Atheism-o-Phobia Part 3

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
861

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
There are things in the bible that only make sense if, and ONLY if, you start out believing the bible to be true.

Christians know this and see nothing wrong with it.

I’d like to get each one of them on trial for a murder they didn’t commit, and have the prosecutor start with “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the testimony you’re about to hear may SEEM impossible to believe at first, and this evidence may seem shaky, BUT, if you start out believing that this (man/woman) is guilty, you will see that it all points to their guilt!”

I think most of them would suddenly start screaming that you should look at evidence and draw conclusions from it rather than start out believing something and forcing the “evidence” to support what you believe.[/quote]You started out pretty strong and then lapsed back into your total lack of understanding. It is only because of my utterly foundational presupposition of the God of the bible, yes, assuming Him first, that anything like the requirement for criminal evidence has any validity whatsoever. You can go on borrowing it from me though. Keep it until the end of time if you like.

862

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
There are things in the bible that only make sense if, and ONLY if, you start out believing the bible to be true.

Christians know this and see nothing wrong with it.

I’d like to get each one of them on trial for a murder they didn’t commit, and have the prosecutor start with “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the testimony you’re about to hear may SEEM impossible to believe at first, and this evidence may seem shaky, BUT, if you start out believing that this (man/woman) is guilty, you will see that it all points to their guilt!”

I think most of them would suddenly start screaming that you should look at evidence and draw conclusions from it rather than start out believing something and forcing the “evidence” to support what you believe.[/quote]You started out pretty strong and then lapsed back into your total lack of understanding. It is only because of my utterly foundational presupposition of the God of the bible, yes, assuming Him first, that anything like the requirement for criminal evidence has any validity whatsoever. You can go on borrowing it from me though. Keep it until the end of time if you like.
[/quote]

Wait. you’re saying I’m borrowing the requirement for criminal evidence from you? Really, Tirib?

863

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
There are things in the bible that only make sense if, and ONLY if, you start out believing the bible to be true.

Christians know this and see nothing wrong with it.

I’d like to get each one of them on trial for a murder they didn’t commit, and have the prosecutor start with “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the testimony you’re about to hear may SEEM impossible to believe at first, and this evidence may seem shaky, BUT, if you start out believing that this (man/woman) is guilty, you will see that it all points to their guilt!”

I think most of them would suddenly start screaming that you should look at evidence and draw conclusions from it rather than start out believing something and forcing the “evidence” to support what you believe.[/quote]You started out pretty strong and then lapsed back into your total lack of understanding. It is only because of my utterly foundational presupposition of the God of the bible, yes, assuming Him first, that anything like the requirement for criminal evidence has any validity whatsoever. You can go on borrowing it from me though. Keep it until the end of time if you like.
[/quote]

Wait. you’re saying I’m borrowing the requirement for criminal evidence from you? Really, Tirib?[/quote]You’re financing your entire campaign of unbelief including every single fact there is along with their very fact-ness itself, with capital stolen from my bank. God IS the arsenal you use to attack His existence. Everybody does.

864

800×600 71 KB

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
There are things in the bible that only make sense if, and ONLY if, you start out believing the bible to be true.

Christians know this and see nothing wrong with it.

I’d like to get each one of them on trial for a murder they didn’t commit, and have the prosecutor start with “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the testimony you’re about to hear may SEEM impossible to believe at first, and this evidence may seem shaky, BUT, if you start out believing that this (man/woman) is guilty, you will see that it all points to their guilt!”

I think most of them would suddenly start screaming that you should look at evidence and draw conclusions from it rather than start out believing something and forcing the “evidence” to support what you believe.[/quote]You started out pretty strong and then lapsed back into your total lack of understanding. It is only because of my utterly foundational presupposition of the God of the bible, yes, assuming Him first, that anything like the requirement for criminal evidence has any validity whatsoever. You can go on borrowing it from me though. Keep it until the end of time if you like.
[/quote]

Wait. you’re saying I’m borrowing the requirement for criminal evidence from you? Really, Tirib?[/quote]You’re financing your entire campaign of unbelief including every single fact there is along with their very fact-ness itself, with capital stolen from my bank. God IS the arsenal you use to attack His existence. Everybody does.
[/quote]

865

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Wait. you’re saying I’m borrowing the requirement for criminal evidence from you? Really, Tirib?[/quote]You’re financing your entire campaign of unbelief including every single fact there is along with their very fact-ness itself, with capital stolen from my bank. God IS the arsenal you use to attack His existence. Everybody does.
[/quote]

How exactly did you draw this conclusion?

866

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Wait. you’re saying I’m borrowing the requirement for criminal evidence from you? Really, Tirib?[/quote]You’re financing your entire campaign of unbelief including every single fact there is along with their very fact-ness itself, with capital stolen from my bank. God IS the arsenal you use to attack His existence. Everybody does.

How exactly did you draw this conclusion?[/quote]

By starting out from that conclusion.

867

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
There are things in the bible that only make sense if, and ONLY if, you start out believing the bible to be true.

Christians know this and see nothing wrong with it.

I’d like to get each one of them on trial for a murder they didn’t commit, and have the prosecutor start with “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the testimony you’re about to hear may SEEM impossible to believe at first, and this evidence may seem shaky, BUT, if you start out believing that this (man/woman) is guilty, you will see that it all points to their guilt!”

I think most of them would suddenly start screaming that you should look at evidence and draw conclusions from it rather than start out believing something and forcing the “evidence” to support what you believe.[/quote]You started out pretty strong and then lapsed back into your total lack of understanding. It is only because of my utterly foundational presupposition of the God of the bible, yes, assuming Him first, that anything like the requirement for criminal evidence has any validity whatsoever. You can go on borrowing it from me though. Keep it until the end of time if you like.
[/quote]

Wait. you’re saying I’m borrowing the requirement for criminal evidence from you? Really, Tirib?[/quote]You’re financing your entire campaign of unbelief including every single fact there is along with their very fact-ness itself, with capital stolen from my bank. God IS the arsenal you use to attack His existence. Everybody does.
[/quote]

When you say “god”, what exactly do you mean? Big white guy with a beard sittingon a throne? Morgan Freeman? Alanis Morissette?

868

600×507 45.6 KB

Sorry I’m late to the party, guys. Let me read this thing to get up to speed and IF I have anything to contribute I’ll chime in. I’ll just leave you with this little gem that I found.

I gotta swing by PWI more often - I can’t believe I missed this thread.

869

Tiribulus, you’re still not addressing my point.

I’m glad you acknowledge that you don’t have actual evidence for your beliefs. That is a step in the right direction.

However, you still haven’t shown why YOUR faith is any more valid than the faith of Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

You’re taking the position that your is faith is correct, because god has spiritually saved you, because your faith is correct.

Do you see the quandary here?

Catholics, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses use the identical logic to support their own faith. You’re not differentiating your standard for knowing the truth from their standard for knowing the truth. They have the same faith you do, yet they reach different conclusions.

They have prayed, they believe that god has spoken the truth to their hearts, they have accepted Jesus as their Savior, and they are 100% convinced that they have the truth. Just like you.

So who is right?

What standard can you offer for knowing the truth that separates you from them? They believe god has chosen them and saved them, too.

870

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You’re financing your entire campaign of unbelief including every single fact there is along with their very fact-ness itself, with capital stolen from my bank. God IS the arsenal you use to attack His existence. Everybody does.
[/quote]

Are you a presuppositionalist?

Would you say that we cannot reason autonomously?

871

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You started out pretty strong and then lapsed back into your total lack of understanding. It is only because of my utterly foundational presupposition of the God of the bible, yes, assuming Him first, that anything like the requirement for criminal evidence has any validity whatsoever. You can go on borrowing it from me though. Keep it until the end of time if you like.
[/quote]

You are a presuppositionalist.

So you must presuppose that we cannot reason autonomously. I think this actually defeats your worldview - from an internal standpoint.

Here’s why:

You need to be able to reason autonomously PRIOR to accepting a gospel as the word of God. How do you determine which texts are from God? You can’t rationally know which ‘revelations’ are genuine without first assuming that we can reason autonomously.

Ultimately you have to borrow from my worldview in order to presuppose yours.

Do you believe the TAG is an effective argument?

872

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
<<< Do you believe the TAG is an effective argument?[/quote]I don’t believe there is any such thing as an “effective argument” for (or against) anything whatsoever of ultimate import to or from a person dead in sin. The TAG (rather impressive BTW) is misnamed in my opinion. It is not an argument so much as a simple affirmation of the divine truths of actual death in Adam and actual resurrection in Christ. Truth cannot be known truly in this fallen universe by fallen creatures until He who IS truth itself makes it known by bringing them from death to life in His risen Son. Arguing the self defeating nature of trinitarian epistemological presuppositionalism (I prefer TEP =] ) as is every other possible attack, is by definition an evidence of it’s truth to the man who holds it having been supernaturally resurrected in the mind of Christ.

Yep, from your standpoint that is the grand poobah of all utterly circular, a-priori (it certainly is that) internally tautological copouts. I understand, I really do. I was prepared to leave this thread alone awhile as it was going nowhere, but now you have to show up and correctly identify a fairly unknown school of Calvinistic philosophical and in my view exceedingly biblical thought. Relatively unknown even among true believers. Cornelius Van Til was indeed used mightily of God to transform my every thought about EVERYTHING lo those couple decades ago. “The defense of the Faith” forever graduated me from Thomistic/Aristotelian evidentialism, which IS genuinely self defeating autonomy in the name of Jesus which while not fatal is certainly wrong and remarkably ineffective. These forums have been a most monumental confirmation of the grace of almighty God in so educating me though you will surely see this as anything but education.

Trust me friend, you will not surprise with a new and innovative “argument” against what I believe with every particle of my being which lives and moves in Him. (acts 17:28). Oh there’s a good one that appears at first glance to be a scriptural refutation of everything I just said, but is in fact one of it’s greatest proofs and another statement of the deceptive non existence of atheism.

873

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I don’t believe there is any such thing as an “effective argument” for (or against) anything whatsoever of ultimate import to or from a person dead in sin. The TAG (rather impressive BTW) is misnamed in my opinion. It is not an argument so much as a simple affirmation of the divine truths of actual death in Adam and actual resurrection in Christ. Truth cannot be known truly in this fallen universe by fallen creatures until He who IS truth itself makes it known by bringing them from death to life in His risen Son. Arguing the self defeating nature of trinitarian epistemological presuppositionalism (I prefer TEP =] ) as is every other possible attack, is by definition an evidence of it’s truth to the man who holds it having been supernaturally resurrected in the mind of Christ.
[/quote]

I think the TAG is a rather poor abductive argument that pretends to be deductive.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yep, from your standpoint that is the grand poobah of all utterly circular, a-priori (it certainly is that) internally tautological copouts. I understand, I really do. I was prepared to leave this thread alone awhile as it was going nowhere, but now you have to show up and correctly identify a fairly unknown school of Calvinistic philosophical and in my view exceedingly biblical thought. Relatively unknown even among true believers. Cornelius Van Til was indeed used mightily of God to transform my every thought about EVERYTHING lo those couple decades ago. “The defense of the Faith” forever graduated me from Thomistic/Aristotelian evidentialism, which IS genuinely self defeating autonomy in the name of Jesus which while not fatal is certainly wrong and remarkably ineffective. These forums have been a most monumental confirmation of the grace of almighty God in so educating me though you will surely see this as anything but education.
[/quote]

It’s not that it’s circular, it’s that it’s not consistent. You state that the view is ‘exceedingly biblical’, but you can’t actually know that. If you admit that your worldview is self defeating, which you seem to, then how are you not reduced to epistemological skepticism?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Trust me friend, you will not surprise with a new and innovative “argument” against what I believe with every particle of my being which lives and moves in Him. (acts 17:28). Oh there’s a good one that appears at first glance to be a scriptural refutation of everything I just said, but is in fact one of it’s greatest proofs and another statement of the deceptive non existence of atheism.
[/quote]

I have no doubt that I won’t surprise you.

As to the ‘good one’, are you referring to the ‘fristianity’ objection?

How can you speak of ‘proofs’, btw? That seems like a contradictory position to take, as does trying to assert that atheists don’t exist - in fact, there is scriptual support for their existence - ‘The fool has said in his heart, there is no God’.

Seems like, even within your worldview, you have to accept the existence of atheists…And I suppose you also have to accept their non existence (via Paul)…Interesting…

874

Have you read Witmer’s paper? If so, what did you think?

875

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
<<< How can you speak of ‘proofs’, btw? >>>[/quote]Find me just one post of my going on 10,000 where I did and I’ll answer. (no sarcasm here)

I just got done with back, bi’s and abs and have to get my eyeballs back in their sockets so lemme restate this again.
I said on 7_3_10:

[quote]There are 2 species of man in the world since the fulfillment of the law in Christ. Those who by free grace(this cannot be emphasized enough) have been born again into the life and mind of the resurrected Son of God and those who have not and remain for the moment dead in trespasses and sins.

To the former every single last speck of data possible from the movement of sub atomic particles to the majesty of the intelligent moral agency of the image of God in man having been created male and female. Everything, Screams the plainly self evident truth that He is and we are His children having been redeemed from death to life.

To the latter every single last speck of data screams one of a thousand derivative versions of anything but that. It is their nature inherited from the first Adam. A nature it must never be forgotten we still share in our old self. [/quote]

876

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Find me just one post of my going on 10,000 where I did and I’ll answer. (no sarcasm here) [/quote]

Okay, you wrote: “Oh there’s a good one that appears at first glance to be a scriptural refutation of everything I just said, but is in fact one of it’s greatest proofs”

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I just got done with back, bi’s and abs and have to get my eyeballs back in their sockets so lemme restate this again.
I said on 7_3_10: [/quote]

okay.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There are 2 species of man in the world since the fulfillment of the law in Christ. Those who by free grace(this cannot be emphasized enough) have been born again into the life and mind of the resurrected Son of God and those who have not and remain for the moment dead in trespasses and sins.

To the former every single last speck of data possible from the movement of sub atomic particles to the majesty of the intelligent moral agency of the image of God in man having been created male and female. Everything, Screams the plainly self evident truth that He is and we are His children having been redeemed from death to life.

To the latter every single last speck of data screams one of a thousand derivative versions of anything but that. It is their nature inherited from the first Adam. A nature it must never be forgotten we still share in our old self. [/quote]

I’m not sure about the relevance - this is standard presuppositionalist stuff. Rejection of autonomous reason. Which you cannot rationally hold to if you also want to say that you can receive truth from revelation, since you’d need to presuppose reason in order to know which revelations were authentic.

877

[quote]Pangloss wrote:
this is standard presuppositionalist stuff. Rejection of autonomous reason. >>>[/quote]Yep, pretty much is. Which you cannot rationally accept because you worship rationality being in bondage to sin and death, in other words self. [quote]Pangloss wrote: Which you cannot rationally hold to if you also want to say that you can receive truth from revelation, since you’d need to presuppose reason in order to know which revelations were authentic. >>>[/quote]Come now my friend. Not being a man who worships rationality I don’t look there for ultimate answers. See how idiotic that is? Everybody else does. Please don’t take me the wrong way, but just like every other divine truth, you are unavoidably bound to approach presuppositionalism (we can call it transcendentalism if you like) through YOUR OWN presupposition of the supreme autonomy of self. To you that is just the most basic of givens. You’re in large company too because that is the very essence of the sinful fallen intellect shared by every last descendant of father Adam. Including me.

The difference between you and I has nothing to do with me. I was raised from death to life while I was yet dead in sin and an enemy of God fully deserving of His wrath.

878

Tiribulus:

We’re not dead in sin. We’re actually quite alive and most of us are quite happy.

You were raised to no life other than the one we all enjoy. Anything beyond that has come from your own imagination.

Our intellect is not sinful or fallen. Its useful and powerful and the “sinful fallen intellects” of all the humans who lived and died in your lineage before you is what has allowed your existence to even happen.

879

Or, I might should have said ancestry instead of lineage.

880

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Or, I might should have said ancestry instead of lineage. [/quote]You don’t really think I would pick on you for something like this? You do greatly err if you believe that I do not hold considerable respect for most of the people I utterly disagree with here. Ya really don’t get it man. Which should be perfectly clear to me since it’s what I’m always saying, but it is still admittedly frustrating if I let it be. I can’t help what you believe, but I really do only want good for all you guys.