They can't/won't/don't, so they can't comment here.
I expect conversations here to be fact-based, not delusional or non-factual.”
This is an amazing example of a complete absence of self awareness, in immunity from one’s own hypocrisy, and of a spectacular double standard.
You know what’ll really get your comments deleted, pointing out Truth. That’s the kiss of death.
23 comments:
I don't get how he believes himself the ultimate arbiter of reality, particularly when there is so much truth he either roundly dismisses, or dances around.
But just for fun, let's assume we're totally delusional as he clearly needs us to be. One would think a bright boy like Dan could easily disabuse us of our delusion with facts, evidence, logic and the like.
The truth is that the charge of delusion comes out when facts, evidence, logic and the like weigh so clearly and heavily against him. It's why I have no fear of allowing his comments at my blog...not that he has the courage to defend himself where he has no control...and continue to do so.
The charge of delusion is simply another version of the race card to Dan. It relieves him of the obligation to address questions that expose the holes and flaws of his far left and anti-Christian ideology. Then banishment follows until we respond in a manner that feeds his fascistic demands.
So I post as I am moved to do so and if he deletes, he deletes.
I agree. There have been multiple times where I’ve explicitly told Dan that he has the opportunity to actually prove me to be everything he’s claimed I am, strangely enough I can’t recall when he’s actually taken the opportunity to do so.
He’s definitely not much for proving things.
Here you go, Marshall: One delusion that you can dismiss.
We have no way of objectively proving in any rational sense what God thinks or even if God exists. We just can't. If we could, then Christians would have done so and everyone would see it and we can move on with the assumption that we DO know God exists and thinks 1, 2, 3, etc.
But we simply can't. No matter how much we might all wish we could, we can't.
But do you accept that reality (and it is reality that you can't objectively prove that God exists or what God thinks, objectively, about abortion or lesbian gals getting married...) OR do you cling to the unreality, the delusion, that you CAN "prove" objectively that God exists and that you know what God thinks about abortion and marriage?
Show me that you recognize the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact.
In this case, since YOUR type are the ones making the claims, the onus is on you to support the claim or admit that you can't. All I have to do is point out the reality that you can't or at least no one ever has yet.
Demonstrate that you're not delusional.
Dan,
I’ve asked this multiple times before, I’ll ask it again. There are numerous people who have offered numerous proofs of the existence of God. Until you can debunk at least a few of those using objectively probable facts, I don’t see how you can make such a sweeping claim of fact.
You have a habit of simply asserting that something is “true” as if making the assertion is somehow you making a claim that doesn’t have to be proven.
The best you could claim without offering actual proof, would be that nothing has been proven to your satisfaction. Which raises its own question, but at least eliminates the possibility that your claim is objectively true.
I’ll pick a few arguments that have been offered when I have some more time, start a separate thread, and give you the opportunity to back up your claim with objective evidence.
Craig, I've explained this multiple times before, I'll explain it again.
IF someone is making an OBJECTIVE CLAIM OF Fact ("IT IS OBJECTIVELY FACTUAL THAT ALIENS FROM OTHER PLANETS EXIST AND TRAVEL BY MEANS OF TELEPORTATION!"), THEN the onus is on that person to support the claim.
There have been many people (myself included) who have made a REASONABLE CASE for God's existence ("Here is why I think it is reasonable to believe that a good, loving God exists..."), but that is different than saying "It is an OBJECTIVE, ESTABLISHED FACT that God exists and I can prove it...!" IF someone makes that claim, they have to support it.
All anyone else has to do is note, "That is not objectively factual or provable" to their SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS when they cite subjective opinions. We don't have to disprove the initial claim, only note that they have not supported it with objective provable demonstrable data.
NO ONE has ever offered an objectively demonstrable case for God. We've offered our reasoned subjective opinions.
And that is for the mere existence of God... much less that God holds certain opinions about abortion as objective facts.
YOU can not prove the claim, not as an objective fact.
If you could, then you would. IF any of the people you cite could, they would. You collectively can't.
Not "proven to my satisfaction," but PROVEN AS AN OBJECTIVE FACT.
If I claim that I have a tan Ford Focus car out in front of my house, I can prove it as an objective fact. It's not a matter "proving it to someone's satisfaction..." It just DOES exist. Objectively provable MEANS something.
Jesus, Craig! You don’t the first thing about faith. No one has ever proved God’s existence. Nor can we! What do you think the word, faith, means?! Oh my god!!
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.”
Since the Enlightenment, philosophers of Christian faith have offered interpretive arguments arguments for God’s existence asked on the faculty of reason alone, but even they don’t propose that such a thing is incontrovertible proof beyond doubt. Leibniz, Spinoza, et al, are all christian philosophers you despise anyway: the forerunners of text critical Christians who understand the ancient character of scripture cannot be squeezed into modern desire for infallibility.
God but you are uneducated and ignorant when it comes to your deepest commitments. And that’s precisely where your brutality enters.
Don’t bother posting. I have to send this around to Marshal and Stan to show how corrupt your theology and theirs is.
Dan,
I’ve done this before, cited numerous arguments for the existence of God, and your response was silence.
You seem oblivious to the inherent contradiction in your comment.
You state that anyone who makes a claim of fact must be able to “support that claim”, yet you frequently make claims of fact without supporting them.
So, instead of bitching and yelling, why not be patient and wait until I I’ve time to give you the opportunity to demonstrate the flaws of the arguments that have been made. Isn’t it more rational to deal with the reality of the actual claims instead of making blanket statements that you won’t prove?
I respond with silence to people offering their OPINIONS about things they can't prove because they are welcome to their SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS. But they have not/do not/can not offer objective facts to support their opinions, so there's not anything to respond to.
What part of "PROVE IT, OBJECTIVELY" are you failing to understand?
If someone says, "Reason dictates that something can not come from nothing..." I agree with that reasoning. If someone continues to say, "Therefore, the Universe CAN'T have come from nothing..." I also agree with that reasoning, it's sound.
BUT when someone moves to "Therefore, it must be GOD that created the universe..." and don't offer factual support for that fact claim, they have moved to subjective opinion. And it's fine as a subjective opinion, but it's not an objectively proven fact.
Objectively provable means something.
Yes objectively provable does mean something, it means something that I can’t recall you doing with any of the claims you’ve made.
What’s interesting is that you’re attempting to force me into “proving” a claim you’re making and defending a position that I don’t believe is necessary.
You’re demanding a standard of 100% objective “proof” that God exists, yet virtually no one requires such a standard for anything else.
The point isn’t that it’s possible to meet your (ultimately subjective) standard, the point is that there are plenty of compelling arguments that meet a reasonable standard of proof and you’re unable or unwilling to demonstrate the flaws, instead you decide a priori that they don’t measure up to your version of “objective@ and dismiss them as unworthy.
In much the same way, you dismiss the testimony of scripture as objectively authoritative in any fashion.
But, well done, you’ve demanded an unrealistic standard of proof (what you find to be objective), and tried to get me to defend your standard.
You don't understand "objective." Keep trying.
You just can't bring yourself to say it out loud or in print, can you? You can't say...
"I am unable to objectively prove the existence of God. Period."
...can you?
You can't say...
"it is not an objectively provable fact that God opposes abortion. Period."
...Can you?
What’s fascinating in these last two comments is the lack of self awareness and the double standard.
You claim I “can’t admit” something I’ve never claimed to be able to do, something that I don’t believe is necessary, something you demand, yet you can’t admit that your first claim in your first sentence of the last comment thread was simply false.
Get this through your head, I’ve never demanded 100% objective proof of God’s existence. I’ve made multiple comments and written posts about this.
You’re right, I rarely “admit” to things I don’t believe or haven’t claimed.
I understand what you’re trying to do, it’s even sort of clever. It’s all about reducing things to human opinion, without providing and way to judge human opinion other than your subjective prejudices.
One more time, I have no reason to say something I’ve never said or claimed to believe.
It’s much easier to perceive that your winning an argument when you are arguing both sides. I see no reason to play your game, if you’re going to demand that I support and prove things I’ve never claimed, you’ve succeeded in deploying the ultimate smokescreen.
The problem is that when you demand s level of proof that you don’t apply to yourself, you bog the discussion down in semantic minutiae which diverts the discussion away from substance.
FYI, I’m sure you aren’t aware of the compelling arguments against abortion that don’t even mention God.
But I’m not the one advocating for freedom to dismember “the least of these”, you are.
So, go ahead and say it. Say, "I can't prove objectively that God exists."
Say, " I can't objectively prove that God is opposed to abortion."
I did not say that you could send it. I'm noting that you can't say it. That you won't say it. That it bothers you to think about saying it. But maybe I'm wrong. Show me.
Say these things. Type them out. Here. Now.
Look, as long as you won’t admit that you’re first sentence in the other thread was completely false, I see no reason to simply parrot what you demand I parrot.
Yes you’re wrong. I’ve shown you. There is ample evidence available that I’ve never suggested the things you’ve invented. It’s absurd to demand that I simply regurgitate words you’ve put on my mouth.
Your obsessive desire for control is anti Christian and disturbing. Your refusal to do what you demand of others just means you’re a coward.
Your obsession with defining the debate and moving the goalposts is tiresome and childish.
Having said all of that.
I can’t prove 100% objectively that God exists. Because I’ve never claimed that I could.
I can’t prove 100% objectively that God thinks abortion is wrong. But I don’t need to, because there are plenty of non theistic arguments against abortion.
The difference is that I don’t support unrestricted abortion on demand for any reason,
Now, do you have the spine to admit your false claim?
As I made clear, it COULD be that I was mistaken. BUT, to know if I am mistaken or not, YOU have to answer the question put to you. As it is, it appears that I am right, but that ball is in your court.
I'll repeat the question (and context) that you have left unanswered...
"When we move to a specific moral question or question of Justice, you do not think that MY understanding of what is just is just.
For instance, on the topic of abortion, I think what is Just is for women and families to decide for themselves how to handle their own pregnancies.
But you disagree. You think that Justice is found in YOUR understanding of what God wants to do.
Am I mistaken?"
Dan,
Nice try, artful dodge. But your firing of your first comment had nothing to to with any specific subject.
You made a claim, you can either prove your claim or admit it was false.
For you to make the claim of fact, get called out on it being false, and then try to get proof after the fact is BS.
The bottom line is that you don’t have the spine to simply admit that you’re wrong and your ego and hubris won’t let you stop clawing for something you can twist.
The answer to your question is, yes you are mistaken. I’ve answered it before, but maybe your monstrous ego blocked it out of your brain.
Nice try, that walk humbly piece is pretty hard for you, isn’t it?
Dan,
I guess that whole thing about you not wanting your groupie to name names, and get personal, was all just one more load of BS.
I'm put of town, using my phone but am looking forward to addressing this expert exercise in equivocation being put on display by Dan. It is as you say, Craig...he's offering both sides of an argument neither of us have made.
I will say, however, there's a vast difference between knowing with 100% certainty God exists versus being able to prove with 100% certainty He exists.
There's also a difference between proving His existence versus knowing what He thinks on a particular subject, as well as proving it. The latter only depend upon what we know and that's based on our most reliable source, which is Scripture...without which the entire discussion is moot. Using g Scripture, I can prove what God thinks and my conclusion doesn't require agreement by reprobate fakes like Dan and his sock puppet in order for that conclusion to be true and accurate.
The only real question is, "what do you mean by 'God'"?. If by "God" one means the God of Scripture, then proving His existence is irrelevant because referring to the God of Scripture suggests a presumption of God's existence. But it's really a separate debate. Co flating the two questions, as Dan had done in his response to me, is more deceptive equivocation...or just stupidity as a debate strategy.
I agree with everything up to your last paragraph. But, the problem is that there is a demand for some level of 100% proof that we don’t have in virtually any other endeavor. I think there are plenty of reasonable proofs for God’s existence, but none of them meet Dans arbitrary standard.
It reminds me of the guy who once wrote “If Jesus appeared to me in all of His glory and told me that homosexuality was a sin, I’d tell Him that I was done following Him.”.
I don’t think Dan is really interested in proof because of the implications to his worldview.
As to your last paragraph, I’d say it’s an important question, not the only question.
Dan demands proof to shut people up. My point was his problem with facts. We can easily support a contention by referencing the only reliable source for such things...the Bible. When he can't overcome the evidence and proofs that expose the falseness of his position, he moves to the demand for proof of God's existence. That is, he moves from debating as one who believes in God to debating as one who questions God's existence. This was illustrated in his response to me.
I agree that Dan’s motivation for demanding proof is not seeking Truth, but control. He’s ignored enough proof over the years to believe otherwise.
Post a Comment