Google
 
Internet Goosing the Antithesis

Friday, August 05, 2005

“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

Post a Comment


21 Comments:

At 8/05/2005 11:16 PM, Blogger CADman904 declaimed...

Excellent Derek - really. I am sorry I did not call you at work - I myself was at work. I think that having a philosophical discussion over the phone would have turned some heads. I read that first part over and over from the email. Now I will have to do the same with the second part.

Well done!

 
At 8/05/2005 11:51 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

Mucho gratze`

 
At 8/06/2005 12:11 AM, Blogger rightsvault declaimed...

And Now A Word From the Astronomers...
Carl Zimmer is the author of several popular science books and writes frequently for the New York Times, as well as for magazines including The New York Times Magazine, National Geographic, Science, Newsweek, ...
Do You Like Software?... You're Going To LOVE This Site. Visit My Free Downloads Site!

 
At 8/08/2005 8:35 AM, Blogger CADman904 declaimed...

....I hear crickets....

 
At 8/08/2005 1:08 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

I have spoken....And all Manata can do is insult me.

I even emailed him this:

“Paul. Which professor of metaphysics at Notre dame called Zach a redneck???

I dare you do give me his name, I will condition him too....

See you back the blog....”

What does Paul come back with? What great introspection does he dazzle me with?

Keep reading....watch.

Paul responds with:

“you're both a bunch of "Moore-ons." Anyway, I spanked Zach's little but in that debate over universals, tell him to e-mail me again if he's done studying up on his nominalism”

Wow! What depth, what wisdom....What typical red herrings??? I am almost speechless here but I have a little more fight, so I respond with:

“Nice dodge! Just had it over....I would like to contact him...I already went to The ND site...But there were several Professors....

So, you think I am a "Moore-on"? Go read my "I Want What Saul Got" article from the goose blog.....Then you can start insulting me....as usual.

Read that, then I will condition you on your confusion over "knowledge"... And the Stolen Concept Fallacy of your worldview.....You can't hide behind your "presuppositions" forever Paul....They change when challenge with solid meritous data.

Ever told your son, "I am going to teach you a lesson".....Why is that Paul? Simple, because he is justifiably ignorant to your value assignments....But you want him to be cognitive of them....Without cognition of them, he is unable to recognize them.....So there has to be a introduction first, then he can abstract the meaning of the encounter, use it in future deliberation, and over time, through interaction, he can develop his own value assignments...

Don't worry, I know this may be hard to grasp, but I can teach you....You shall be illuminated by my wisdom....I can teach you how to simply refute the TAG...

Outside of all of these fun and games, I hope you son is well.”


He comes back with yet another example of Christian insight....

"don't be a sore looser. You lost our debate, everyone knows it, now leave me alone. how many times do I have to tell you? Btw, go read my "thanks buddy" over at my blog. :-)"

I finalize with:

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That's what I thought...No proof...no evidence....just empty assertions as usual.

You are a scared little boy...."

Paul Manata has nothing other than to cry and moan like a dying giraffe being devoured by a hungry lion....Gasping for little one liners....

You know, it's rather amusing to see this from him… he keeps asserting over and over that he won our debate. And I ask him over and over how he comes to that conclusion...He never responds. He never gets into any specifics. He can only launch insults and naked inference out of his own wishful thinking...

Sad.

 
At 8/08/2005 1:34 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

You guys have to see this....

http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/07/thanks-buddy.html

Paul has presented yet again, another example of pointless assertions leading to his own precommitment to delude any progress in clarifying his apologetic motives. If I have helped "Team Christian", show me....Or is this his way of convincing his groupies and himself?

See him scatter and dodge....Notice how he can't back anything up? This takes me back to a day when Chris Smith once said to him, "Hey blark, take your meds..."

Ciao!

 
At 8/08/2005 2:17 PM, Blogger groundfighter76 declaimed...

Well, derek, you really are a psycho-stalker. Now go take your meds.

 
At 8/08/2005 2:44 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

boo-hoo Derek.

hey, in case you need more assertions for your files, here's another one:

"you are gay."

 
At 8/08/2005 3:57 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

My point is proven!

Paul makes it too easy....

The Christian simply cannot deal with my latest little objection...

When one runs out of ammo, the insults start....Sheer sign of ineptful failure....

 
At 8/08/2005 6:36 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

Watch this guys, ready to have some fun....

Hey Paul...

What is "gay"?

Is it "bad"?

 
At 8/08/2005 7:00 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Hey Paul...

What is "gay"?


"You"

 
At 8/08/2005 7:05 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

My point is proven!

deductively?

Paul makes it too easy....

No, really Derek, it's not me, anyone can make you look stupid, even my kid ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. .. .. .. . .. ...... .... .... .. ... . .. .... .. ... .. . . .. ..

The Christian simply cannot deal with my latest little objection...

Hidden premise here is that: "if someone doesn't answer. then they cannot deal with an objection." Obviously a false premise. So, Derek, you were wrong. it is YOU who makes it so easy. Now, stop it, go to your room, and rid a bit.

When one runs out of ammo, the insults start....Sheer sign of ineptful failure....

So, since I "ran out" then that must mean that I had ammo at one time. But, I always insulted you, Derek, it was so easy to do so. So, I guess this premiss is false and, guess what? you're still gay.

 
At 8/08/2005 7:15 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

So, Derek = "Gay"

Is "Derek" "bad"?

I am sure Bahnsen and Van Till would be proud of such a profound representation of Presuppositional apologetics...

Also kudos to your apologetics professor....

Get a lawyer Paul and sue him....You learned nothing....

 
At 8/08/2005 7:47 PM, Blogger Riz declaimed...

IBM Courts Investors with Podcasts
Only a few months after launching a corporate blogging policy, IBM has shown interest in another new medium: podcasting.
Great blog site!! Bookmarked it.

I have a Installing A Ceiling Light fan site/blog. It pretty much covers Installing A Ceiling Light fan related stuff.

Come see mine if you get time.

 
At 8/08/2005 8:09 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

"Hidden premise here is that: "if someone doesn't answer. then they cannot deal with an objection." Obviously a false premise. So, Derek, you were wrong. it is YOU who makes it so easy. Now, stop it, go to your room, and rid a bit."

You have the balls to needle me down here? This is no more than your standard special pleading run around by attempting to put me under your microscope, but when I put you under mine, you whimper away….

"So, since I "ran out" then that must mean that I had ammo at one time."

I’ll grant you that….Although I’d be granting democratically….

"But, I always insulted you, Derek, it was so easy to do so."

Irrelevant.

"So, I guess this premiss is false and, guess what? you're still gay."

You wish….The premise that you insulted me is true. And?

You are not making a distinction between having ammo and insulting me, and not having any more ammo and insulting me….Having ammo is not a prerequisite for making an insult. And making an insult is not a prerequisite for having ammo…Einstein. Not all ammo is the same….Some of your ammo can handle pretty lame stuff. But when really pressed, you hide….

This, to me, sends a pretty big message. It speaks in volumes….

Right off the bat you have a terrific habit of running your mouth off about me…But then when probed, you just squeal like a little baby pig….

Give my worldview credit where credit is due….

 
At 8/08/2005 9:12 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

Hey Paul you like these? I figured you would, old buddy....

"If the Christian God wants me, he'll know where to find me"~ ME

"I don't want to believe, I want the same deal Peter & Paul got"~ ME

"Initiation is the by-product of a lifetime of preceding reactivity:~ ME

But this is another new baby of mine....You will love it, are you ready?

1 Cor 4:77 For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it? NASU

So, Paul of Tarsus was a determinist after all? Oh my...

I always said that I followed the doctrine of Predestination right out of the faith....

Have a nice day.

 
At 8/08/2005 9:49 PM, Blogger Paul Manata declaimed...

Derek, why don;t you tell everyone here that after you came to San Diego the first time you got all embarrassed because I saw you, through the window, at that gay bar. You came running out and pleaded with me not to tell anyone. I know I promised, but you make it so easy. Now, everyone can see how offended you;re getting. Hey, don't be mad, I told you the laws of physics must have made you that way. You were so happy I got scarred because you lent in and tried to kiss me. I said, remember, "Hey, I'm straight, you're the gay one." I thank you for apologizing. Now, leave me alone Sansone. I'm done with you. I said that if and only if, you can defeat 100 people of your claiber (that is, 100 Christian youth group kids) in a debate, I *might* think about debating you again. Until you can defeat them, don't come back to me.

 
At 8/08/2005 10:55 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

too bad, we'd make a great couple...

Your'e a hoot!

 
At 8/09/2005 12:44 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Paul said Derek is gay.

But statistically speaking, extremely devout theists, such as preachers and apologists, are more likely to be homosexual or have mental disorders than a secular human or not-very-devout theist.

Lawyers representing underage-boy-molesting priests have estimating a 3-5% abuse ratio in the profession. That figure is from the defense lawyers!

Im going to assume that the majority of gay sex that occurs within preacher circles invovles two adults, not an adult and an underage boy. So we can imagine that the homosexual-consentual-adult ratio is much higher than the 3-5% homosexual-abuse-pedophilic ratio cited by defense attorneys. If we assume that for every boy-molestation there is 5 gay encounters between adult clergymen, then we are looking at a 15-25% homosexual ratio within the profession of preaching!

We are talking about a very large amount of homosexuality within a group of people who are, ironically, leading the charge in gay discrimination and dehumanization. No wonder researchers are looking at god-belief as a mental disorder!

Now that we got some estimates for clergy, the question that must be asked is: "What ratio of homosexuality is within Christian apologetic circles?"

Any idea Manata?

 
At 8/09/2005 12:49 PM, Blogger Aaron Kinney declaimed...

Hey Paul,

In all seriousness though, do you plan on listening in to the debate between Derek and Matt Slick coming up soon?

 
At 8/09/2005 1:04 PM, Blogger DerekSansone declaimed...

You know....I am thinking about Pauls little dream of his....

If he is able to lie about me so easily, fictitiously create a "story"....

I wonder how much of his history is not fictitious. He gives off the testimony, explaining that he beat up little retard kids, scared little girls, had a thing with broom handles....and so on...

Had a nice “trip" in Mexico...

I seem to see a pattern forming with him now....

He also lied about what I said in my post debate interview with Franc and Allison. He said that a Notre Dame philosophy professor called Zachary Moore a "redneck", but when asked to back the claim up , he just tells us how much the person makes....I email him about who it was, and he comes back with his ever-so-popular red herring buck shots.....

Manata should be in Hollywood writing screenplay....Not spreading lies about people.

I guess "sin" will do that to a man....

So, Paul, go take your meds, you are having visions again....

Bahnsen would be proud....

 

Trackbacks:

Create a Link

<< Home