Interestingly, before I break into an analysis, I call the reader's attention to the fact that he is inconsistent in more than the run-of-the-mill atheist way. The normal way I'll get to in a second, but what I refer to here is his inability to recognise positive assertions when he makes them. I guess it's his way of trying to act like he's the noble skeptic, w/ nothing to prove, alone against the onslaught of the moronic theistic types like myself. I pointed this out to him last time and he just went right on denying it. Guess we'll see if he'll see it this time.
The other way in which he is inconsistent is in his borrowing of capital from the Christian worldview to bash Christianity. As an atheist, he has no way to account for reason, logic, or induction, but he uses them all to make his case against The God of the Bible (TGOTB). In this he is not alone - we see ChooseDoubt, Chris Severn, and the Barefoot Bum recently doing the exact same things. They all do, really. And it's no wonder - an atheist universe is completely incoherent w/o no basis for thought, reason, or communication. Quite bleak.
My breaking down his position will continue w/ my showing his question-begging methodology. Note how he reveals his ultimate faith convictions.
I had asked: There is no truth without examining evidence (#3). So, please provide evidence for this statement.
-Truth, in itself, exists quite apart from the evidences for that truth.
I agree, but I'd like to know why he thinks that.
I agree, but I'd like to know why he thinks that.
-Neutrinos existed before we had any evidence of them.
-evidence has proven to be the single most reliable method by which fallible human primates can discover truthHow can he know this?
Also, note what he's doing.
1) He's revealing his ultimate faith is in "evidence" as he judges things to be evidentiary.
2) He's begging the question. I asked for evidence that examining evidence is the way to truth. What is he doing? Pointing to more evidence.
-Every day, we all operate according to evidence—that is, according to the relevant facts.
Yes, b/c we live in God's world. There is no way to trust our thoughts to correctly process facts as "relevant" or "evidentiary" in an atheist universe.
I had asked: Making unsubstantiated assertions gets us nowhere (#5). So, please provide evidence that there is no truth w/o examining evidence. What is the evidence for these two statements?
-If no evidence is presented for a given assertion, one can dismiss the assertion as baseless.
Cool. I dismiss your assertions as baseless - you keep begging the very question.
-I, myself, made unsubstantiated assertions to David about there being an ethereal cosmic catfish.
The existence of an ethereal cosmic catfish does not provide the necessary grounds for logic, reason, and induction. A theistic God is the only thing that can.
But again, I invite you to present an alternative for the grounds for logic, reason, and induction. Appeal, however, to logical arguments, reason, induction, or evidence, and you must evaporate in a puff of begged questions.
I had asked: As such, the atheistic position makes no truth-claims (#7). Should I consider that statement true or false? Is it or is it not part of the atheistic position?
This is maybe my favorite one.
-The atheistic position has precisely one characteristic: Atheists lack a belief in god.
Since you didn't answer my question, let me ask about THIS statement. Should I consider this statement, that "atheists lack a belief in God", true or false? If true, it's a truth claim - "there is insufficient evidence for me to believe in God," basically. If false, then I'm cool w/ that.
-My personal views and biases damn me to inject my stances in my compositions.
Rather, it's your irrational position.
-Atheism, in its pure and unadulterated form, denotes a lack and only a lack.
True or false?
I had asked: Where there are no truth-claims, there is no burden of proof (#8). How is this statement provable and why wouldn't you have the burden of proof as relates to it?
Wait, maybe *this* one is my favorite.
-the types of “truth-claims” on which you call me out are utterly different from the types of truth-claims you yourself frivolously posit.
1) Another truth claim. True or false?
2) According to YOU. But your brain is just atoms banging around, a glorified monkey brain, if atheism is true. Like I said, I don't ask my bottle of lotion, which is atoms banging around, whether God exists.
3) I didn't realise you could read my mind and extra-sensorily know that I make my claims frivolously.
-I am advancing truth-claims of a most innocuous and nearly self-evident nature.
1) What, while using the brain God gave you to make logical statements (which depend on God for their logic), and then denying God?
2) The Bible teaches that you DO know God exists but suppress the truth. The self-evidence is on my side. If you disagree, you do so using the brain and reason God gave you.
-You, on the other hand, are claiming a very specific CREATURE, which is CONSCIOUS, is EXTANT in a specifically SUPERNATURAL REALM.
Yes, Who is the grounds for all rationality, logic, and induction.
-Then, you claim to know that creature’s NATURE
B/c He communicated it. I only know what He tells me.
-and claim the creature directly INSPIRED a BOOK that is TOTALLY PERFECT.
Yes, for many different reasons.
-This seems just a bit different from my truth-claims
1) Yes, mine are far more glorious and full of promise.
2) None of these truth claims stand on one foundation while unconsciously attacking that very same foundation.
3) In what ways are my claims qualitatively different from the ones you list here? I'm genuinely interested in what you'd say.
-“only through evidence can humans reliably discover truth”
Again, please provide evidence that this is true, since evidence is the only way to know truth.
-If somebody is not claiming something, one need not provide evidence.
OK, but you're claiming that if somebody is not claiming something, one need not provide evidence, so I'm going to have to ask you for evidence for that statement.
-“I lack belief in god” is not a truth-claim because it is not a claim at all.
But "'I lack belief in god' is not a truth-claim because it is not a claim at all" is a truth-claim, so please provide evidence so I can be sure it's true.
I had asked: The burden of proof is not on the doubter (#12). I doubt that this phrase is correct, so please provide proof that it is true.
-In order to present “proof” for something, there must be “a something” to which proof is applicable.
You thus attempt to wiggle out. But note that I'm not dealing, and have not been dealing mostly, w/ the issue of "lack of belief in God," inane though your analysis of that statement is.
I'm asking you about THESE SPECIFIC statements. You need to apply the standards of proof that you say you hold to foundationally to these very standards. If you can't, you reveal that you have just as much faith as I, and it just so happens that your faith is irrational.
-To say, “I doubt what you advance” is not a truth-claim, so no evidence possibly could be applied to it and no burden of proof possibly could be levied.
Even if I granted that, the positive assertion I'm asking you to provide evidence for is: "The burden of proof is not on the doubter."
-To say, “I lack belief X is the case” is to claim nothing about reality.
That's silly. Saying that is a truth-claim that it is concurrent w/ reality that you indeed lack belief in X.
Those are the main points. I'll clean up a few loose ends now.
-You essentially have said god is “beyond the bounds of knowledge.” Therefore, you possess no knowledge of god, because said deity is beyond knowledge’s bounds.
1) Yes, I said that. Why does it follow that I can have NO knowledge of God? He condescended to reveal Himself to humans, and so I can know SOME things about Him.
2) Yes, I can't know EVERYthing about God. But I've never claimed that this was necessary; my knowledge of Him is sufficient, not exhaustive.
-I also explained why “infinite attributes” are self-contradictory and, thus, absurd.
1) Yes, and I responded, and you have not dealt w/ that.
2) Ice cream beats bear 5 and the higher they fly the much.
3) That's what I understood your message - produced by atoms banging around in an atheist universe - to be. I'd say I hope I got it right, but again, in an atheist universe there is no "hope" and there is no "right".
-However, that certainly does not mean everything is the same and must be treated identically.
1) Another truth-claim. True or false?
2) What is the evidence for that?
3) Who says?
-You seem to have constructed a strange, menacing ogre out of the word “evidence,” making it into a frightening threat to your leap of faith.
This from the guy who says that evidence is required for EVERY belief. Who constructed the ogre?
-I would guess Mr. Wilson checks the Weather Channel on occasion, to learn the temperature, humidity or see the radar in his local area.
Yes, b/c he recognises that God made the world and He made it good and orderly.
-Then, in one instance, where it threatens his theological construction, Wilson decries evidence—relevant facts—as questionable in itself.
1) There is no "relevance" in an atheist universe.
2) There is no evidence in an atheist universe.
3) All facts are God's facts; no creation of God threatens Him.
-Show me somebody who eschews relevant facts in conducting his daily affairs, and I shall show you somebody who credibly can decry evidence.
From my perspective, that's an amazing statement coming from the JN.
-Why is your certainty more valid than their certainty?
1) B/c mine is based on truth and theirs is not. It is rationally defensible and convincing and fully comports w/ reality.
2) Theirs is not and does not.
3) I don't blow people up when they mock my religion. I ask them to debate.
4) I don't expect you to understand that for several reasons, one of which is that you have demonstrated significant bias in attacking TGOTB while standing on TGOTB's foundations.
5) Also I don't know if you know anythg about Islamic or Xtian theology. If you do, that's one thing. If you don't, you're in no position to understand the issue at all - you're just throwing it out and hoping to trip me up.
-Finally, with respect to TgOTB, could your mind possibly be changed, or is it unchangeable?
I told you, produce the corpse of Jesus and all bets are off.
But absent that, produce an alternative way to ground reason, logic, and induction, w/o begging the question all over the place, and we'll talk further about that.
Finally to you, I asked you how YOUR beliefs are falsifiable. Mind answering?