“I Want What Saul Got”

Derek asked me to post a message on this blog for him, so... here it is.

***

“I Want What Saul Got”
by. Derek Sansone

Seeing is knowing....Not accepting or believing...

So "Saul" never needed faith. Just faith that Jesus’ propositions were true...But he indeed had an encounter with "a" Jesus. So, Saul had to rely on an empirical encounter....Worldly wisdom! His innate reasoning machine deliberating with his own historical accumulation of experiences….

Then he goes after those who have not had the same empirical encounter as he did....

A little special pleading here, don't ya think...Saul, according to Acts, persecuted the early church....He wasn’t a believer until after he saw and heard the floating/glowing Jesus...But also has a God believing preposition that helped him…But so what, he didn’t really need that since he saw Jesus….I’d be pretty damn convinced after that, how bout you??? But the appearance of Jesus is neither true or false….It simply "is"….

He see "a" Jesus, that particular floating/glowing Jesus blinds him….Any propositional inference from that Jesus would be hard to contest after he just blinds your ass….Maybe there are other Gods and Jesus' up there floating around, but at least in Sauls case, at that moment, he did has a first hand cognition of that particular Jesus…he is justified, and it is not a true belief. It's a knowledge from a first hand experience gained. NOT a gained experience of someone "telling" him about a floating/glowing Jesus....

Justified true beliefs = knowledge are mistaken. Epistemologically speaking.. A justified true belief or acceptance is no better than a simple supposed conclusion from personal calculation and scrutiny….But this is in the realm of propositional inference. Not "object" cognition….If you see an object and you name it "shoe"…then the next day you see another object that resembles the characteristics that you have classified as "shoe", then you are in a state of re- cognition, or re-discovery…But these labels can be yours to differentiate objects for easier communication with your community. Heck, you may even create a new language…

But the "shoe" is neither true or false…If you are being deceived than you don’t know it, you are justifiably ignorant….and are still in a position of cognition…Not having to believe or accept as true…
Saul had a first hand cognition of the floating /glowing Jesus on the road to Damascus, we did not…Big difference…and because of this we are justified in rejecting his propositions regarding Jesus….

But what do we get? Do we get the same deal or even remotely a similar deal?
Nope. We have to take his words for it....We have to rely on hear say and other testimony....We have to rely on blind faith....

Mr. Manata wants to use the empirical worldview to arrive at the bible, then he wants to ridicule those who come to contrary conclusions about it's content...

His bible has to stand on the shoulders of the irreducible axiom of human existence. This is the precondition for logical inference, morality (behavior) and scientific discovery...We are the necessary condition to arrive anywhere...Not "god"....If "God" is the precondition, Paul and the rest of "Six Flags Over Jesus", should show us why, and not just assert this. At best they could say that God is the creator of "us" in our axiomatic state, but this is a design argument, not anything more...

But, I can prove that we are the precondition...Independent of any divine guidance from an invisible sky daddy...Stay tuned for my Matt Slick debate ion August 13th....(Hellboundalleee)
Christians learn who and what God is after they presuppose our material foundations...

Saul, Peter and the rest of the gang, according to scripture, did not have any room for faith....They saw....
1st John 1, says, "these are things that we have seen and heard"
So now do you "see"....They had no need for faith....They are just telling us about their encounters, which aside is another debate on authenticity....But not now....

Saul never needed to believe or have a supposition regarding his experience....

I remember back when I debated Gene Cook, and Paul asked me if I knew there was a fan in front of me…..Well, I learned a lot since then….and the answer is yes, I knew that there was a fan in front of me….

I just didn’t understand his little game he was playing….He was good, and Paul is a crafty individual, I will give him that much…..But, as data comes in and the advancements in knowledge proceed, I have a new perceptive on Epistemology…I have been knee deep in it these last few months….

So, where is this all going? Why is this important in defending our rejections of the Christian worldview?

Well, you see, Paul Manata makes reference to himself giving proofs for the validity of his worldview…But he follows that claim with, ”proof is not persuasion”…

But as we have seen. Paul tried desperately to persuade his fellow Jews…. So here are some verses that I would like Paul to explain if persuasion is not expected to be proof, and how do you know you have proven a proposition? If you have a factual experience with some event, and now poses a first hand cognition/discovery, how can you expect to convey the same experience to someone if they have not the same sensory stimulus that you had? As Paul had his vision, others did not.....

Lets look at some bible verses, shall we?

Peter proclaimed, Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him [Jesus] both Lord and Messiah (Acts 2:36).

How would they know for certain? From Peters proclamation ??? Peters words persuading them??? This is insufficient…

Saul increased the more in strength and confounded the Jews that dwelt at Damascus, proving that Jesus is the Messiah (Acts 9:22).

So Saul again, just blabbed about his own experience, and that is supposed to be proof? That doesn’t prove anything even if it was a fact of reality to Saul……

As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures (Acts 17:2).

Reasoned huh? So he again spoke about his experience and tried to get them to accept his propositions???? Just by words???

So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as[4] in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there, [including] certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (Acts 17:17).

Again, speaking about this and that, expecting them to appeal and trust him??? To accept his words as the truth? Paul was seriously a very confused man…..Did he not remember that his own acceptance came from a vision, an empirical observation! Why would he not understand the rejection he received from the Greeks? And those who did accept, just had the sufficient preposition…

Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks (Acts 18:4).

Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God... [and later] reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:8-9).

Argued persuasively huh???? You mean he had to rely on his own testimonial words? But his experience had nothing to do with words. He saw something....They did not....

So, if I walked into the seminaries and churches and argued, reasoned persuasively, that God came down in the form of a floating ghost, and told me that there was no Jesus, and that the whole movement was fictitiously created from personal disputes over the reform of Jewish orthodoxy…That all churches were erred.......

Does that mean it’s true? How would I prove it to someone? Proof doesn’t mean persuasions??? So the acceptance of any given proposition is going to be a personal issue, because when one reasons through the incoming data that is presented within the proposition, he deliberates according to his own historic relevance and relative association with the terms ….Also, if they don’t trust Paul, or give merit to him, that moves into a matter of devaluation. Paul should have realized that…… so should have an Omnipotent Omniscient God, and his avatar Jesus….Judgement from such a alleged being is absurd and foolish….Why? We have not the same chances as Paul and the rest of the disciples….They saw. We get to read about what they saw….BIG DIFFERENCE!!! We have darn good reasons to reject those propositions….

So Mr. Manata, can you show us how you can prove without persuasion? Your beloved brothers persuaded and reasoned......Does that mean they are automatically deemed right? And those who don't buy their testimony are wrong?


Christians are like tourists in a boat ride that accidentally discover an island paradise, but won't tell you how they discovered it....

Why?

Because they would give away the process, and by doing so, they'd be appealing to Empiricism......which is the real precondition for there new worldview.... (Along with the irreducible axiomatic nature of our individual existence….)

They use Empiricism as a tour guide, then shoot a hole in its boat to sink it, so it can never tell anyone how they actually got there....

They raise their kids on this island and eventually it's a whole new culture...

Here’s the deal. The biblical content in READ or HEARD, via sensory input….. This is a blatant Stolen Concept Fallacy, and I have yet to hear Paul Manata justify his worldview without presupposing and affirming the accuracy of sensory stimulus. Without sensory organs, there would be no convection of his worldview…And as I said in our debate, his worldview presupposes mine…

Now, once a person READS or HEARS the biblical content, he then is capable of deriving multiple conceptions regarding ‘God”….

So, let’s walk through this again….

Step 1 - Reactively Acquire Bible Content

Step 2 - Abstract meanings from the written document pertaining to the concept of God….

Step 3 - Attack and ridicule the very mechanism in which this data had arrived….by appealing to the bible content without giving props to the real necessary preconditions….

Thank you,

Derek Sansone