Sunday, November 13, 2011

FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #16

Well, Johnny P returns. Hurray! I needed to see another great faceplant. His words are in black and my annotation are in red.

I love the horrible exegesis that Marcus has.

I don't think Johnny P even knows what exegesis is. When I use the term I refer to drawing meaning out of the Biblical text. Let's see if Johnny P understood that?

His exegesis is this:

Presuppositionally believe everything the bible says and then frantically google for hours on end to find some utterly implausible and ad hoc manner in which he can still delude himself that the bible is true. The very definition of cognitive dissonance. If he went to NASA, NAAS, the RD or any other scientific organisations with his theories, he'd be laughed out of the room. The funny thing is, he cherry picks his cosmology and the punts to rings of frozen water around the earth to justify a literal Genesis.

A theory about how the earth was like when it was first created is NOT an exegesis. Further, Johnny P has done nothing but show that he cannot prove that Bible is not true. If my theory is not true about Genesis 1 referring to the rings around the earth, that does not mean the Bible is not true,. Nor does it mean that Genesis 1,2,3,4, or the rest of the book cannot be taken literally.

And then has the audacity to claim OUR exegesis is horrible.

You prove all the time that your Biblical exegesis is horrible with every word you write - digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole.

He has no threshold for plausibility for believing biblical passages. He will only choose science which coheres with the bible, and as soon as it doesn't, it gets presuppositionally trumped by a 2000 year old book.

Johnny P seems to forget that no where in the Bible does it say that the world is 6000 years old. And he has failed to provide any science that contradicts the Bible. And the account of Noah is a lot more than 2000 years old.

But apparently, that evidence is amazing and self-authenticating, it's just that we poor fools are unable to interpret it correct;y. By correctly, I mean in exactly the way Marcus does.

Johnnny P also seems to fail to realize that my Biblical Hermeneutic is not unique to just myself. Many Christians and Jews have interpreted the Bible the same way. I'm still waiting for him to challenge my interpretations and show how the Bible does not say what I have said it says.

Spot on Ryan with this: "And believe it or not, there is actually not much we can argue with if you simply claimed “God magically created a lot of water, magically prevented the earth’s crust from collapsing, magically prevented the atmosphere from boiling away, but then magically prevented evidence of this event from being seen in the geological record, and then magically made all the water go away, magically preventing the crust from exploding outward from the release of pressure, of course. After all, he’s God”. We could still call you a deluded moron, but we couldn’t actually argue with the statement."

Well, I've answered Ryan's objection so I won't repeat it here. Instead I'd like to point out that Johnny P should thank Ryan because he's obviously more intelligent but just as wrong as Johnny P.

The old logical trumps utterly probable shenanigans. I'd love to see you sit a geology or astrophysics course. You'd get howled at.

I haven't said anything contradictory to modern and established geology or  astrophysics. If theory from science contradicts the Bible, then I know I should keep looking for Science to reorient itself so it's correct.

Here's a guy who thinks he's all that and a bag of chips; who thinks he knows philosophy.

I'm not a philosopher. I'm an engineer. I'm a minister of the Gospel of Christ.  I'm just a sinner save by grace. Johnny P is hell bent. Literally. 

Look at this post on oughts and morality.

So Johnny P is still reading my blog!!!! Hmmmm.

He simply asserts. He starts from assertions and goes on. He doesn't realise that 'ought' is simply a prostasis to a hidden apodosis and has no intrinsic meaning.

I  extremely disagree. If I walked into his house and took everything he had, he would most definitely say "I ought not to do that." But he could not tell me why I ought not to do that.

He doesn't realise that to even argue that, he needs to prove reasons externalism (over reasons internalism).

So does Johnny P mean that I should have a reason external to oneself not to hurt anyone?

He doesn't realise that objective morality is harder (you need to jump more hurdles and get over more assertions) to philosophically argue objective morality, or moral realism than to argue consequentialist or utilitarian ethics.

The video defined the definition for objective morality and argued against it. You know ? What Johnny P refused to do about "perfect world" and "correct".

He doesn't realise that the term 'objective' is hugely problematic and he needs to prove its internal coherence first.

 Hmmmm. Maybe he didn't watch the video.

He doesn't realise that God is a consequentialist moralist, thus either invalidating objective morality or making its intrinsic value worthless in comparison to consequences. This is proven by God himself in the bible.

Objective morality is referring to morality for humanity and not God. God has set the standard we must follow. And if you think God does not follow that standard, your exegesis is really horrible.

No, what does he do? Appeal emotively to Hitler like some bad dinner party conversation.

Again no answer to the question: Why was Hitler wrong? Instead we get dodging, bobbing, and weaving.

As I have sadi before, if you are going to deal with philosophy in a serious manner, get a philosophy qualification or at least do some serious reading and research. You'd get shot down in flames in a moral philosophy course with such 'reasoning'.

I can answer the question about why Hitler was wrong and Johnny P can't without borrowing from a religious worldview. Johnny P's "philosophy" leaves much to desired. Not only has Johnny P failed to add anything useful to the post to which he refers, but he has not bothered to show where my reasoning is wrong only that he thinks that I don't define my terms that was defined in the video I was referring to.

Johnny P can always be counted upon  for a FacePlant.I can't even find any proof that Johnny P has ever had any university training himself. He should get some before advising others.

What had happen' was.....: FacePlant - Epic Fail: Tisk Tisk, Johnny P Response #15
Enhanced by Zemanta

30 comments:

  1. A theory about how the earth was like when it was first created is NOT an exegesis.

    No, but saying mayim should actually be read as qerach, sheleg or kĕfowr is.

    Also, ought's an opinion, not a universal. You seem to think that if someone is capable of identifying why one holds an opinion (unless the why is "god") then one cannot say that one's opinion is valid. I like older blonde women. I know exactly what events and conditions led to that. That doesn't mean I don't still like older blonde women. Morality's the same. Culture and experience.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I didn't say that you should change "Mayim" in Genesis. What I said was to suggest that because it does not say what state the water is above the sky that perhaps its referring to the rings that surrounded the earth at one time. Take it or leave it.

    I'm saying your opinion is not enough to ground morality. So in your experience its wrong to kill people who wear glasses. In Cambodia in the late 1970's, they disagreed. Were they wrong? If so, why?

    ReplyDelete
  3. My opinion was they were wrong. Morality is not grounded.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Marcus'inability to deal with the philosophy, or defer to the video which I was nor referencing (I was referencing HIS writing below the video) is hilarious.

    Just asserting the intrinsic meaning of ought is pretty funny to. "I extremely disagree. If I walked into his house and took everything he had, he would most definitely say "I ought not to do that." But he could not tell me why I ought not to do that."

    What if you were a house mover, moving all my stuff? The ought depends on the context. Morality depends on context. The value of morality is derived by consequence. He should know this since God, for example, killed all of humanity bar 8, all of the animal world bar 2 of each, all of the plant world. Put the historicity of this aside (and the fact that it is direct contravention of modern geology, despite what he claims above). If I did this, I would be attacked as morally disgusting. But no, Marcus special pleads God's omniscience, saying a greater good must come.

    Thus the moral value of this act, and all the others in the bible, is derived by the consequences. Thus God is a consequentialist - quite probably a utilitarian. It seems that you either did not understand this, or chose to ignore it, instead interlinearly throwing in your worthless tripe.

    I'd really rather you didn't keep reposting these points, but kept posting on one blog for easy of flow. Maybe it's a tactic so no one can follow your appalling logic. Also, your blog is the most clunky, memory sucking blog I have ever encountered.

    As for your exegesis - is it not the case that you believe the bible to be literally true? Do you not receive the logic and the argument for doing this from the bible itself?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Ryan
    My opinion was they were wrong. Morality is not grounded.

    Do you have any realization how bankrupt that is? So if you agreed with them, they'd be right? I hope you don't wear glasses, because you'd have no reason above your own predilection to defend your right to exist. If you can live that way, fine. Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So if you agreed with them, they'd be right?

    If I agreed with them, we'd think we were right.

    Bankrupt or not, reality is reality.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Johnny P


    Marcus'inability to deal with the philosophy, or defer to the video which I was nor referencing (I was referencing HIS writing below the video) is hilarious.


    I know you were referring to my writing below which refers to the video. The video defined all the questions you had. The point was that you were supposed to watch the video. You do know the concept of multi-media? The hilarious thing is that you find your ignorance sound.

    Just asserting the intrinsic meaning of ought is pretty funny to. "I extremely disagree. If I walked into his house and took everything he had, he would most definitely say "I ought not to do that." But he could not tell me why I ought not to do that."

    If morality is not grounded, then how do you conclude that my meaning of "ought" is wrong?

    What if you were a house mover, moving all my stuff? The ought depends on the context. Morality depends on context.

    No, you know what I meant. Wait you might be too stupid to know the context of what I meant. I mean take all of your stuff and put it in my own house leaving you with nothing. Now ought I do that? If so, why not just mail all of it to me?

    The value of morality is derived by consequence.

    Prove that.

    He should know this since God, for example, killed all of humanity bar 8, all of the animal world bar 2 of each, all of the plant world. Put the historicity of this aside (and the fact that it is direct contravention of modern geology, despite what he claims above). If I did this, I would be attacked as morally disgusting. But no, Marcus special pleads God's omniscience, saying a greater good must come.

    You are not God. You are no better than I. You are equal to me and I too you. You haven't the right. God does.

    Thus the moral value of this act, and all the others in the bible, is derived by the consequences. Thus God is a consequentialist - quite probably a utilitarian. It seems that you either did not understand this, or chose to ignore it, instead interlinearly throwing in your worthless tripe.

    What's really worthless is your analysis because your arguing against the wrong God - one who is like you instead of the God in the Bible.

    I'd really rather you didn't keep reposting these points, but kept posting on one blog for easy of flow.

    My blog. I'll do what I want.

    Maybe it's a tactic so no one can follow your appalling logic.

    No, but even you should be able to follow the hyperlinks

    Also, your blog is the most clunky, memory sucking blog I have ever encountered.

    Maybe you should consider upgrading your ISP or your set up. I don't have the problem. Also videos and images do take up more space than text, too bad you are behind. If you have a PC maybe you should deframent it sometimes.

    As for your exegesis - is it not the case that you believe the bible to be literally true? Do you not receive the logic and the argument for doing this from the bible itself?

    The Bible is literally true, but not everything in it is should be taken literally. Context matters. The Bible uses descriptive and metaphoric Language at times that is obviously above your head. You should ask God to help you so you can understand His word.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If I agreed with them, we'd think we were right.

    Bankrupt or not, reality is reality.


    But would you be right? Would anyone be right in stopping you? Why? If you think that is what reality is no wonder you can't understand what the Bible says.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Also, your blog is the most clunky, memory sucking blog I have ever encountered.

    Seriously!!! And Marcus, it's only your blog. Like I said, before as soon as I encounter one other blog half as clunky as yours, I'll upgrade my computer (presumably to a cray xk6 would be required...).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Johnny; so, only Marcus's blog is slow and every other blog performs normally, and this is consistent across multiple computers, but clearly the problem is your computer. Recommended solution, defrag.

    Marcus devalues a CS degree from Berkeley with nearly everything he says.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Funny, I'm not seeing any such problems with any of my four blogs. If you don't like the speed or content. Don't come here. Plenty simple.

    By the way the polemic: "I can't refute your arguments because your blog loads too slowly" is not a decent rebuttal. But that is all Johnny P and Ryan Anderson have.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh man, that GIF kills me. The best part is that the cat does it with no problem at all!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Leave it to the christians to get a kick out of a gif of a kid likely breaking his neck.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I still haven't seen answer that's not stupid from you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I still haven't seen answer that's not stupid from you.

    Oh snap, you sure got me!!!

    And of course it's my opinion that it's vile to post a video of a kid likely breaking his neck, and it's equally vile to get a kick out of watching.

    What's your opinion?

    ReplyDelete

  16. Oh snap, you sure got me!!!


    Indeed I did. I don't even you think just how far in check you really are.

    And of course it's my opinion that it's vile to post a video of a kid likely breaking his neck, and it's equally vile to get a kick out of watching.

    What's your opinion?


    1. It's not a video.
    2. Who said it was joke?
    3. The point of the graphic is to illustrate a faceplant, not to derive joy by watching a faceplant. This puts a physically illustration to just how much of bankrupt failure yours and Johnny P's arguments really are.

    Now back to your fail. You tried to condemn Mariano and I in the assumption that we enjoy watching a young boy seemingly break his neck. Neither of us said that. But even if we were having a knee-slapping good time, according to what you have said, you can't honestly and consistently refer to our attitude as "vile" because you have no basis to ground or define what is "vile". You are the one constantly arguing that morality doesn't need an objective basis. You might be willing to be arrogant enough to try to argue that your opinion carries more weight than mine, but I'm not. Newsflash: It's not.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hahahah, I can't define words and have opinions without a belief in god? I can't honestly and consistently refer to you as a "Californian" because I have no basis to ground or define what is "Californian" is? Is it putting the word in quotes that brings god into the equation? You are truly stupid and a one trick pony.

    Marcus You tried to condemn Mariano and I in the assumption that we enjoy watching a young boy seemingly break his neck. Neither of us said that.

    Marino Oh man, that GIF kills me. The best part is that the cat does it with no problem at all!

    Yeah, right, neither of you said that. Oh man, that kills me, the best part is where you say no one said that!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ryan, regarding a fool like you, I need only one trick.

    Comparing "vile" and "Californian"? Really? A "Californian" is some one who lives in California - has no moral implication nor basis. "Vile", according to you, is only about one's own opinion.

    What you can't do is claim something is "vile" when I disagree and expect your opinion to carry any weight.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Do you have any realization how bankrupt that is?"

    Argument from Desire.

    "you'd have no reason above your own predilection to defend your right to exist."

    Where do rights exist? What are rights? How do you establish their objective existence condition?

    eg http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/oct/20/human-rights-exist?INTCMP=SRCH

    "The video defined all the questions you had. The point was that you were supposed to watch the video."

    I have watched the video, as I have many of QualiaSoup's vids. I was, however, commenting on you comments. You seem rather good at building straw men.

    "If morality is not grounded, then how do you conclude that my meaning of "ought" is wrong?"

    Firstly, you have to prove it is grounded, and prove that 'being grounded' makes any sense. Secondly, it is a non sequitur to say that because it is grounded it develops an ought. Especially since I have already set out the point that you cannot, linguistically speaking, have an intrinsic ought. If is defined by the context, although the apodosis is usually hidden / assumed.

    "No, you know what I meant. Wait you might be too stupid to know the context of what I meant."

    This really shows that you are the stupid one, but try and get away with it by attacking others for being stupid. It's a cheap and disingenuous trick. I raise the point that you need to have the apodosis in order to make sense of a conditional phrase - if...then (ought). I show this by using an example. Yes, most people would make sense of the sentence "You ought to put oil in your car" and this is because they are understanding a hidden apodosis of "If you want your car to work properly".

    You calling me stupid just shows you don't understand the point. That being you cannot have a free-standing ought. There is always an if. Usually, in moral terms, it revolves around happiness. This is even true for religious types. It can be argued that happiness is derived by getting into heaven or avoiding hell. Thus the oughts have a clear consequentialist dimension.

    I'm sure you've considered this all in your wide-ranging and highly in depth opinions on morality.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The value of morality is derived by consequence.

    Prove that. "

    Check the bible. If you can't understand this from the accounts of the Old Testament, then get back to me or do some reading on morality. Oh, and just be careful the next time you tell me, in debate, that all the suffering in the world can be accounted for the fact that we don't know the mind of God and it must be serving a greater good / purpose. Only because, with those views, you and every other Christian admit that God is a moral consequentialist. Prove it? God has ample times.


    "What's really worthless is your analysis because your arguing against the wrong God - one who is like you instead of the God in the Bible."

    Oh dear. I couldn't give a shit what god I am arguing against. If an entity commits any act for the eventual consequences it derives, then he is carrying out moral consequentialism. Go and research the Trolley Problem - morality 101. It is why Absolute Morality is untenable. While you're at it, look into the Inquiring Murderer as a criticism of Kant's Categorical Imperative (ought).

    "No, but even you should be able to follow the hyperlinks"

    Do you know how long it takes your blog pages to load? It's fricking annoying. It is not my computer. As Ryan says, it is across multiple high performance computers.

    "This puts a physically illustration to just how much of bankrupt failure yours and Johnny P's arguments really are"

    Give it a rest man. You have quite clearly shown that you don't seem to know the first thing about moral philosophy bar listening to Craig debate his appallingly bad Moral Argument which revolves, like his even worse KCA, on faulty or dubious premises. They are logically valid, but unsound arguments. All writers use badgers' guts for pens. Jimmy is a writer. Jimmy uses badgers' guts for pens. Is logically valid, but utter shite.

    So don't throw mud at people in an attempt to refute them when you need to look more closely at your own reasoning and understanding of the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In case you can't be arsed to read up, I'll do the work for you:

    When debating morality and ethics with Christian theists, scorn is often poured on secular ethicists who adhere to moral disciplines that are not grounded in God. Usually, these moral approaches are consequentialist in nature. In other words, moral actions are defined by the consequences they deliver as opposed to the intrinsic morality of the action itself. The ends justify the means. As an example, such an approach might well be utilitarianism. Though this appears in many guises (for example, act and rule utilitarianism), it basically dictates that a good action is one which derives the most ‘good’, or happiness, as a consequence.



    Theists claim that good acts are good intrinsically, and the basis for this goodness is the nature of God himself. Now, I do not want to get into the vagaries of Divine Command Theories but suffice it to say there are many good arguments against such positions.



    What is important to understand, however, is that God is not a moral absolutist; he is, at least extremely often, a moral consequentialist. In other words, God does not (again, at least very commonly) believe that actions are right or wrong, regardless of their consequences or the contexts in which the actions take place, but derive their rightness from their context or consequences.



    The proof for this is unbelievably commonplace. We could start with the sacrifice and death of Jesus. But there are far more obvious acts (or omissions). Take Noah’s flood. The death of all of humanity bar eight, the death of billions of animals and ecosystems, would strike many as being ‘not good’. Many could argue that such an action (enacted by God) is intrinsically bad. However, God nevertheless enacted this destruction. Why? Because there was a greater good that would come from it – there has to be or God cannot be labelled all-loving. The end justifies the means. God is being a consequentialist.



    Let’s look at God allowing the 2004 tsunami, allowing the Holocaust, the floods, volcanoes, fires, other tsunamis and every single natural disaster since the beginning of time... In fact, by God allowing every single bit of suffering, every single death, that has ever happened to any human being or animal since the Big Bang (or Genesis Creation) we can see that on every single occasion God has been consequentialist. The consequences of every single piece of suffering must (if God is all loving, powerful enough to have it otherwise and knowledgeable enough to know how to have it otherwise) outweigh the intrinsic ‘badness’ of the action.



    So either God (or the theist) believes that actions are not intrinsically good or bad, or the consequences of the actions are more important than the intrinsic value of the actions. Thus, even if intrinsic moral values exist as well as consequentialism, it seems that consequentialism trumps intrinsic moral value every time suffering is allowed to happen.



    Therefore, the next time you get into a debate about morality with a theist and they try to denigrate secular consequentialism, demand that they explain such a criticism in light of God’s ubiquitous reliance on the virtue of consequentialism himself.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Marcus, if I ever thought you thought my opinion carried any weight, then I would know I was doing something drastically wrong.

    And dummy, Californian = a quality. Vile = a quality.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Johnny P; as an atheist, please make sure you cease and desist from using any adjectives ever, if you ever become a theist (or does it specifically have to be the COGIC sect?) you may begin using adjectives again.

    Thanks to Marcus for the heads up.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I know Ryan, it's hilarious in the sheer enormity of his naivety.

    "you can't honestly and consistently refer to our attitude as "vile" because you have no basis to ground or define what is "vile". You are the one constantly arguing that morality doesn't need an objective basis. "

    He is now claiming that language must be objectively grounded! You are not, Ryan, entitled to a personal opinion unless it is verified as sufficiently metaphysically grounded by the Great Arbiter of Language, Marcus. Only he shall decree the veracity of conceptual claims of individuals to ensure they are, in fact, directly correlative to the inspired objective mind of God.

    You cannot think or speak, Ryan, unless it is exactly in accordance with the thoughts and words of the Almighty.



    And so the crock of crap continues.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Correction: Apologies, on re-reading an earlier post, I used 'apodosis' when I meant 'prostasis'.

    Also,


    As Thomas Wren said in Moral obligations: action, intention, and valuation, writes:

    “The moral ought is like technological oughts in that it has to do with means toward an end. These include not only external means, which are tools, and immanent means, which are actions, but also, and just as unavoidably, means one step removed from action and which are moral virtues.



    The search for justification is, so to speak, a hunting expedition for a “lost prostasis”. This is true of attempts to justify any attempts to justify non-imperative, moral or non-moral; it is also true of attempts to justify non-imperatives that are practical principles or value judgements, since, as we have seen from Hare, the assent to a value-judgement – a judgement in which a practical principle is formulated – entails assent to a correlative imperative.
    Thus nothing said so far counts as a justification for moral imperatives qua imperatives. Such as justification, if it can be given, would provide a prostasis appropriate to the imperative “Be moral”. Or to put it more simply, it would be the answer to the supremely important transmoral metaethical questions, “Why be moral?”



    Perhaps what is expressed in such sentences by the word “ought” is closer to a descriptive or structural law than to a prescriptive or commanding one.”

    (p. 83-94)

    ReplyDelete