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.
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."
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