Saturday, October 22, 2011

FacePalm of th Day #138a - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 8

Well, in this latest round, Johnny P demonstrates that he has a short memory and that he is far too proud to admit when he's made a sloppy argument.

I had written:
That was what I wanted to know....clearly and unambiguously when I asked you what you meant by perfect. This is different that whatever you had been saying. Finally! Was that really so hard?
Great example to show you haven’t got a clue what you talk about.

Johnny responds:
‘Finally?’ This is EXACTLY the same point I made in the second post.

I disagree. Where?

I wrote:
However I disagree. They are not the same because you are arguing using the existence of evil. There was no evil when the world Universe was first created.

God knew this eventuality and factored into his design (plate tectonics as you argued didn’t kill or cause suffering UNTIL the fall) and it is an ingredient in the perfect choice of the outcome. You contradict yourself ALL OVER the place.

Nope. It's not a contradiction that God would allow Adam and Eve to sin, although he knew they were going to sin, because God has a purpose in allowing or decreeing all that happens. Unless everything has happened as it has you wouldn't be the same person you are now - or even exist. God has reasons and purposes for this and is not beholden to us if we don't like the choices He has made. All you keep saying is that you don't like this answer but you have never said why it's wrong or untenable. Next time you make your own reality you can do it the way you like....oh yeah, you can't do that. Bummer.

“It's like trying to calculate moving objects with special relativity with nothing in the scenario moving faster that a few hundred miles and hour. Because there is no difference in the observed outcome, your logic would assume that it's all the same. It's not. Nice attempted dodge but you'll have to do better than that.”

What the frick are you banging on about? Trying to accuse me of dodging when ALL YOU do is dodge left, right and centre and give me this nonsensical tripe.

Since you know beans about Physics, let's try this again (forgot who I was writing to). Understand this. Because Lorentz Contraction and Time Dilation are negligible at speeds much less then the speed of light (our day-to-day experiences), you cannot conclude that it's the same when traveling at speeds close to the speed of light. Which is like what you have done conflating a world perfect now as the same as having perfect parameters at its creation. They are not the same.

“I have never argued that God is not perfect.”

Talk about ‘finally’! So now we can move away from all this other shite about what perfect means to me.

No, because you try to argue that the universe's perfection follows from God's perfection. and you said:

1) he [me] is actually right, and the universe is screwed and irrational
2) he [me] genuinely is wrong,...

As you have now firmly accepted Premise 1, then you realise that the argument has nothing to do with what my idea of perfect is. I reject God, and I can reject perfect, too, for all it matters.

I'm unclear as to whether or not you think that this universe is perfect as it is or not. Oh, and do I keep you awake at night, because you think I might be right?

“What I've said several times and you seem to ignore it is that the Christian Worldview is that the Universe is not perfect in its current state.”

Jesus. Look, I’ve been through this, if you haven’t followed yet, then you never will.

I think you're still confused. Not hopelessly, God could still yet have mercy on you. Originally you said:

However, the main point to be made here is as follows. It seems, then, that if God is to keep his omnibenevolent characteristic, then this world must be the maximally perfect and loving world that there can be. If God is perfect, then this must be his most perfect creation. A perfect God could not create something that fell short of perfection, and an all-loving God could not create something that did not fulfill the criterion of being the most-loving creation.

I'm saying that the world is not perfect and won't be until God fixes it. The contention is not that God allows evils and could stop it if he wanted to. It's not that tsunamis and earthquakes are or are not part of the plan. We agree that according the Christian Worldview this is true. However you just abjectly and emotionally blather on about this not making sense without talking about why other than you don't like it.

“My point from the beginning is that the world is not perfect....therefore your conclusions fail.

Johnny P said:
Now, I have established that that initial creation was perfect. But God’s infallible foreknowledge is ‘perfect’ too. So either way, the design permits, and the designer knows, of the outcomes. Thus the designer, since he could have done otherwise, and could have had any other outcome, chose this one.

I responded
Yeah, so? “

What do you mean, yeah, so? That point is entirely the point that invalidates your previous opinion. Please do some thinking. You are making me do all the thinking for you! Get a grip.

We do keep going in circles. Because all the premises discussed does not mean Christianity is wrong. Only you don't like it. I don't like having to stop at red lights when I drive, but I got to do it anyway.

You originally wrote:

If this is where logic takes a Christian, then they can keep their God in all his maximal perfection. And while they’re at it, they can package up all the pain and suffering and send it return post to the pearly gates. Not needed here, thanks.

In other words, you are saying that if it takes evil and suffering for God to fulfill His ultimate plans for all that exists, you don't want any part of it. So I say again, "So what?" You've just offered your opinion pointing out your outright rebellion. I was hoping for me. Why is the Christian Worldview wrong? Why can't God do what he wants to do,when he wants to do it, how he wants to do it, and for whatever reason He chooses? You offer no reason.

Johnnny P, wrote
“Therefore, God’s perfect choice, since he cannot choose imperfectly, was a choice of bringing in this ‘imperfect world, as you choose to see it. Unless this is THE ONLY possible outcome. In which it is a necessary outcome, given creation. Nobody believes this, so we will return to the former point.

I had responded
This is where you introduce a lot of ambiguity. You claim that you don't have to explain how or why you have chosen to see it but you seem to claim that this is not the only possible outcome and that's fine, but how do you evaluate the Christian perspective when you haven't explain why either of these possibilities are wrong.”

You literally make no sense and don’t seem to understand my arguments, This is probably why you get your knickers in a twist, since you struggle to follow simple arguments.

Oh, give me an argument to understand. 

Johnny P wrote
“So either this is a perfect universe straight out, or it is a perfect set of parameters which brought about an imperfect world, which was perfect by outcome and choice anyway. Thus it is still a perfect world in one way or another.

I replied
That depends on what you call "perfect". And I'm not buying your non-definition. You have given me no reason to. I'm not just going to to take your word for it.
Er? Let’s go back to the beginning of this conversation when you chose to agree that God was perfect and everything he does is flawless. Then re-read what I said. You really are appearing dim here. Maybe you are trying to bore me into submission.

Um no. Like I said you are not completely wrong. Just mostly wrong;

Now, this is where you prove incontrovertibly that you haven’t a clue what you’re on about.

I had written.
“So you don't see the inconsistency in claiming to see credentials and peer-reviewed articles from a scientist who accepts Adam & Eve as real people but not willing to back up your own authority the same way?”

Back up my authority? What the shagging hell are you on about? I claim NO AUTHORITY. I am not analysing, hypothesising, interpreting data etc.

So why did you write Debunking Christianity: Is this the Best Possible World and does God have Free Will? I thought you were claiming that based on the existence of evil and suffering and free will, what Christians believe about God is wrong. Bold claim. Which you still haven't demonstrated. The best you've given so far is:

If this is where logic takes a Christian, then they can keep their God in all his maximal perfection. And while they’re at it, they can package up all the pain and suffering and send it return post to the pearly gates. Not needed here, thanks.

So you must be trying to appeal to your own authority given further argument. 

I put out a logical argument in two parts. There is no authority. The work is self-evident from the semantics of the words! Ooh, let’s think, was the Epicurean Paradox peer-reviewed before being accepted? Ooh, was the Euthyphro Dilemma peer-reviewed? Get another grip.

So you have nothing to back up your conclusions. Thanks for admitting it.  

I wrote
“The smoke screen is yours. The immaturity is yours. You actually seem to have the arrogance to just assume that I have to just accept all of your premises and conclusion.”

Er? What? Point out the logical flaws, which you have singularly failed to do, and stop putting up your own smokescreens. You want peer-review to accept a premise of an argument? Are you telling me you can’t appraise a logical argument which is not peer-reviewed? Philosophy is not a peer-reviewed discipline! Science and medicine etc. Let’s think,was Calvin peer-reviewed? NT Wright? Augustine of Hippo? Thomas Aquinas? The Bible? Please tell me they were, otherwise your whining has absolutely no basis whatsoever. I’ll save you the effort. They weren’t, and your whining has no basis whatsoever.

I gave you the logical flaw: This isn't a perfect world. If Philosophy is not a peer-reviewed discipline then why are there peer-reviewed journals in Philosophy like this one?  Hmmm....curious.

I said
“I want to see if you really have a background in the fields you say you know something about. Your logic is self-evidently wrong because your presuppositions and understanding of the Christian Worldview are flawed. It's only fair since you would want the same of a scientist who believes Genesis is true.

No. You don’t understand peer-review and why it is necessary. You really don’t. Go and research it.

I never said that peer-review was not important or necessary. You said that it wasn't needed in Philosophy. 

Do you see me asking for your qualifications?

No. You are perfectly happy assuming I have none.

Do you see me demanding a theology degree for your comments on the bible?

No, but I've got credentials regardless. And given your inability to respond to the Bible, it makes sense you wouldn't.

Have you got these at university level? Who fucking cares? Get over it! Peer review is not relevant for a logical argument no longer than 20 lines long. Logic is binary, dimwit, and it doesn’t need peer review.

You mean even flawed logic such  as yours?

I wrote:
“Qualifications you have not stated. Books you have not given the reference for or links to. The name of this Philosophy group? You haven't even used your full name. This might as well be anonymous. If none of this makes a difference than why would a peer-reviewed article, book, or Journal? Answer that, and I will give you the references. Otherwise, I'd be wasting my valuable time.”

Look, if you want to get off your arse and find out who I am, then it’s easy enough. This endeavour on my part just simply shows how clueless you are. What I have said is not affected in the slightest by where my degrees or whatever are from. If I thought it was important, I would ask you the same questions. People wouldn’t debate online about anything without faxing university qualifications to each other. That’s juvenile.

You claimed to have an authority that you won't substantiate. Given I can't tell from your writing, I thought I've give you the benefit of the doubt and just ask instead of just assuming you have lied about books you have written or philosophy groups you say you founded. 

However, If I claim that there is scientific evidence for a presupposed claim that humanity evolved from Adam and Eve in an anachronistic setting with animals that popped into existence from nowhere and that this happened at such and such a time AND I claim this scientific, THEN IT MUST ADHERE TO SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGICAL RIGOUR.

I agree! But if you say the hristian Worldview is wrong then you ought to be able to back it up rigorously too. As I said, put your evidence on the table and I'll put mine out there too.  Fair is fair.

ARE YOU TOO SCARED TO ADMIT THIS? A logical argument is self-evident. It has about 10 lines in my case. A claim like that above, which goes against mainstream scientific academia, requires, in order to be called science, to undergo the rigmarole of scientific methodology. If you can’t see the difference then there’s no hope for you. And refusing to give me your sources for a scientific claim that underlies your entire belief system is juvenile and has nothing to do with where, what, how and who about my qualifications. I am critiquing an affirmative claim of Christians. Christians believe that God is perfect irrespective over whether one of my qualifications was from Bath or Newcastle. Deal with it, and stop clutching at straws.

I see no reason why I can't ask about your qualifications because that seems all you are given to back up your premises and conclusion. I told you that I reject the point you made about this world being perfect, and your attempted dodge to say that being perfect in the beginning is the same as being perfect now. So now  all you have left is your credentials.

When interpreting empirical data using techniques and methodology necessary for the field in presenting or disproving a hypothesis on the dating of fossil remains for early man? Well, then I would need peer-reviewed scientific analysis. I gave a philosophical argument.

Well I  guess I'm just more rigorous than you.  Sorry, I went to Berkeley.

I wrote:
“So Philosophy gets you a "get-out-of-proof-free" card?”

It’s not an interpretation of empirical data, you eejit.

Yours is an example of wrong interpretation of empirical data.

I wrote
“Who knew? I thought anyone interested in truth evaluates everything and not just at face value. I'm just supposed to have blind faith that you know what you are talking about?”

No, judge the words, not the person behind the words. You are trying to apply the methodology of cheese to the idea of chalk.

You've given no argument other than you reject Christianity because you don't like it.

I wrote:
“For the times and places in which they lived they had equivalent university qualification. On top of that their work proves their qualification. You however have provided nothing. Of course you claim it's not relevant to this discipline. How....convenient. Glad I went into Engineering, Physics, and Information Technology. instead Sheesh!

What do you want, a medal? I couldn’t give half a shit what you did. It holds no interest to me and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

No medal. I got degrees. But you right it's not relevant to whether or not you are right. But I wanna know what your point is other than you don't like Christianity.

This is genius:

“Let us see what you have done:

1) accepted that the earth is 4.5 billion years old
2) claimed that Adam and Eve were the first humans
3) claimed the historical verisimilitude of the Fall
4) Claimed plate tectonics either did not exist or did not kill anything before the Fall
5) Denied cherry-picking your science

Yup, where's your rebuttal other than ad hominem rhetoric?”

Ha ha, I have represented your arguments entirely, and you claim it is ad hom, which it isn’t. I have ad hommed, but not here. You are so out of your depth it’s embarrassing.

I didn't say you did. Here you offered no rebuttal at all. I'm referring to the entirety of this discussion all 9 posts.

“[Jerry Coyne, evolutionary biologist quote].

Dude, I know that's what some scientists are saying now. How is being skeptical of that "Cherry Picking"?”

Being sceptical is fine if you provide reasons for it. Which you haven’t and refuse to do until I tell you where I went to uni.

No. I asked for your qualifications because you said you want to see the qualifications of a scientist that accepts Genesis and then proceeded to call such a person derogatory names. I know you're too chicken to give up your anonymity, but I think it says a lot when you would use such language of others while not providing the same information. 

I wrote:
“You say you are a scholar, but you would just toss a reference like that without a link or a footnote? Some proof that you didn't just write it?”

Er, google the firt line and add Jerry Coyne. Internet’s amazing, you know.

I'm familiar with Coyne. I'm not impressed.

I said
You say you teach students and imply that it's at a university, would you accept that from a student?

I don’t teach at a uni. I never, ever implied that. I can’t be arsed to think about anything else you have said.

 Why did you write in the comments?

I teach plate tectonics (albeit to a basic level), so I have a fair grasp, thank you very much.

Musta been grade school. Poor children.
You are remarkably naïve and poor at arguing. Please don’t post a response to this, but if you do, I will not read it or respond. You, sir, are a lost cause.

You don't need to respond since you've asked your peers for help over at Debunking Christianity.  I still have hope for you, God can fix anything.

Go and learn about peer review, about plausibility, about judging science, about logic, about arguing from evidence rather than from presupposition and then desperately looking for any evidence which might support it. Maybe in a few years we can have this discussion again.

LOL. Given that have not bothered to show why evil and suffering invalidates Christianity other than the fact that you don't like it, maybe you should heed your own advice.

Oh, and stop putting immature pictures and video on your blogs. Not only do they make your site clunk about, but it just looks like you are hiding behind ad hom. Makes you less professional than you already are.

I like a little humor now and then. I'm amazed that would think that a "facepalm" is ad hominem but think that profanity is some how more professional. Really sad. The facepalms are about your non-arguments not about you personally because I don't know anything about you.

What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #138 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 7
Enhanced by Zemanta

No comments:

Post a Comment