Thursday, October 27, 2011

What had happen' was.....: Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P

Johnny P, further shows what a faceplant looks like. This time with added help from Ryan Anderson. Well, at least Anderson is willing to use his whole name. That's more than we can say for Johnny P. Ryan's words will be bolded. Johnny's unbolded, and mine will be in red.

You truly are a dimwit.

 Let us see if he can substantiate that

Read the original post. It never claimed to call the Chritian worldview wrong - another one of your terrible straw men. It said on the Christian worldview, tsumanis must be a necessary ingredient to a perfect world (whether by present reality or outcome).

I quote: "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 is Johnny P saying that the Christian World view is right but he rejects it? Seriously?


That was it. But you have misunderstood the argument and talked absolute shit. I could pick apart every word of your last post as being fallacious. You truly are misguided and have a very poor grasp of logic and what I was actually saying.

Bring it. If you can. Nothing but opportunity. This blog is open. My e-mail is available.  What's keeping you?

I concluded "They realise that this judgement by God to actualise this particular world must be supremely wise and must result in the most loving world. This includes every piece of suffering and death experienced by every animal and plant in the history of the world.

i didn't conclude God did not exist or Christians are wrong, so Marcus can take back half the misrepresented SHIT he spewed in half his posts.

 First, that kind of language really professional? Well maybe for Johnny P!. If  he were not saying that Christianity is wrong, then why is Johnny P an atheist? If Christianity is not wrong than go join a church and serve God as you should be doing anyway.

God knows the outcome of this world and chose it over the outcome of every other possible world. He is perfect / all-loving, therefore that choice is perfect / all-loving. You cannot argue that.

I never said that was not true, I also never said you were completely wrong.  

Marcus has agreed it - he chooses perfectly. Therefore, the choice is the one that includes tsunamis and cancer. Therefore, these ingredients are necessarily part of the ensemble that is this world.

Again that is the way God has chosen to do things, given that God could have done anything he wanted. . If Johnny is not arguing that this worldview is wrong than why does he reject it?

Jesus, other Christian philosophers can agree with this, but somehow Marcus is too up his own arse to interact appropriately with the argument.

If you are saying that Christianity is not wrong, you aren't makiing an argument and you are being irrational to say:

"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."

Apparently, the argument only works is I prove I am peer-reviewed or that I have university qualifications. I must remember to ask Jesus for his uni qualification next time he gives me a vision in which he puts a syllogism across to me. But Marcus demanded it, Jee! It must be the way!

No, I demanded that you make and support an argument that's rational and coherent and you haven't. You've even backed away from the point you made in the first post. Classic. 

And Mariano, I wasn't referring to Loftus, but my own arguments. Not a single person who has read all the posts and seen the argument through (including a Christian theologian friend) thinks that Marcus is in any way correct or well-argued. They are all rather less complimentary.

"a Christian theologian friend" whom remains nameless. Just like the books and credentials you have pretended to have. You do understand the values of references right?  Johnny P loves to drop that he's written books and imply he has some professional standing in Philosophy yet won't provide any proof while attacking me and my fitness to discuss such matters. I don't really remember saying that his credentials make his arguments true or false. It came up because he wanted peer-reviewed articles from scientists who agree that there was a historical Adam and Eve and he even insulted anyone who thinks that way if they were peer-reviewed or not. If you are going to call anyone into question, you should be prepared to be called into question.

Please read all the posts Mariano and see if you REALLY agree with Marcus. He couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag without fallacy or misrepresentation.

Johnny P knows a lot about fallacy and misrepresentation.

The fact he still demands me to define perfect, when I am not the person arguing Gods perfection - I neither believe in God or perfection (I don't need to - it's not an argument about MY beliefs - I could not exist and the argument would stand) - shows how he doesn't know his arse from his elbow. Christians, however, so think God is perfect, ergo the rest of the argument.

What argument? I thought you said Christianity wasn't wrong? Again your arguments do not follow God's perfection because the world has been subjected to  imperfection by the will of He who is perfect.

The help is for you. I'm sure, deep inside, you CAN be rational. You just need a little help. Try arguing evidence up, not bible down. Try being humble. Try being mature. Try not to hide behind rhetoric from the start. Try to read and comprehend what you are arguing against. Try not to straw man. Be a better man. If there is a God, and if he is going to judge something he has infallibly set in motion, then he will most certainly judge you as a lost cause; a wasted mind.

Humble? Mature? Johnny P, please re-read your posts and comments. It's littered with profanity and bad arguments. Remember you said you could come up with a better design for the universe than the one we have. My, how humble. And again you totally misrepresent God. The Bible does not tell us we are going to be judged for heaven or hell based on our own merits. We have none. We are going to be judged by whether or not we have put our faith in what Jesus has done for us. By your own admission, you would be found wanting.

Oh, and glad to see you are still hiding behind childish videos. *Guffaw guffaw* *facepalm* Nice touch. How old are you? Would a professional philosopher or theologian do that?

How old are you? Where did you go to school? I'm an engineer. I'm not a philosopher.  I believe the Bible and if that means you are wrong, then you are wrong. Notice that all the science I can confirm and test does not conflict with the Bible nor contradict any of its truth claims. I cannot say the same thing about the things you have written. Your arguments get facepalms and laughs because that is what they deserve.

Apostle Paul has more than refuted you. I can just sit back and laugh.


He's playing the hip "youth minister" apologist I think. Not well, but that's what he's playing. 

Wow, Ryan, Johnny asked for help, and you've added nothing of value. 

Back to Johhny P for a moment: Looks like he can't substantiate his claims. It comes down to no argument at all and his opinion.

What had happen' was.....: Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P
Enhanced by Zemanta

6 comments:

  1. I'm not going to read this post as I have not read your last 2. I read this one up to here:

    "So is Johnny P saying that the Christian World view is right but he rejects it? Seriously?"

    This is how dense you are. If I make NO comment about the correctness of a worldview, I am neither saying it is wrong, or, and wait for it... I AM NOT SAYING IT IS RIGHT EITHER!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I merely posit the logical conclusion of a worldview based on premises that adherents of that worldview believe. The fact that YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THIS RIGHT, that EVEN YOUR FIRST COMMENT HERE IS UTTERLY INCORRECT goes to show what a waste of my life arguing with you has been. This is a fact about my opinion. It is my opinion that you are, incontrovertibly, the worst arguer I have ever debated with. Ever.

    I am amazed at your stupidity. It seems that not a single person has agreed with you. Mariano, your audience of one, made a comment of a comment I made on another blog (misunderstanding it too). This might, just might be telling you something.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let me explain this to you in simple terms so that you can finally understand what I am saying. I will do this in several ways so that you are able to follow the argument in a simple fashion.

    First, let’s use the choice approach.

    God is perfect.
    God makes perfect choices – he cannot choose imperfectly.
    God had a choice between this world with tsunamis/cancer/malaria and this world without tsunamis.
    God chose this world with tsunamis/cancer/malaria etc.
    Tsunamis etc are a necessary part of God’s perfect choice.


    Ok, that was simple. Every Christian I have met agrees with this. You seem not to grasp it. Let’s try the question approach. I will answer the questions as to how I think you would answer, since it is how all other Christians answer, including Craig and Fernandes.

    Why are there tsunamis/cancer/malaria in the world?
    “It’s all part of God’s plan” “We don’t know the mind of God” “It must serve a greater good”
    These answers are stock omniscience escape clause answers and can be summed up as “It’s all part of God’s plan (for a greater good)”.

    Is God perfect?
    “Yes”

    Can God plan imperfectly?
    “No”

    So tsunamis/cancer/malaria etc are part of God’s perfect plan?
    “Yes”


    Both of these approaches are what I was putting forward. If God is perfect, then these things, since he chose a world with them rather than one without them are part of his perfect plan. This world is his plan, ergo part of this perfect world.


    Your main tactic, other than to misunderstand and misrepresent the argument for 8 pages of drivel, was to equivocate on the word ‘world’. For example, you tried to claim it was perfect at creation, but made imperfect by humans. However, you failed to follow your logic through.

    God chose humans knowing their Fall, rather than choosing for them not to exist, so EVEN THEY must be necessary part of the perfect plan (and all their evil).

    When philosophers talk about actual and possible worlds, they do so without temporality. And here is your equivocation. You kept implying and demanding some kind of temporal quality to WHEN the world is perfect. This is silly, because first of all you claim it was perfect at creation and then imperfect after. Yet humans are a perfect choice of God. What is the point of everything after? Why bother? Why ruin perfection with imperfection? A perfect God wouldn’t choose to ruin a perfect creation without a perfect outcome to mitigate it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Secondly, you seem to demand a temporal quality to the world I claim as being perfect. But this equivocation is silly. When I first posted the piece, did I mean a perfect world only at 12.15 on 10/01/2011? How about the next day or the day before? When I talk of perfect worlds, is it only relevant at the exact time I say it? Or now? How about now? This is silly. Perfect worlds are judged by the outcome, or the entire process. Either way, the process is integral in reaching the outcome, obviously.

    So when philosophers talk about this world being perfect, we don’t mean at 2 o’clock on Tuesday, nor do we mean at the beginning, as you assume. Perhaps we mean as an ensemble. When I mean this world in an atemporal sense, I am talking about the world as an ensemble from start to finish. But, in the sense of judging the world, we mean by outcome. When I talk of a perfect car, I don’t mean during its manufacturing process, but the end result. From a Christian’s point of view, we could still be in the manufacturing process of this world. Which is why I kept mentioning OUTCOME. These tsunamis and natural evils are ingredients are necessary ingredients for this perfect world (which may yet come to pass) otherwise they are neutral ingredients which serve no purpose and are random. To arrive at the perfect world, you need the perfect parameters, which is why I called the parameters and outcome effectively synonymous for the purposes of this argument. God has chose both, and God chooses perfectly. Thus both the parameters and out outcome of this world are perfect choices.

    However, you failed to see how the argument worked, and spent more time demanding my qualifications. More fool you. Well done. You showed yourself to be a consummate philosopher. Sorry, plonker.


    Just in case you didn’t realise in my original post that I am talking about the outcome by way of everything throughout history: “This includes every piece of suffering and death experienced by every animal and plant in the history of the world.” I did not say “This is a perfect world NOW based on everything that happens JUST NOW IN THIS INSTANCE!” This is a perfect world based on the choice of this world over any other. How do you compare one world to another? Certainly not by picking arbitrary individual instants of time out, out of their context, and comparing them!!!!

    There really is, on a good and proper reading of the original text, no need to have drivelled on and on.

    ReplyDelete

  4. This is how dense you are. If I make NO comment about the correctness of a worldview, I am neither saying it is wrong, or, and wait for it... I AM NOT SAYING IT IS RIGHT EITHER!!!!!!!!!!!!


    So why are you an atheist and why did you write the original post if you don't have an opinion, Coward. The post was on "Debunking Christianity"!!! What else could you possibly saying? Not Cowardice "Lying". Do you really expect me to believe that you were not saying that Christianity is wrong (based on some fallacious crap you've spewed) and that's why you are an atheist? Come'on. Get real.

    I merely posit the logical conclusion of a worldview based on premises that adherents of that worldview believe.

    Snicker.

    The fact that YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THIS RIGHT, that EVEN YOUR FIRST COMMENT HERE IS UTTERLY INCORRECT goes to show what a waste of my life arguing with you has been. This is a fact about my opinion. It is my opinion that you are, incontrovertibly, the worst arguer I have ever debated with. Ever.

    You must not get out much.

    I am amazed at your stupidity. It seems that not a single person has agreed with you. Mariano, your audience of one, made a comment of a comment I made on another blog (misunderstanding it too). This might, just might be telling you something.

    My, my. I'd rather be stupid than a liar like you. You really think that just because no one else has commented on my blog here disagreeing with you or agreeing with you (but one) that proves anything. Your middle name should be "Facepalm".

    Further Response http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/10/facepalm-of-day-141-epic-fail-tisk-tisk.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. You can’t even gather the balls to admit when you are wrong. You accuse me of saying things I don’t say, and when you REALISE I didn’t say them, instead of saying “Sorry, false accusation”, you say “Well why didn’t you say them?”

    It’s like arguing with a three year old, except less fun. And why the feck am I a coward?

    I am not a Christian for a MASSIVE array of reasons – people like you being one of them!! However, it has nothing to do with my original post being valid or not. You simply post up red herring after red herring.

    I believe Christianity IS wrong. I would give the evidential problem of evil as a very good reason why (using probability) to which this argument is connected. Ie there could be a greater good to come, but it is highly improbable. Eg, carnivorousness necessitates the death and suffering of billions of other animals since the beginning of time. Why did an all loving, all powerful God not make all animals photosynthesise, or need energy at all? Problems like this are better explained by atheism than by theism which requires ad hoc appeals to God’s omniscience. On atheism, life is just shit – get over it (since we understand why through mechanism).

    My post was a post to illustrate what Christians must logically believe – that natural evil is a necessary part of a perfect world. It was that simple. For most people.

    You seem to want me to say things so you can try to knock them down. This is why I refuse to do so. You simply move the goalposts of the argument when you realise you are losing: trying to get me to define perfect, trying to get me to give you my qualifications, trying to get me to say that my argument as a proof against Christianity. All irrelevant, and all smokescreens.


    “My, my. I'd rather be stupid than a liar like you…Your middle name should be "Facepalm". “

    Tacit acceptance of my arguments validities and your incompetence. Thanks. Er, why am I a liar? Actually, don’t answer that, I don’t care.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your whole operation simply looks like a long, protracted attempt to desperately save face. Cut your losses.

    ReplyDelete