Look, I genuinely think you are being a bit delusional here, and let me explain why. You seem to have opinions of your logical argumentation that exceed reality. Take the simple premise “God is perfect”. You wasted time equivocating on the meaning of this word without realising that it wasn’t important to the argument at all. You could have substituted perfect with A and followed that God created A-ly. All things in the universe (tsunamis etc) merely contribute to the notion that the world is A.
The meaning of "perfect" is not a irrelevant. If we don't agree on what "perfect" means an argument that depends on describing reality, the world, or God makes no sense. The reason you think it doesn't matter because then you are free to poor whatever meaning you want into it and play around. I'm interested in making rational arguments and common ground is needed. I can see that we are not using the same definitions so I wanted to do was clarify what you mean. You are the one who said philosophy was needed to establish epistemology - how do we know what we say we know. You have refused to do that and then claim I am delusional. Cute.
And then you spout nonsense like this: “Too hot for you”
I apologize that I obviously offended you. But what other conclusion do you expect me to draw. All I have gotten from you were attacks about how I don't understand what you are saying when I have clearly stated what you are saying, answered your questions, and you ignore mine. Either this is too much for you or you don't understand what I am saying. Which is it?
The reason I am refusing to continue debating you is because, not only do you keep making blunders as above, but you make comments like this:
Johnny P, you say will refuse to debate me and then go on for several more paragraphs. You'd have more time it you would directly answer me.
“I'm saying that God in his omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscent chose to create a life-sustaining universe that now has plate tectonics. When the earth was first formed - there was one land mass. One of two things is true. When God first made earth, there was no earthquakes and it was not part of the prefect design or earthquakes are a consequence of the fall. I don't know but both of these possibilities fit the Christian worldview and does not not conflict with science.”
This really is utterly stupid. Harsh, but in reality, not harsh enough. To admit that you entertain both of those theories is enough to warn me off ever conversing with you again.
What part of it offend you? The thought that there was once a time when all the land on earth was one land mass or the thought that our sins and depravity caused the earth to deteriorate to the point that life-ending natural disasters were brought into being? If you knew about plate tectonics, you could not have a problem with the first statement. It's science.. As for the second, it's a theological thought. Agree or disagree - whatever but to dismiss either out of hand without explanation is either ignorant or lazy. Take your pick, I don't know.
Look, from this comment it is abundantly clear that we simply CANNOT debate. Why? Well, the world is full of people making empirical observations and creating (testable) theories based on these observations. These can be disproved using the scientific method, the best method for achieving cumulative accuracy that there is.
Empirical evidence tells us that the earth was at one time one land mass and that continent eventually broke up due to guess what? Plate Tectonics. Just what exactly do you think that science can disprove about what I've written? Couldn't you have been clearer?
YOU, however, take those observations, and sweep them under the carpet / stuff them down your pants / pretend they don’t exist. Your two ‘theories’ or ‘ideas’ are hilarious.
You mean the earth wasn't one land mass one time? Do you really wanna argue that?
They are hilarious because if you knew the first thing about cosmology or geology, you would know that they are empirically disprovable.
Where is your evidence that the earth wasn't one land mass?
We know EXACTLY why and how plate tectonics work. We know how planets form. Heck, scientists reckon they have even empirically seen it off the star T Chamaeleontis. So it is pointless debating with you when you can simply claim any theory out of your arse while ignoring all empirical data. It renders the collection of all such data pointless.
And exactly how does any of that disprove what I said? C'mon you must be able to be clearer than that.You would have to throw out Pangea and what we know from Geology and how plate tectonics works. Wither you are mistaken or you have not clearly said or thought about what you are trying to say.
It is my opinion that you should never receive medical help, you have no right to use the internet and modern technology. All of these things are a result of the scientific method which helps to accumulate knowledge and develop everything.
That has always seemed like one of the stupidest arguments I have ever heard. Science is how I make living. Science is one of God's gifts to humanity. I wouldn't deny it anymore than I would refuse to breath. And you have yet to show how anything I have said is scientifically wrong. You just don't like it. I don't care about your opinion.
In my opinion, Johnny P, you seem to be just making excuses. Adding insult to injury with you condescension.
You, however, decide to ignore any science that may harm your worldview, and use only that which doesn’t harm your worldview in a world of cherry-picking.
Show me where I have done that.
Such double standards are hypocritical. My partner’s daughter in her first year of a geology degree could disprove your crazy ideas in an instance. Go and read some cosmology. Go and learn.
Again - was the earth one land mass at a single time in the distant past or not? Won't answer or can't? I bet she could.
Don’t argue out of your depth. Get the philosophical training and the ancillary knowledge to deserve a place at the debating table with people who clearly have a better idea of science and logic. Good day to you, and don’t you dare say anything like ‘it’s too hot for me’ since you seem to struggle to argue yourself out of a paper bag and I really do have better things to do.
Johnny P, you won't even step into the paper bag and won't even agree to making some epistemological foundation. You have not shown that you have any idea of science and logic so I really don't feel bad if you never comment here again I'll just pray that God has mercy on you and bring him to yourself. Some one may get through to you even if I don't.
Incidentally, I was reading the conversation you had on DC some time ago and I had to cringe.
http://debunkingchristianity.
Examples of your superb logic:
"He isn't right because he's smarter or has some special interpretation you are too stupid to understand. He is right because he agrees with God"
I guess you would have to prove that God doesn't agree or that there is no God,. Good luck with that.
"your own sins affect others around you - even those not yet born. "
And your problem is?
"That is true no matter who you and where you live. I'm suggesting that God created everything and placed you in the best possible place at the best possible time with all the life experiences that would best lead you to God."
Acts 17. Can you demonstrate this as false?
".I'm not a universalist because the sacrifice was too high for God to redeem His people for everyone to just get a pass."
Do you know what a universalist is?
"I didn't say Adam and Eve were enslaved to sin...We are." - but God knew that Adam and Eve would do what they did at creation, so who is ultimately responsible. He chose that outcome over and above any other outcome. Oh yeah, and you're a fool to think Adam and Eve actually existed. Again, empirically false.
"all people are evil and deserving of Hell."
Tell me, how would you go about disproving that scientifically? Again, I think defining "evil" would help you understand what I said, because you probably did not. Oh wait, can we try something simpler? How about using your "knowledge" of the Christian Worldview to show that is now what Christians believe.
"I'm not a young earth creationist and neither" and yet you believe in Adam and Eve and some very strange ideas of plate tectonics etc.
Guess you don't know what a Young Earth Creationist is. Given the level of ignorance of plate tectonics and the Bible you have shown, can't say I'm surprised.
etc etc
By and large, Johnny P., you claim I am not worth your time talking to yet you look up my previous posts and you just go on and on about how wrong I am with no substantiation or context or demonstration. Who are you that your opinion should carry weight. Seems all your writing is good for is instigating facepalms. Thanks for the laughs however.
What had happen' was.....: FacePalm of th Day #134 - Responding to Johnny P World and does God have Free Will? Part 3
Sweet bejesus, you are incredible and not in a good way. Your first two paragraphs show why I do not further want to deal with your points about my original post. If you can't understand the format of the logical argument, still, then it really does show you don't have a clue.
ReplyDeleteLook, we don't have to agree on perfect since the argument has nothing to do with my beliefs. I don't believe that God exists at all, so what form his perfection is, is irrelevant to me. Because it's not about me. It is about the classical theistic position that God is perfect. All we need to know is that the Christian believes that God is perfect. From here, it follows that his creation must be perfect too (whatever that is). It later follows that tsunamis etc must be events and soforth which are ingredients for a perfect world. The fact that you fail to grasp this, shift the burden of proof and produce red herring after red herring shows quite clearly that you are out of your depth.
OK, on to science:
You claim this:
“When God first made earth, there was no earthquakes and it was not part of the prefect design or earthquakes are a consequence of the fall. I don't know but both of these possibilities fit the Christian worldview and does not not conflict with science”
OK. 1) earthquakes were not originally part of the perfect design (are you now finally admitting to the premises of my argument?!). How did they then become part of the actualised design without God realising they would actualise. You imply this imperfects the design and yet God would not have known about it in advance! Either it happened naturalistically, or supernaturally. Either way, the design and passive allowance of it to happen is clearly the behest of God. And therefore, since it was in this wordly actualisation, it must be part of the design. If I design a machine and infallibly know that smoke will billow out of the third hole on the right, then this is part of the design in the same way that knowing the widget will tap the sprocket to make the gasket work. He either knew earthquakes would come from the natural parameters he set out, or that they would come from the other parameters he set.
2) earthquakes are the consequence of the fall. This is where you apply ridiculous unscientific reasoning since it assumes:
a) plate tectonics appeared after man. Empirically disprovable.
b) naturalistic events of material causality can be caused by abstract ideas (which by philosophical definition are causally inert).
c) Adam and Eve existed as the first humans. If you don’t bury your head in the sand, you would know this is empirically disprovable through human geography, palaeontology, anthropology and genetics.
You defy science (or philosophy) on all of the above points. This is cherry-picking. This is why I claim you live a life of hypocrisy. Accepting science (and thus the scientific method) that agrees with your worldview, and rejecting any science which doesn’t. If you can’t see this, then you are wearing blinkers.
As for universalism and YEC, of course I know what they are. Sheesh. (I have written about them both in my last book).
And the use of your quote “I'm suggesting that God created everything and placed you in the best possible place at the best possible time with all the life experiences that would best lead you to God.”
…simply illustrated an implicit acceptance of my argument.
You will slag me off with ad homs and silly naïve jibes. Fair enough, it shows the defensive tactics you need to blind people to the fact you have been ‘outclassed’. I too have ad hommed, but out of sheer disbelief that what should be an intelligent human can arrive at such erroneous conclusions. My logical argument was so simple at the beginning and you failed to critique it in any kind of logical manner.
I have had the time to write this in watching the All Blacks stuff the Wallabies in the first half of the RWC semi-final. The RWC is certainly time well spent.
Oh, and I apologise as I said I wouldn't post anything else. So this is going back on my word. It was just that I was listening to a fellow believer of yours, Dr Phil Fernandes (Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion degree from Greenwich University, Master of Arts in Religion degree from Liberty University, Bachelor of Theology Degree from Columbia Evangelical Seminary.), in a debate with Lowder (in which he got trounced).
ReplyDeleteI thought these quotes from the lips of someone who you have previously respected and agreed with in several of your posts. Moreover, you have dedicated posts just to him:
"As a classical theist, I believe God created the world perfect."
"A theist ... would have to argue that this is the greatest possible way to achieve the greatest possible world... God often uses evil and human suffering to draw people to himself. Now God's ways and thoughts are far above our understanding and even the Scriptures state that. At best atheistic arguments show that limited minds can't fully understand why God allows so much evil..."
So even he agrees with my argument in principle. If this is the greatest possible set of parameters to create the world, and given we empirically know that plate tectonics preceded humanity (even you admit the movements wrt pangea etc.), then these evils brought on by things existent before human free will are clearly designed in by God. Since it was a perfect creation, these must be ingredients in that perfect creation. This was brought up in several guises in said debate and Fernandes simply appealed to the omniscience escape clause. Incidentally, cherry picking of science would be to accept the history and timeline of geological movements, such as pangea, but not to accept the evolution and journey of man in favour of Adam and Eve. THAT is DOUBLE STANDARDS.
You, however, fail to grasp the argument as others do.
So all your rhetoric about me can be aimed at Fernandes, who seems to understand the issue at hand, even if he just appeals to the 'knowledge of the gaps' argument of divine omniscience as to why these things are necessary for a perfect world.
Oh, and like Columbo, one more thing...
ReplyDeleteI teach plate tectonics (albeit to a basic level), so I have a fair grasp, thank you very much.
Response is found at http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/10/facepalm-of-th-day-136-responding-to.html
ReplyDelete