man, not on man himself, but on God.
The godless morality is the superior morality, for it is the non-arbitrary morality.
So, take away the rhetoric, Aaron, and your post can be read like this:
The only reason you have to say something is wrong is because God arbitrally said so, and this is problematic. But my view is that because humans say something is wrong, arbitrarally, then it is not problematic.
Looks consistent to me, Aaron.
Paul-
I didn't use contradictions in the Koran, at all.
Nice try. You cited 2:136, which indicates that there is no distinction in the Muslim worldview between the Koran and the Bible. This establishes both works as fundamental scripture for Islam, as you admit when you say that you "can go to our Scriptures to read what Allah has revealed elsewhere." You then contrast Sura 28:9 with Exodus 2:10, among others, establishing internal contradictions in the scriptures of Islam. It is these contradictions, which are no different from the Biblical contradictions that I posted, that you used to declare that since "Allah told us that future revelation cannot contradict previous revelation. So then, according to the Koran's own terms it refutes itself."
Also, I didn't argue that the "truth of the Bible" was based on, or evidenced by, how many copies existed.
Yes, you do. To counter the hypothetical charge by a Muslim that the Bible has been corrupted from the original truth attested in the Koran, you remind us to "remember that in the case of the Bible we have thousands of manuscripts to decipher the meaning with," and cite A.T. Robinson to back you up- "The Number of manuscripts of the new testament, or early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practially certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is perserved."
I presupposed Islam to be true, and then showed, on that assumption, that if true it was false.
If you had truly presupposed Islam to be true, then you would have had the understanding to harmonize the supposed contradictions between it and the Bible, and since you were not able to understand the harmonizations, you obviously didn't truly presuppose its truth in the first place. That seems remarkable like the argument that you gave me about Christianity some time ago.
Now, I know that atheists have pointed to contradictions *IN* the Bible, like John vs. Mark, or something. That is not what I did.
It amounts to the same thing. If, in the Muslim worldview, there is no truth distinction between the Koran and the Bible, than there is no difference in showing a contradiction between Sura 28 with Exodus 2 (your approach), or showing a contradiction between Exodus 20 and Exodus 34 (my approach).
Hi Zach,
I tried to warn you, but you're so prideful that you think you understand my position better than I do myself. I'm not going to continue this with someone obviously evidencing a stubborn heart and a closed mind. Anyway, I'm writting a few more blog entries and them I closing my blog, hiding in my room and classrooms for a few years, before I re-emerge again. But before I do I'm gonna rattle of some final posts. I'll start with this one of yours and you can add it to our pile we have both contributed to. Take care. It's been fun name calling back and forth with you.
Paul-
If you can't deal with my criticisms, just don't read them. There's no reason to discontinue your blog and go into hiding. You're one of our best advertisements for atheism! Still, I wish you well at school, and remember that I'm always available by email.
Zach, quit trying to build yourself up. It has nothing to do with your "criticims," if you can call them such. I've been mulling this over for quite some time. Anyway, to be honest, and I'm not trying to be mean, but I laugh at virtually everything you write. I think your knowledge of philosophy and apologetics is terribly lacking. The professor of metaphysics at Notre dame called you and "ignorant redneck," when he saw your 'answers" to the problems of universals. I don't expect this to mean anything to you, but you are incompetent. The *only* thing you have going for you, is that you act like an ass and blow of arguments with statements like: Go read kant, you idiot." This may make children think you know what you're talking about, but we both know that you do that just to hide, especially since you declined a debate with me on the subject. Anyway, I'm tired of the internet warrior syndrome, and wasting my time reading people like Francois Tremblay, who actually think they are "philosophers." Take care Zach, eat drink and be merry, then stand before the judgement seat. I pray you will be found in Christ on that day.
Paul:
The only reason you have to say something is wrong is because God arbitrally said so, and this is problematic. But my view is that because humans say something is wrong, arbitrarally, then it is not problematic.
There is a big mistake here Paul. Humans do not "arbitrarily" say that something is wrong or right. The wrong and the right are based on objective reality.
In a Godless world it is wrong to kill a fellow man because of nothing more than the objective consequences of the action. Whether or not the person committing the action is aware of these objective realities is irrelevant. Conscious will (a factor necessary for "arbitrary" dictates) does not come into the equation in an objective reality of what is right and wrong. It is not based on the dictates of any conscious entity, but of the indesputable material results of the action.
But in a Godly world it is wrong NOT because of the objective consequences of anything, but because of the dictate of a God.
I cant tell if you are deliberately setting up a strawman or if you actually cannot conceive of a moral code that is not determined by a conscious will??
Paul, its a shame to see you go. My favorite people are the ones I disagree with the most.
Paul, I want you to keep in mind a few things while you continue your studies and work to earn your apologetics masters:
#1: The nonreligious population in America doubled in the last decade, making it the fastest growing worldview in America. At the same time, the crime in America drops and the quality of life improves.
#2: Europe, ranked as the best continent to live on (in terms of quality of life), is also the most Godless continent. They surpassed America a long time ago in every category aside from per-capita-income. And it continues to improve over there as the Godlessness increases.
#3: Churches across the developed world are shutting their doors, AND churches that still operate are facing preacher shortages as never before.
#4: Your battle for Christianity is becoming an ever-steeper uphill battle.
I think instead of disappearing, you should increase your presence and help do the lords work, especially at times like these :)
I must correct my esteemed colleague on one thing : the United States are inferior to Europe in most respects, because it is a Christian fundamentalist country. Canada is not similarly burdened.
Paul-
Zach, quit trying to build yourself up.
Paul, quit projecting your psychology on me. I'm not interested in "building myself up." I'm interested in the truth, that's all. Notoriety, especially outside of my career, is meaningless.
Anyway, to be honest, and I'm not trying to be mean, but I laugh at virtually everything you write.
As do I, which is why I'm lamenting your decision to close up shop.
I think your knowledge of philosophy and apologetics is terribly lacking.
I'd be the first to agree, but I can recognize bullshit when I see it, and that's virtually all you've offered me.
The professor of metaphysics at Notre dame called you and "ignorant redneck," when he saw your 'answers" to the problems of universals.
Who, Plantinga? Is he "the" professor of metaphysics at ND? Whoever it was, the label "ignorant" may be appropriate, but I'm very surprised that someone at a presigious university would venture to characterize someone they've never met nor interacted with using a perjorative term like "redneck." Of course, if it's someone who enjoys corresponding with you, such casual insults are probably not surprising.
The *only* thing you have going for you, is that you act like an ass and blow of arguments with statements like: Go read kant, you idiot."
Wow. You're still steamed about that, aren't you? I was laughing when I first posted that, and I'm laughing now. You're such an easy target.
This may make children think you know what you're talking about, but we both know that you do that just to hide, especially since you declined a debate with me on the subject.
Yeah, that was pretty funny that you challenged me to a debate on Gene's show on Kant just because your ego was bruised.
Take care Zach, eat drink and be merry, then stand before the judgement seat. I pray you will be found in Christ on that day.
Oh, please. You're looking forward to the idea of me being in Hell, and you know it. Nothing's worse than the false concern of a condescending Christian. When you snap out of your nightmare, give me a ring- I'll buy you a Boddington's.
Wow I go on vacation for only one week and this is the stupid stuff I come back to. Congratulations atheists for the misrepresentation.
it's kinda funny though. Paul Manata speaks and there's such a huge uproar on this site! Also makes you think huh. It's like every post is about Paul now. must have hit a nerve.
Anonymous-
it's kinda funny though. Paul Manata speaks and there's such a huge uproar on this site! Also makes you think huh. It's like every post is about Paul now. must have hit a nerve.
It couldn't have anything to do with Paul's blog being the inspiration for this one, now could it? Could it?
Aaron- statistics never lie and liars use statistics.
Zach- No, it wasn't Plantinga. It was a specialist in the filed on metaphysics and the problem of universals. You know, some who get paid a 5 figure salary to know what he's talking about. Anyway, he didn't need to meet you, your "answers" to the problems of universals, and my rebuttals, were enough.
Lastly, think what yoiu wish, but I have no desire to see you in hell but would love to spend eternity in heaven with you, serving the Father.
best,
Paul
above I meant 6 figure, not 5, obviously.
Paul-
No, it wasn't Plantinga. It was a specialist in the filed on metaphysics and the problem of universals. You know, some who get paid a 5 figure salary to know what he's talking about.
Oh, come on. Don't hold back on the name dropping just yet! I want to know who the guy is- maybe he can explain how the truth of one's arguments is directly proportional to the amount of money they make.
Lastly, think what yoiu wish, but I have no desire to see you in hell but would love to spend eternity in heaven with you, serving the Father.
Goodness gracious. Could it be that the awesome power of Christian love has permeated through the violence and hatred of your past and turned you into a loving, caring 'little Christ' overflowing with the bounteous joy of divine salvation? I can feel the Holy Spirit flowing through my keyboard as I write this- all praises be to God, I am converted again!!!...
...cut the crap. I gave up on living through superstitions a while ago, Paul, and my susceptibility to emotional appeals went along with them. But hey, if you want to salvage your performance with a sympathetic soliloquy before you exit stage left, I'm fine with it. But we've all seen the first two acts.
Hi Zach,
Actually, my argument didn't have anything to do with his salary. Actually, I didn't offer an argument. I just pointed out to you that the guy called you and "ignorant redneck," that's all. Take it or leave it. if you wish to think that you answerd my questions, and you appropriately replied, then that's what you'll have to live with. I'm totally fine with my performance.
Now, the second part of your post was, I'm afraid, off, again. You have a habit of changing subjects, a lot. You said that I want to see you in hell. I denied this. This is still true even though your arguments are moronic. Maybe you could show that thinking peoples arguments are dumb and stupid = wanting to see them in hell? Anyway, if you choose to continue to reason poorly, and illogically, that's something you'll have to live with. It certainly doesn't help having friends who are not critical of your aweful arguments, but just pat you on the back out of fear that they'll loose a member of their religion. Oh well, you can't win 'em all.
okay, I've said enough, take care Zach. Hope you enjoy texas. You should since you'll be around more rednecks =) (j/k).
Holy shit. An academic says that Objectivism is wrong ! Whoa ! Next you'll be telling me that Osama Bin Laden doesn't like Americans. Stop the revelations Paul, you're blowing our minds here !
"I feel myself being drawn away...."
Well, you're already "drawn" ! Drawing, get it ?
Hi Franc,
Unfortunately the "acemadician" was not referring to objectivism, at all. That had nothing to do with the topic. So, you should read before you post otherwise you get snickers from the audience. Also, Zach's pathetic attempt to handle the problem of universals was not Rand's argument- so I don't even know what you are getting at.
Hi Van Til's ghost,
1. They probably didn't. And?
2. Despite the fallacious poisoning of the well and emotional verbage, yes. Problem?
3. Don't know, but I'm commanded to be prepared to give an answer to any man as well as being commishioned to weild divine weapons which are for the casting down of stronholds and reasonings which seek to stand up against the mighty word of Jehovah.
Basically, you don;t need to bother posting since your argument presupposes that God's a big meany for placing people in a place where they will not hear of Christ. That is, you don't like God and Christianity so therefore it's false.
-Paul
Hi VT's ghost,
"Learn to see the value that all religions can bring, and you'll inch your way closer to the truth."
Sorry, in the rational world I'd be a fool to hold to contradictory positions, from contradictory premises one can prove anything by addition and a disjunctive syllogism:
1. Jesus is the only way to salvation.
2. Either Jesus is the only way to salvation or Van Til's Ghost wears womens underwear.
3. Jesus is not the only way to salvation (per any other religion).
4. Therefore Van Til's Ghost wears womens underwear.
;)
If you have a problem with any of the premises then check out what I did in a logic text. Also, this form:
A
A v B
~A
:.B
is valid.
best,
Paul
Hi VT's ghost,
So do you wear g-string or grandma panties?
best,
Paul
Well, it's been fun VT's ghost. Your admission that you are not wearing womens underwaer then refutes your claim that all religions can be held to and value gained from them. So, come back after you've learned to reason. Anyway, I was feeling generous and felt like giving another teenage atheist some for for the day. Hope you enjoyed it. bye now.
-Paul
Hi VT's ghost,
I'm glad I could help you learn. I do have a soft spot for the intellectually inept. Here's the problem(s):
1. You had the implicit contradiction with what you wrote. So, the argument is that if someone holds contradictory premises then one can prove anything. I do not hold those premises, therefore you're not attacking anything I've said.
2. Your counter was disanaloous, then. That is, you had to cheat to win.
3. Premise one and three of your argument trade on equivocation. That is, P1 is referring to Jesus' actual existence and P3 is referring to Jesus' existence as a concept or an idea.
Thus you can see that you not only failed to properly counter my argument that you were womens underwear, your argument was also fallacious. So, now I hope you can see the problem of how sin affects your mind. It was my pleasure helping you today, young padawan. Now, I'm sure it's past your bedtime so I leave you with this: This is what you get for playing with adults.
best,
Paul
p.s. if P3 isn't referring to a concept then you have a lot of explaining to do since then your argument has many unsupported premises. As it stands, if it's not referring to a concept it then the argument makes no sense.
Hi VT's Ghost,
Why don't you come back when you have an actual argument. Your silly games are getting old now. It's always funny how atheists show their faith every chance they get. Yake you, for instance. You've just been embarassed and shown to not even know what you're talking about, yet you still keep yapping. And, I'm glad you said Ghosts don't wear underwear, therefore you've proven you claim about multiply religions to be false. Stop refutting yourself, it's getting painful.
best wishes my friend,
Paul
Hi VT's Ghost,
you said you "KNOW" that Jehovah doesn't exist. So, get busy proving that claim.
Here are some quotes of yours:
"I DO know that your concept of God isn't correct"
"I KNOW Jehovah is not real."
Now, put up or shut up.
best,
Paul
Actually, my argument didn't have anything to do with his salary.
The why mention it, big guy?
Actually, I didn't offer an argument.
Again with the self-contradiction.
I just pointed out to you that the guy called you and "ignorant redneck," that's all. Take it or leave it.
And this guy is supposed to be a world class matephysical philosopher from Notre Dame? No wonder why you're so reluctant to drop his name- if his arguments are as limp as his insults, he probably doesn't have much to offer either.
if you wish to think that you answerd my questions, and you appropriately replied, then that's what you'll have to live with. I'm totally fine with my performance.
So are we, Paul. So are we.
You said that I want to see you in hell. I denied this. This is still true even though your arguments are moronic.
What argument? It's a personality call.
okay, I've said enough, take care Zach.
Hmmm. Always with the long goodbyes. You said enough half a dozen posts ago, but you've never been known for your restraint. You're a classic, Paul. Don't ever change. :)
Hi VT's Ghost,
I know he exists because of my special revelation.
best,
Paul
p.s. How bout 'dem apples? Waht's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Now, beddy time for you little guy.
Hi Vt's Ghost,
Your child molesting anti-god concept is unprovable, as you know. No amount of classes or school will improve this for you. One day you'll see.
On another note, thanks for reading my blog. I hope you enjoy it.
Zachary, I just wrote a refutation of this post of yours: http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/05/moore-of-same.html
best,
Paul
Hi VT's ghost,
If your argument proved your claim then so did mine. If you're now admitting that mine didn't do it, then you're a hypocrite. So, either admit that I've proven my God concept, or get back to backing up your claim.
best,
Paul
p.s. I know I know, you're only doing what you've been taught by your atheist leaders: assert, name call, run away. You see, though, I can play that game better than you guys (excpet the run away part). So, if you're done playing around let me know, otherwise I'll continue to thump you in your chosen venue.
Zach...
I'm not sure what Paul's fasination is with you, but it is funny to see somebody that wants to be seen as a mature, serious thinker mention that a person with a six figure salary doesn't like something you said.
Big whoop...and I seriously doubt Paul anyway.
I'm much more impressed with somebody that is training to do something to help humanity, like yourself, than somebody who is going to school so he can argue with people, and who thinks what a person earns has any relevance to what they say.
moron...
And paul, seriously, a lightsaber coming out of Jesus' mouth? yikes...
Ooooo, Zach, I love you and Dawson, let my shove my nose up your rectum further so that my atheist but buddies will like me.
ooooo...I like rectums and 'but buddies.'
Paul Manata -
I can't do it any longer...I admit...I don't *know* that Jehovah is real. I just really really hope He is, otherwise I'm wasting my time, money, and life.
And, I'm an ass-clown.
Oh yes, vessels of wrath, I AM real...not only that,
I AM.
Listen to anonym, I mean Paul, and heed his words. If I feel like it, I may choose to mark you for salvatation, otherwise, you will BURN forever. Because that's perfect justice, and love, and well, its hard for you mortals to understand.
BELIEVE!
Looky how upset all the atheists got because I gave their friend a little spanking. They even have to post under my name as well, I think there may be a law against that, I'll have to check it out with blogspot. Maybe you guys caused the fall of "goostheantithesis" just because you wanted to act like an idiot. I am so honored that I bother you guys so much. Imitation is the highest form of flatery!
Paul:
"Aaron- statistics never lie and liars use statistics."
So are you going to address my "statistics" directly or just sit there calling me a liar?
Paul:
1. Jesus is the only way to salvation.
See, you presuppose that humans even need salvation. Yours is a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality. There isnt even an afterlife to worry about, and your Christian afterlife has fucked up criteria for entry anyway.
Paul:
"You see, though, I can play that game better than you guys "
Wait a sec Paul. We argue for a universe where reality has primacy over consciousness. You have merely thrown criticisms at this worldview.
In all the comments sections at "goose", I havent seen you explicity state your argument for why Christianity is the true worldview.
And over at "press" your best pro-Christian argument is an ad hominem attack! (Romans 1)
What argument do you have for your Christianity that DOESNT rely on ad hominem or circular logic or a Van Til quote that defines "faith" so poorly?
For an apologetic, you sure dont do much apologizing. Nor do you give your atheist opponents many "Christianity is true because..." arguments. Most of the time youre just spitting out "you are a moron because..." criticisms.
I doubt your even interested in saving souls. Your behavior indicates that youre more interested in puffing up your ego by criticizing atheistic arguments. You get pleasure out of negativity, not positivity.
Paul-
Zachary, I just wrote a refutation of this post of yours:
Beautiful. You really know how to make my day. As they say, the lady doth protest too much.
They even have to post under my name as well, I think there may be a law against that, I'll have to check it out with blogspot.
Yes, there is a law. Contact your local director of Internet Impersonations Control. Or, if the hoaxer lives in a different state, it may even be a federal matter. Grow up, man.
This piece will be my final interaction with Moore
Oh please, really? You've washed your hands of me several times now, but you just keep coming back for more. I've got my money on you being a closet atheist who can't get enough of our sweet, sweet reason.
<< Home