who the f is Yochanan?!?!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-02-2013, 12:14 PM
who the f is Yochanan?!?!
are any of you aware of this article?!?! One of my god fearing students just (I teach psychology and am of the opinion that relgion is first and foremost an ego defence mech).. anywho, could someone more wise than myself break this down for me and counter it with some sense?!?!

https://www.facebook.com/notes/yochanan-...1421005921
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 12:18 PM
RE: who the f is Yochanan?!?!
I don't have Facebook, so I can't help you with that. Perhaps you could take a screenshot of the text?

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 12:29 PM
RE: who the f is Yochanan?!?!
ok, here's the job lot:

Why Atheism is non functional part 1



In my studies of philosophy I have realized two things, first that
Christian Theism is the only rational and coherent World View in making
sense of reality, and second I have particularly found the World Views
that atheism has to have as its foundation (i.e Metaphysical Naturalism,
Materialism and Physicalism) as totally incoherent and irrational in
making sense of reality...



There is so much I could speak on concerning those two points above,
so I have decided every once in a while on FB GOD Willing I am going to
show a snippet of why I have stated the above, so that others may also
see these truths...



You will often hear two claims by atheists:

1)"There is no evidence of GOD, show me evidence"...

2)"All you have is a GOD of the gaps" (basically the accusation that
"Christians" etc... fill GOD in as an explanation for the things humans
do not know or understand yet)...



I will give a brief response as to these first two initial claims:



Claim 1: First of all the atheist has a category
fallacy here, we are not arguing about the existence of a creaturely
being in which the epistlemologic parameters of evidence are already
agreed upon between the atheist and the Christian, i.e physical
evidence for a creaturely being like Big Foot that has a physical
ontology, if that was the case then of course the burden of proof would
be on the one making the claim of Big Foots existence. But we are not
debating the existence of a creaturely being in which the epistlemologic
parameters are already agreed upon, we are actually arguing the
existence of a Divine Being in which the epistlemologic parameters are
not agreed upon at all, because this being has the highest precedence of
ontology in which all of reality came from HIM and is dependent on HIM,
so if this Being is true everything in reality is proof for HIM, even
non belief in HIM is proof for HIM because if HE exists this can only be
possible in a reality in which this Being exists, if HE exists.

So to demonstrate partially what this categorical fallacy looks like
when asked the opposite way, imagine if I as a Christian asked an
atheist:

"Show me evidence of reality"

The atheist would respond:

"evidence is an aspect of that reality, I can not prove the reality by the evidence"

Well this atheist's answer works exactly the same way if the reality its self came out of and is held by GOD.



So to state as an atheist:

"There is no evidence of GOD, show me evidence"

would be like me as a Christian using the evidential parameters we
use to prove a creaturely being and saying to the atheist with this
pretense now prove Metaphysical Naturalism using that methodology.

As you can see that is a complete category fallacy as Metaphysical
Naturalism is the presuppositional belief as to the very foundation of
what reality is and you can not prove it right or wrong using that line
of broken reasoning, the same as you can not prove Christian Theism
right or wrong for exactly the same reasons using that line of broken
reasoning, because Metaphysical Naturalism and Christian Theism are
both presuppositional World View positions.



So how can we know if Christian Theism is true or Metaphysical Naturalism is true for example?

If we start with reason\rationality as an axiom, the answer is by
internal coherency of these World Views against the reality we claim the
idea the World View comes from, and therefor after looking at this I
have concluded only Christian Theism is rationally coherent and atheism
is not, and the reasons for this we will look into later...



Claim 2: This is a completely false claim, as a
Christian Theist I am not saying concerning that which "we do not
understand" I believe GOD did it, rather I am saying that "everything we
do know" only makes sense if Christian Theism is true.

Think about the logic of it, if GOD is responsible for all of reality
I am hardly going to assert that only some things GOD is responsible
for, and they being mainly the things "we do not understand yet" and the
other things in reality GOD is not responsible for.

Either GOD is the reason for all or HE is the reason for nothing at all...

The same as a Metaphysical Naturalist, they are hardly going to
approach the position as Metaphysical Naturalism being the explanation
for some things, either Metaphysical Naturalism is the foundation for
all or nothing at all. So why make that claim against a theist, it is
irrational.





Another claim an atheist might make is:

"Science disproves GOD"

First of all by science they are not talking about the scientific
method (which we will see later is only plausible as a methodology for
knowledge in a Christian Theist reality), they are rather referring to a
theory of how historical events have formed the atomic structure of
things contemporarily known in the state they are in today (i.e
evolution).

Philosophically it is totally irrational to state "Science disproves
GOD" as a physical science can not disprove a metaphysicall position, at
best it can:

1)By proving a position like the theory of evolution it can at best
disprove the Christian Theist creationist account of Genesis (which
could never really happen as it involves events of history, so at best
they can show these process they believe happened in the past happen now
and then extrapolate that back into the past) but it can not disprove a
Theist GOD's existence...

2)They claim GOD is not necessary for existence so by the law of
parsimony they factor HIM out (again this is a position that is an
assumption, it does not disprove GOD at all, at best it just makes the
assumption that the base of all reality is not upheld by GOD, but again
that metaphysical truth can not be proven wrong by physical sciences).



Comparing World Views



The scientific method is based on two premises:

1)A test must be empirical

2)A test must be repeatable



If we know something based on these two premises above then we can
say what we know is scientifically verified. But for the scientific
method to be a logically plausible position to function so that we can
truly know anything using it, the scientific method is based on two
philosophic presuppositions of reality:

1)Intelligibility (basically we can truly know things by our senses and rationality) and

2)Uniformity of nature (is the assumption that the same natural laws
and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in
the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe)



Now let us first look at whether a Metaphysical Naturalist World View
can accommodate rationally for an "1:Intelligibility" in such a reality
that in turn would then allow for the scientific method being plausible
in such a reality.



If I ask this question below to a Metaphysical Naturalist:



"When you mix baking soda with vinegar you do not put any causal
reaction down to the mixture reacting upon anger, love, hate, logic, the
right thing to do, the rational thing to do or any other emotive
causation...No you put it down to 100% blind laws of uniform
deterministic physics of cause and effect...




Now if humans are nothing more than chemicals (atoms and energy)
can you please explain how you categorically dichotomize the two and
give one an emotive, rational (etc...) causation and the other you do
not???


To clarify why would you say a person did such and such an act
because he was angry or because he thought it was the logical thing to
do, yet you would never say the baking soda and vinegar mix ever did
anything based on such an existential causation but rather only
deterministic chemistry?"




Now the Metaphysical Naturalist can not answer that question, they
are unable to give an epistlemology that is rational. So we have a
problem, because if we are to exist in a reality in which we could know
anything we have to have the presuppositions that we have an
intelligence and a will to act upon that intelligence, but based upon
our anthropological ontology in a Metaphysical Naturalist World View
those two things (intelligence and a will) can not be possible. Now we
know by existential experince that we do have intelligence and a will to
act, so we take it as axiomatic, and thus suppose we have these
properties in our nature as humans, but these things are only plausible
in a Christian Theistic reality.



First lets answer how does one objectively and naturalistically quantitatively or qualitatively define "will"?

The answer is they can not.

So how is it known?

It is only known by experience just like every other existential
property, like for example love, hate, self awareness, conciseness,
rationality, intelligence, jealousy, pain etc...All these existential
properties are only known by experience so to then say there is no "free
will" is absurd for the only reason one knows what "free will" is is
because they experience it. To deny "free will" is to deny every
existential property and that includes self awareness and intelligence.



See for the Physicalist Atheist unless he can prove something by
naturalistic objectivity he will not accept it as being part of reality,
yet he can not by naturalistic objectivity prove any of his own
existential properties and that includes intelligence and free will, yet
he must rely on these being true properties to know anything, yet he
has to deny them existing because they do not fit his epidemiological
criteria for his World View.The problem is his World View is broken (it
is incoherent and irrational)...



We by nature have immaterial parts to our anthropology and that is
why every existential property we have is immaterial. Take for example
thoughts, thoughts by nature are immaterial, in an objective and
naturalistic way there is no reason for me to believe any human body
contains thoughts, if I search a human body all I will find is chemicals
just like if I searched a cup of tea. Now the only reason I believe
that other human bodies experience thoughts and self awareness un-like a
cup of tea, is because I experience self awareness and thoughts (and I
am a human body) but there is no naturalistic or objective way to show
this.

(I am not saying when one experiences something we do not see
activity in the body (brain) but objectively all we know is there is
chemical activity in the body. But for us to then believe something is
experiencing the emotion of love or hate in those chemicals reacting is
only believed by that persons testimony and we trust their testimony not
because we can naturalisticaly prove the emotion of love or hate
exists, but we trust it exists in them because we believe it exist in us
and we only believe that because we experience it...)



Because of problems like this, that is why a leading proponent of Neo-Darwinistic evolution has to say something as stupid as:

"consciousness is an illusion" (Daniel Dennett)

to keep to the logical postion of Metaphysical Naturalism, yet if
consciousness is an illusion we can know no more than a dead person as
we are no more conscious etc... this is the sort of irrationality that
has to come out from holding to such a stupid World View...



So the Metaphsical Naturalist has no bases for the philosophic
position of "1:Intelligibility" and therefor can not rely on premise one
of the scientific method (1:A test must be empirical). So science is
only logically functional if Christian Theism is true, because we are
made in the immaterial existential image of GOD that functions through
matter but is not a function of matter, sure it can be limited and
affected by matter, but our immaterial Being is not a function of
matter.

Now lets look at "2:Uniformity of nature" from the Metaphsical
Naturalist position. Now there is two ways I could look at this, the
complicated way or the very simple way, both have the same conclusions
so I am going to keep this simple.

First let me explain what the uniformity of nature is, it is
the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in
the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and
apply everywhere in the universe.

Uniformity of nature being true is very important as these laws that
we believe have been and are uniform must be uniform for us to know
anything because all of our reality is railed on them, that includes our
thinking (the laws of logic), our memory, our senses etc...



Now a Christian Theist has a reason why reality is and should be
uniform in their World View because GOD's nature is unchanging, yet
a Metaphsical Naturalist has no reason for why reality should be uniform
in their World View, they must just rely on this by faith according to
their World View.

The only problem is, is that if the Metaphysical Naturalist World
View is true then the origin of the universe and it's nature that relies
on a singularity can then logically in turn not rely on the uniformity
of nature as well, as the two are incompatible together.

This is because the very nature that we trust is uniform came by an
non uniform singularity (this is to say the universe it's self did not
come from any known uniform cause of nature). Now if that is true nature
as we know it came from a non uniform singularity, and thus nature can
not be relied on to be uniform because if it was truly uniform it could
not exist and so nature by it's own nature is non uniform, yet we can
only know anything in nature because of uniformity. So according to
the Metaphysical Naturalist position there is no reason to believe the
future will be uniform (thus everything we know now will mean nothing)
and there is no reason to believe that nature has not had
several singularity\changes in the past (in fact we have to believe the
properties of nature changed at least once), and how would we know if
nature had? as our senses and memory rely on these laws. This is
why cosmology has lead Metaphysical Naturalism to a loose end:



"Astronomy leads us to a unique event a universe which was
created out of nothing, one with a very delicate balance needed to
provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life and one
which has a underlying one might say super natural plan
" - Arno Penzias the man who co-discovered the Radiation Echo...



"Astronomers have now found they have painted themselves into a
corner because they have proven by their own methods that the world
began abruptly in act of creation in which it can trace the seeds of
every star, planet and living thing in this cosmos and on the earth and
they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they can
not hope to discover, that there are what I or any one would call super
natural forces at work is now a scientifically proven fact
" - Robert Jastrow



"The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly super natural" - Arthur Eddington (thee contemporary of Einstein who was an expert in General Relativity)



"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a Super
Intellect has monkied with physics, chemistry and biology and that
there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature
" - Sir Fred Hoyle



Now a Christian Theist can rely on both the uniformity of nature
and singularities, because if the GOD of Christian Theism holds up
reality then:

1)The uniformity is held together by HIS never changing nature and

2)The singularities come about by HIS will



Now this has been a very simple look at the uniformity of nature, I
could of made it a lot more complicated but the conclusion is the same
so I found it unnecessary as if any one has questions concerning this
answer I can answers their queries in the comments section below:



Colossians 1

15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For
by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible
and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all
things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 12:30 PM
RE: who the f is Yochanan?!?!
(07-02-2013 12:18 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I don't have Facebook, so I can't help you with that. Perhaps you could take a screenshot of the text?

Quote:Why Atheism is non functional part 1

In my studies of philosophy I have realized two things, first that Christian Theism is the only rational and coherent World View in making sense of reality, and second I have particularly found the World Views that atheism has to have as its foundation (i.e Metaphysical Naturalism, Materialism and Physicalism) as totally incoherent and irrational in making sense of reality...

There is so much I could speak on concerning those two points above, so I have decided every once in a while on FB GOD Willing I am going to show a snippet of why I have stated the above, so that others may also see these truths...

You will often hear two claims by atheists:
1)"There is no evidence of GOD, show me evidence"...
2)"All you have is a GOD of the gaps" (basically the accusation that "Christians" etc... fill GOD in as an explanation for the things humans do not know or understand yet)...

I will give a brief response as to these first two initial claims:

Claim 1: First of all the atheist has a category fallacy here, we are not arguing about the existence of a creaturely being in which the epistlemologic parameters of evidence are already agreed upon between the atheist and the Christian, i.e physical evidence for a creaturely being like Big Foot that has a physical ontology, if that was the case then of course the burden of proof would be on the one making the claim of Big Foots existence. But we are not debating the existence of a creaturely being in which the epistlemologic parameters are already agreed upon, we are actually arguing the existence of a Divine Being in which the epistlemologic parameters are not agreed upon at all, because this being has the highest precedence of ontology in which all of reality came from HIM and is dependent on HIM, so if this Being is true everything in reality is proof for HIM, even non belief in HIM is proof for HIM because if HE exists this can only be possible in a reality in which this Being exists, if HE exists.
So to demonstrate partially what this categorical fallacy looks like when asked the opposite way, imagine if I as a Christian asked an atheist:
"Show me evidence of reality"
The atheist would respond:
"evidence is an aspect of that reality, I can not prove the reality by the evidence"
Well this atheist's answer works exactly the same way if the reality its self came out of and is held by GOD.

So to state as an atheist:
"There is no evidence of GOD, show me evidence"
would be like me as a Christian using the evidential parameters we use to prove a creaturely being and saying to the atheist with this pretense now prove Metaphysical Naturalism using that methodology.
As you can see that is a complete category fallacy as Metaphysical Naturalism is the presuppositional belief as to the very foundation of what reality is and you can not prove it right or wrong using that line of broken reasoning, the same as you can not prove Christian Theism right or wrong for exactly the same reasons using that line of broken reasoning, because Metaphysical Naturalism and Christian Theism are both presuppositional World View positions.

So how can we know if Christian Theism is true or Metaphysical Naturalism is true for example?
If we start with reason\rationality as an axiom, the answer is by internal coherency of these World Views against the reality we claim the idea the World View comes from, and therefor after looking at this I have concluded only Christian Theism is rationally coherent and atheism is not, and the reasons for this we will look into later...

Claim 2: This is a completely false claim, as a Christian Theist I am not saying concerning that which "we do not understand" I believe GOD did it, rather I am saying that "everything we do know" only makes sense if Christian Theism is true.
Think about the logic of it, if GOD is responsible for all of reality I am hardly going to assert that only some things GOD is responsible for, and they being mainly the things "we do not understand yet" and the other things in reality GOD is not responsible for.
Either GOD is the reason for all or HE is the reason for nothing at all...
The same as a Metaphysical Naturalist, they are hardly going to approach the position as Metaphysical Naturalism being the explanation for some things, either Metaphysical Naturalism is the foundation for all or nothing at all. So why make that claim against a theist, it is irrational.


Another claim an atheist might make is:
"Science disproves GOD"
First of all by science they are not talking about the scientific method (which we will see later is only plausible as a methodology for knowledge in a Christian Theist reality), they are rather referring to a theory of how historical events have formed the atomic structure of things contemporarily known in the state they are in today (i.e evolution).
Philosophically it is totally irrational to state "Science disproves GOD" as a physical science can not disprove a metaphysicall position, at best it can:
1)By proving a position like the theory of evolution it can at best disprove the Christian Theist creationist account of Genesis (which could never really happen as it involves events of history, so at best they can show these process they believe happened in the past happen now and then extrapolate that back into the past) but it can not disprove a Theist GOD's existence...
2)They claim GOD is not necessary for existence so by the law of parsimony they factor HIM out (again this is a position that is an assumption, it does not disprove GOD at all, at best it just makes the assumption that the base of all reality is not upheld by GOD, but again that metaphysical truth can not be proven wrong by physical sciences).

Comparing World Views

The scientific method is based on two premises:
1)A test must be empirical
2)A test must be repeatable

If we know something based on these two premises above then we can say what we know is scientifically verified. But for the scientific method to be a logically plausible position to function so that we can truly know anything using it, the scientific method is based on two philosophic presuppositions of reality:
1)Intelligibility (basically we can truly know things by our senses and rationality) and
2)Uniformity of nature (is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe)

Now let us first look at whether a Metaphysical Naturalist World View can accommodate rationally for an "1:Intelligibility" in such a reality that in turn would then allow for the scientific method being plausible in such a reality.

If I ask this question below to a Metaphysical Naturalist:

"When you mix baking soda with vinegar you do not put any causal reaction down to the mixture reacting upon anger, love, hate, logic, the right thing to do, the rational thing to do or any other emotive causation...No you put it down to 100% blind laws of uniform deterministic physics of cause and effect...

Now if humans are nothing more than chemicals (atoms and energy) can you please explain how you categorically dichotomize the two and give one an emotive, rational (etc...) causation and the other you do not???
To clarify why would you say a person did such and such an act because he was angry or because he thought it was the logical thing to do, yet you would never say the baking soda and vinegar mix ever did anything based on such an existential causation but rather only deterministic chemistry?"

Now the Metaphysical Naturalist can not answer that question, they are unable to give an epistlemology that is rational. So we have a problem, because if we are to exist in a reality in which we could know anything we have to have the presuppositions that we have an intelligence and a will to act upon that intelligence, but based upon our anthropological ontology in a Metaphysical Naturalist World View those two things (intelligence and a will) can not be possible. Now we know by existential experince that we do have intelligence and a will to act, so we take it as axiomatic, and thus suppose we have these properties in our nature as humans, but these things are only plausible in a Christian Theistic reality.

First lets answer how does one objectively and naturalistically quantitatively or qualitatively define "will"?
The answer is they can not.
So how is it known?
It is only known by experience just like every other existential property, like for example love, hate, self awareness, conciseness, rationality, intelligence, jealousy, pain etc...All these existential properties are only known by experience so to then say there is no "free will" is absurd for the only reason one knows what "free will" is is because they experience it. To deny "free will" is to deny every existential property and that includes self awareness and intelligence.

See for the Physicalist Atheist unless he can prove something by naturalistic objectivity he will not accept it as being part of reality, yet he can not by naturalistic objectivity prove any of his own existential properties and that includes intelligence and free will, yet he must rely on these being true properties to know anything, yet he has to deny them existing because they do not fit his epidemiological criteria for his World View.The problem is his World View is broken (it is incoherent and irrational)...

We by nature have immaterial parts to our anthropology and that is why every existential property we have is immaterial. Take for example thoughts, thoughts by nature are immaterial, in an objective and naturalistic way there is no reason for me to believe any human body contains thoughts, if I search a human body all I will find is chemicals just like if I searched a cup of tea. Now the only reason I believe that other human bodies experience thoughts and self awareness un-like a cup of tea, is because I experience self awareness and thoughts (and I am a human body) but there is no naturalistic or objective way to show this.
(I am not saying when one experiences something we do not see activity in the body (brain) but objectively all we know is there is chemical activity in the body. But for us to then believe something is experiencing the emotion of love or hate in those chemicals reacting is only believed by that persons testimony and we trust their testimony not because we can naturalisticaly prove the emotion of love or hate exists, but we trust it exists in them because we believe it exist in us and we only believe that because we experience it...)

Because of problems like this, that is why a leading proponent of Neo-Darwinistic evolution has to say something as stupid as:
"consciousness is an illusion" (Daniel Dennett)
to keep to the logical postion of Metaphysical Naturalism, yet if consciousness is an illusion we can know no more than a dead person as we are no more conscious etc... this is the sort of irrationality that has to come out from holding to such a stupid World View...

So the Metaphsical Naturalist has no bases for the philosophic position of "1:Intelligibility" and therefor can not rely on premise one of the scientific method (1:A test must be empirical). So science is only logically functional if Christian Theism is true, because we are made in the immaterial existential image of GOD that functions through matter but is not a function of matter, sure it can be limited and affected by matter, but our immaterial Being is not a function of matter.
Now lets look at "2:Uniformity of nature" from the Metaphsical Naturalist position. Now there is two ways I could look at this, the complicated way or the very simple way, both have the same conclusions so I am going to keep this simple.
First let me explain what the uniformity of nature is, it is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.
Uniformity of nature being true is very important as these laws that we believe have been and are uniform must be uniform for us to know anything because all of our reality is railed on them, that includes our thinking (the laws of logic), our memory, our senses etc...

Now a Christian Theist has a reason why reality is and should be uniform in their World View because GOD's nature is unchanging, yet a Metaphsical Naturalist has no reason for why reality should be uniform in their World View, they must just rely on this by faith according to their World View.
The only problem is, is that if the Metaphysical Naturalist World View is true then the origin of the universe and it's nature that relies on a singularity can then logically in turn not rely on the uniformity of nature as well, as the two are incompatible together.
This is because the very nature that we trust is uniform came by an non uniform singularity (this is to say the universe it's self did not come from any known uniform cause of nature). Now if that is true nature as we know it came from a non uniform singularity, and thus nature can not be relied on to be uniform because if it was truly uniform it could not exist and so nature by it's own nature is non uniform, yet we can only know anything in nature because of uniformity. So according to the Metaphysical Naturalist position there is no reason to believe the future will be uniform (thus everything we know now will mean nothing) and there is no reason to believe that nature has not had several singularity\changes in the past (in fact we have to believe the properties of nature changed at least once), and how would we know if nature had? as our senses and memory rely on these laws. This is why cosmology has lead Metaphysical Naturalism to a loose end:

"Astronomy leads us to a unique event a universe which was created out of nothing, one with a very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life and one which has a underlying one might say super natural plan" - Arno Penzias the man who co-discovered the Radiation Echo...

"Astronomers have now found they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven by their own methods that the world began abruptly in act of creation in which it can trace the seeds of every star, planet and living thing in this cosmos and on the earth and they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they can not hope to discover, that there are what I or any one would call super natural forces at work is now a scientifically proven fact" - Robert Jastrow

"The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly super natural" - Arthur Eddington (thee contemporary of Einstein who was an expert in General Relativity)

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a Super Intellect has monkied with physics, chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature" - Sir Fred Hoyle

Now a Christian Theist can rely on both the uniformity of nature and singularities, because if the GOD of Christian Theism holds up reality then:
1)The uniformity is held together by HIS never changing nature and
2)The singularities come about by HIS will

Now this has been a very simple look at the uniformity of nature, I could of made it a lot more complicated but the conclusion is the same so I found it unnecessary as if any one has questions concerning this answer I can answers their queries in the comments section below:

Colossians 1
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
[Image: 547027_3580887375043_1708474073_n.jpg]

Godzilla Kitten, Directed by J.J. Abrams
[Image: Kineoprojectfinished3_zps79916ea4.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kineo's post
07-02-2013, 12:31 PM
RE: who the f is Yochanan?!?!
Woops, sorry to double-post the content...

Godzilla Kitten, Directed by J.J. Abrams
[Image: Kineoprojectfinished3_zps79916ea4.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 12:41 PM
RE: who the f is Yochanan?!?!
Equivocation, straw men, and philosobull. I'm not going to waste time deconstructing the whole thing, but he's basically saying, "If you aren't a Christian, then the Christian world view doesn't make sense, and if the Christian world view doesn't make sense then the universe cannot function!" Then he goes on to say that atheists cannot prove consciousness or free will, therefore their worldview must be faulty.


If he has the sliminess and charisma to back it up he could make a shot at being the next WLC Jr.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Phaedrus's post
07-02-2013, 12:54 PM
RE: who the f is Yochanan?!?!
Thanks, kineo and paulhe.

Now, what exactly is it about that text that you feel needs to be countered?

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 01:03 PM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2013 01:06 PM by kim.)
RE: who the f is Yochanan?!?!
Quote: If the Christian world view doesn't make sense then the universe cannot function.

I think they pretty much all say that and it is certainly very deeply ingrained in their psyche. I don't know how many theists I've encountered who simply can not fathom unbelief or non-faith.

It wears one thin... and I'm skinny enough. Dodgy

Oh, and you asked....

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
07-02-2013, 01:04 PM
RE: who the f is Yochanan?!?!
Quote:But we are not debating the existence of a creaturely being in which the epistlemologic parameters are already agreed upon, we are actually arguing the existence of a Divine Being in which the epistlemologic parameters are not agreed upon at all, because this being has the highest precedence of ontology in which all of reality came from HIM and is dependent on HIM, so if this Being is true everything in reality is proof for HIM, even non belief in HIM is proof for HIM because if HE exists this can only be possible in a reality in which this Being exists, if HE exists.
Holy run-on sentence Batman... I can't work out what he's saying in the underlined portion of the text.


How does he reach the conclusion that non-believe in God is proof for the existence of God? Is this more of the "you can't believe in something that doesn't exist" line of reasoning?

From what I can tell, his reasoning is, "Everything that exists is evidence of a Creator."

None of this accounts for the simple fact that if God existed and created everyone and everything, and failed to make His presence known beyond all doubt, then the failure is His, not His creation's.

Godzilla Kitten, Directed by J.J. Abrams
[Image: Kineoprojectfinished3_zps79916ea4.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-02-2013, 01:10 PM
RE: who the f is Yochanan?!?!
(07-02-2013 01:04 PM)kineo Wrote:  None of this accounts for the simple fact that if God existed and created everyone and everything, and failed to make His presence known beyond all doubt, then the failure is His, not His creation's.

Yea, but ... yea, but ... but ... but ... Yahweh is gracious!!! Sadcryface2 Laughat

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: