Here's another impromptu e-mail debate between Russell Stewart and Mark Harpt.
Most of the action on my site is now in my blog. I invite you to visit!
In October 1997, I stumbled into an informal e-mail debate with one Mark Harpt. I really didn't intend it to end up as a debate (for one thing there was no clearly-stated premise we were to debate about). But after browsing his website which expounds on why you must come to the logical conclusion that the Christian God is the only way to go, I decided to take a shot at one particular fallacy I saw, and things kind of snowballed from there. I only learned after our discussion was over that Harpt has also built up quite a reputation as a creationist debater in the talk.origins Usenet discussion group, which is heavily populated by pro-evolution, pro-science debaters far more experienced than I. You'd think I would be hopelessly overmatched by such an opponent. Although I'm not particularly proud of my performance, I don't feel so sure it came out that way.
So, to serve as a warning to those who would debate such minds as Harpt's, I have decided to place our e-mail exchange on this page, in full and un-edited (with the exception of making Harpt's words blue to make things a little easier to follow).
Here's another impromptu e-mail debate between Russell Stewart and Mark Harpt.
To: markh@superb.com From: Robert McNally <ironwolf@dangerousgames.com> Subject: Who Created God? Hi, In your answer to the question "Who Created God?" at <http://www.superb.com/wwcw/god.html> you say: "It is important to note that only something that had a beginning requires a creator and cause for its beginning. God, by definition, does not require a cause or creator because he did not have a beginning." However, you attempt to assign the attribute of "without beginning" to God without any evidence, merely "by definition." It is simply impossible to "define" anything into or out of existence, except in an abstract, formal grammer such as mathematics. Reality doesn't work that way. You cannot point to the Bible as evidence, because the authority of the Bible is what you're attempting to establish. Without evidence, your statement is simply unsupported assertion. Robert
Mark Harpt's First Message
From: markh@superb.com To: Robert McNally <ironwolf@dangerousgames.com> Subject: Re: Who Created God? I disagree with your assertion. Since I've shown that God created the universe, and time itself, then he must be outside of time. Only things in a time domain can have a beginning. Mark Robert McNally wrote: > Hi, > > In your answer to the question "Who Created God?" at > > <http://www.superb.com/wwcw/god.html> > > you say: > > "It is important to note that only something that had a beginning > requires > a creator and cause for its beginning. God, by definition, does not > require > a cause or creator because he did not have a beginning." > > However, you attempt to assign the attribute of "without beginning" to > God > without any evidence, merely "by definition." It is simply impossible > to > "define" anything into or out of existence, except in an abstract, > formal > grammer such as mathematics. Reality doesn't work that way. You cannot > > point to the Bible as evidence, because the authority of the Bible is > what > you're attempting to establish. Without evidence, your statement is > simply > unsupported assertion. > > Robert
Robert McNally's Second Message
To: markh@superb.com From: Robert McNally <ironwolf@dangerousgames.com> Subject: Re: Who Created God? I disagree that you have shown anything of the sort. You have merely repeated well-known arguments which, at best, are consistent with any number of hypotheses other than the Christian God such as deism or polytheism, and at worst simply fall apart due to embedded fallacies (especially begging the question) and nonsensical phrases (such as "outside of time".) You seem to feel that everything in the universe, including it's fundamental nature and origins, should be intuitively understandable to lay persons, and that common sense and introspection should lead one to the necessary conclusion of the Christian God. However, if you have ever spent any time studying something like electronics, you know that useful analogies to common experience such as "electrical current in wires is like water flowing through pipes" break down quickly, and you simply have to learn to understand electricity on it's own terms. Cosmology is no different; our experiential understanding of the concepts of time and causality break down close to what we call the Big Bang, so our ability to talk about what happened "before", "outside" or even "underneath" it depends on precise (and often mathematical) defintions of terms, many of which may not correspond directly (or at all) to those with which we are familiar. Most lay persons are not willing to take the time to understand fundamental relationships of electronics such as Ohm's Law, much less to understand the concepts and terminology used by those who study cosmology. Not that I am not saying that any level of understanding is open only to the intellectual elite. I am saying, however, that our tendency to want pat answers to complex questions breeds a kind of intellectual laziness where we become willing throw mushy terminology around and then go on to draw self-satisfying conclusions from our "arguments". I think the concept of "God" is the greatest of those self-satisfying conclusions; it merely replaces the mystery (not miracle!) of existence with a greater and more complex mystery of God's existence, and does so without yielding any new information. My respect goes to those who are slow to draw such conclusions-- slow to the point of demanding testable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence before accepting the most parsimonious hypothesis available whether or not it comforts them in some existential way, and who even then stay open to new evidence. Those who deride scientists and the scientific method for these same qualities have my contempt. Robert markh@superb.com wrote: > I disagree with your assertion. Since I've shown that God created the > universe, and time itself, then he must be outside of time. Only things > in a time domain can have a beginning. > > Mark > > Robert McNally wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In your answer to the question "Who Created God?" at >> >> <http://www.superb.com/wwcw/god.html> >> >> you say: >> >> "It is important to note that only something that had a beginning >> requires >> a creator and cause for its beginning. God, by definition, does not >> require >> a cause or creator because he did not have a beginning." >> >> However, you attempt to assign the attribute of "without beginning" to >> God >> without any evidence, merely "by definition." It is simply impossible >> to >> "define" anything into or out of existence, except in an abstract, >> formal >> grammer such as mathematics. Reality doesn't work that way. You cannot >> >> point to the Bible as evidence, because the authority of the Bible is >> what >> you're attempting to establish. Without evidence, your statement is >> simply >> unsupported assertion. >> >> Robert
Mark Harpt's Second Message
From: markh@superb.com To: Robert McNally <ironwolf@dangerousgames.com> Subject: Re: Who Created God? Robert McNally wrote: > I disagree that you have shown anything of the sort. You have merely > repeated well-known arguments which, at best, are consistent with any > number of hypotheses other than the Christian God such as deism or > polytheism, and at worst simply fall apart due to embedded fallacies > (especially begging the question) and nonsensical phrases (such as > "outside > of time".) I do address who the God that exists is. Perhaps you missed that. It can be found at www.superb.com/wwcw/whoisgod.html. Also, you'll have to be more specific when you make accusations. Please quote or make other such references to exactly what you are talking about so I can defend against the accusations. > > > You seem to feel that everything in the universe, including it's > fundamental nature and origins, should be intuitively understandable > to lay > persons, and that common sense and introspection should lead one to > the > necessary conclusion of the Christian God. However, if you have ever > spent > any time studying something like electronics, you know that useful > analogies to common experience such as "electrical current in wires is > like > water flowing through pipes" break down quickly, and you simply have > to > learn to understand electricity on it's own terms. Cosmology is no > different; our experiential understanding of the concepts of time and > causality break down close to what we call the Big Bang, so our > ability to > talk about what happened "before", "outside" or even "underneath" it > depends on precise (and often mathematical) defintions of terms, many > of > which may not correspond directly (or at all) to those with which we > are > familiar. Most lay persons are not willing to take the time to > understand > fundamental relationships of electronics such as Ohm's Law, much less > to > understand the concepts and terminology used by those who study > cosmology. One thing you are missing - when we talk about the beginning, eventually we must talk in philosophical terms. Sometimes these philosophical concepts are anything but complex. For example, the laws of nature appear ordered and unchanging. If one proposes that the universe popped into existence out of nothing, he is in a real pickle because on any level, nothing cannot beget something. No matter what we imagine conditions to be at the big bang, there were no conditions before it if it is proposed to have come from nothing. Nothing is nothing. I think it a cop-out to claim that we cannot theorize about such things. That is what you're saying because cosmologists have taken up philosophy to explain these things, not science. What is your argument for this line of reasoning, if you so reason, that when we theorize about the beginning we will always be wrong? I think your main problem is the motivation behind your current reasoning. You fight, consciously or not, what a the beginning of order implies. This is disingenuous, at least to your own self. Try to look at this from an open mind - no preconceptions and no fear of implications - then see what you find when you study the evidence. > > > Not that I am not saying that any level of understanding is open only > to > the intellectual elite. I am saying, however, that our tendency to > want pat > answers to complex questions breeds a kind of intellectual laziness > where > we become willing throw mushy terminology around and then go on to > draw > self-satisfying conclusions from our "arguments". I think the concept > of > "God" is the greatest of those self-satisfying conclusions; it merely > replaces the mystery (not miracle!) of existence with a greater and > more > complex mystery of God's existence, and does so without yielding any > new > information. A conclusion from the evidence that God exists doesn't replace the mystery I think science is most concerned with - how things work and exploration. Those pursuits don't go away. Claiming there is no God sounds like it is "self-satisfying" to you. How do you explain the contradiction of not allowing others self-satisfaction (if that were really my goal, it is not) because this would not satisfy you? Also, on what do you base the idea that naturalistic explanations are inherently "better" than non naturalistic ones? Please offer your proof. > > > My respect goes to those who are slow to draw such conclusions-- slow > to > the point of demanding testable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence > before > accepting the most parsimonious hypothesis available whether or not it > > comforts them in some existential way, and who even then stay open to > new > evidence. Those who deride scientists and the scientific method for > these > same qualities have my contempt. > > Robert So you only accept what is reproducible, etc.? Historically based science is out of the question then. You can give no opinion on the beginning of life or so many other theories commonly deemed "scientific." If you do have such opinions, then you hypocritically apply your requirements to things that make you uncomfortable while ignoring those that you don't find uncomfortable. This is paramount to self-delusion. It is also close-minded and limiting. Mark
Robert McNally's Third Message
To: markh@superb.com From: Robert McNally <ironwolf@dangerousgames.com> Subject: Re: Who Created God? markh@superb.com wrote: > Robert McNally wrote: > >> I disagree that you have shown anything of the sort. You have merely >> repeated well-known arguments which, at best, are consistent with any >> number of hypotheses other than the Christian God such as deism or >> polytheism, and at worst simply fall apart due to embedded fallacies >> (especially begging the question) and nonsensical phrases (such as >> "outside >> of time".) > > I do address who the God that exists is. Perhaps you missed that. It > can be found at www.superb.com/wwcw/whoisgod.html. I didn't miss it. However, discussing it at this point begs the question. You have not proven that any god exists, so the question of which god exists is moot. > Also, you'll have to > be more specific when you make accusations. Please quote or make other > such references to exactly what you are talking about so I can defend > against the accusations. Well, you certainly don't give much to quote. Your arguments amount to a superficial restatement of the design argument and the first cause argument, and you didn't present anything new, your footnotes and references notwithstanding. I will withdraw my statement about question begging, however, as your basic restatements don't appear to do that. I will refrain from posting a complete refutation of your arguments; it would take far more space than you have seen fit to spend on stating them. See <http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#design> Nonsensical Phrases: "Outside of time" combines a spatial concept and a temporal concept in a meaningless way. Time has no inside or outside; it is a one-dimensional continuum. On the other hand, the concept of "space-time" used in physics is a valid way of combining these concepts, in which case you have a four-dimensional continuum; three of space and one of time. Unfortunately, you still can't say that "God exists outside of space-time," because space-time includes all space, and therefore the concept of something existing "outside" of all space depends on the concept of space. This kind of proposition commits what is known as the "fallacy of the stolen concept." You can try substituting words which have fuzzier meaning, like "God transcends space-time," but you still have to define that word in a meaningful way. I don't think you can do it. >> >> >> You seem to feel that everything in the universe, including it's >> fundamental nature and origins, should be intuitively understandable >> to lay >> persons, and that common sense and introspection should lead one to >> the >> necessary conclusion of the Christian God. However, if you have ever >> spent >> any time studying something like electronics, you know that useful >> analogies to common experience such as "electrical current in wires is >> like >> water flowing through pipes" break down quickly, and you simply have >> to >> learn to understand electricity on it's own terms. Cosmology is no >> different; our experiential understanding of the concepts of time and >> causality break down close to what we call the Big Bang, so our >> ability to >> talk about what happened "before", "outside" or even "underneath" it >> depends on precise (and often mathematical) defintions of terms, many >> of >> which may not correspond directly (or at all) to those with which we >> are >> familiar. Most lay persons are not willing to take the time to >> understand >> fundamental relationships of electronics such as Ohm's Law, much less >> to >> understand the concepts and terminology used by those who study >> cosmology. > > One thing you are missing - when we talk about the beginning, eventually > we must talk in philosophical terms. Sometimes these philosophical > concepts are anything but complex. "Philosophy" is one of those overloaded terms I think people get mushy about. Philosphy has several definitions, and breaks down into several different areas of study. > For example, the laws of nature > appear ordered and unchanging. If one proposes that the universe popped > into existence out of nothing, he is in a real pickle because on any > level, nothing cannot beget something. No matter what we imagine > conditions to be at the big bang, there were no conditions before it if > it is proposed to have come from nothing. Nothing is nothing. Similarly, if you claim that God had no beginning, on what basis do you make an exception for him? The Bible? Won't work-- question begging. Anyway, I don't recall making _any_ assertions about where _I_ believe the universe came from, so I don't think I'm in that pickle just yet. :) > I think it a cop-out to claim that we cannot theorize about such > things. That is what you're saying because cosmologists have taken up > philosophy to explain these things, not science. What is your argument > for this line of reasoning, if you so reason, that when we theorize > about the beginning we will always be wrong? There is nothing wrong with theorizing about beginnings. I have not said we cannot theorize about such things, or that we will always be wrong; simply that we must tread lightly when we start theorizing about things outside of our practical experience. The standards by which we judge our theories must be rigorous, and all too often we see little or no standards at all used by theists except that it "makes them feel good" or they "just can't imagine a universe without God," or the ever-popular yet ultimately ineffable "faith." > I think your main problem is the motivation behind your current > reasoning. You fight, consciously or not, what a the beginning of order > implies. This is disingenuous, at least to your own self. Try to look > at this from an open mind - no preconceptions and no fear of > implications - then see what you find when you study the evidence. I think you are rushing to impute motives. Do you think I _like_ the idea of my own annihiliation upon death (to say nothing of the eternal torment many Christians say will be the fate of non-believers?) I do not. I like life; at this point I would like to live on indefinitely. I grew up Christian and considered myself Christian for 25 years. I have only been atheist for close to three years. Do you think it was easy giving theism up? Do you think I did it just to satisfy my own "sinful desires" in this life now? Guess again. I did it because I searched and studied and finally decided to face the hard truth that we have no decent evidence that any kind of god exists, and realized that I'm not willing to sacrifice my life to a myth just because it comforts me. I face the prospect of my eventual annihilation every day, and it makes life all the more precious to me, but don't equivocate that to mean that I somehow get a kick out of the thought of dying that Jesus never gave me; I certainly don't. Let's do a thought experiment in common sense: who is making the greater sacrifice? A) An atheist, who lays down his or her life to save a friend or loved one from harm, or spends their life on a worthy cause (raising children, saving the wolves, whatever), believing it is the only life they will ever have, or B) Jesus Christ, who allegedly died on a cross positively knowing he'd be alive again in three days, and would live on forever with incredible power? Mere humiliation and physical pain aside, Christ's mythical "sacrifice" doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice to me compared to a single life well-lived. Simple common sense. >> >> >> Not that I am not saying that any level of understanding is open only >> to >> the intellectual elite. I am saying, however, that our tendency to >> want pat >> answers to complex questions breeds a kind of intellectual laziness >> where >> we become willing throw mushy terminology around and then go on to >> draw >> self-satisfying conclusions from our "arguments". I think the concept >> of >> "God" is the greatest of those self-satisfying conclusions; it merely >> replaces the mystery (not miracle!) of existence with a greater and >> more >> complex mystery of God's existence, and does so without yielding any >> new >> information. > > A conclusion from the evidence that God exists doesn't replace the > mystery I think science is most concerned with - how things work and > exploration. Those pursuits don't go away. I also know they don't go away for those who don't believe in God. On the other hand, how many times have you heard evangelicals railing against science, and even reason itself? I've heard it many times both historically and today. Perhaps as a believer who actually respects science and reason, you could spend some time educating other believers about their positive aspects, and the value of the scientific method? > Claiming there is no God sounds like it is "self-satisfying" to you. Again, here you impute motives. I have not claimed there "is no God." However, I _am_ an atheist. How can this be? I have found vanishingly weak evidence of "god(s)", and I claim that I can prove that particular gods of specific definition (including the Christian one) do not exist. But as I have said, I think the origin of the universe is a mystery. Could there be some kind of creator? Sure. Could it have a creator? Why not? But why stop there? Let's have an infinite regress! On second thought, how about just stopping with the universe? I know it exists: there's ample evidence. I can take it's existence as a postulate and add gods later if there turns out to be a need. So far there's been no need. > How do you explain the contradiction of not allowing others > self-satisfaction (if that were really my goal, it is not) because this > would not satisfy you? Let me be more clear. If I care more about whether the premises I base my beliefs upon satisfy emotional urges or needs than whether or not they undermine my understanding of objective reality, I have reached a self-satisfying conclusion. The conclusion could be _true_ by coincindence, but it is not _valid_, and is just as likely (or more) to be _false_. For example, if I like chocolate, the idea that I can eat as much of it as I want to the exclusion of a more complete diet is self-satisfying. So, there is no contradiction. Drawing self-satisfying conclusions from specious arguments is as wrong for me as anyone. I like to feel "satisfied" as much as anyone, but this is not the usage I was referring to; I used it more in the sense of smugness or hubris. > Also, on what do you base the idea that > naturalistic explanations are inherently "better" than non naturalistic > ones? Please offer your proof. "Non-naturalistic"? Please give me a useable definition of what a non-naturalistic explanation is (a clear example would help as well), and then I'll tell you why I prefer "naturalistic" explanations over "non-naturalistic" ones. In any case I don't recall using the word "naturalistic" before now. I think that explanations are explanations, and nonsense is nonsense. >> >> >> My respect goes to those who are slow to draw such conclusions-- slow >> to >> the point of demanding testable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence >> before >> accepting the most parsimonious hypothesis available whether or not it >> >> comforts them in some existential way, and who even then stay open to >> new >> evidence. Those who deride scientists and the scientific method for >> these >> same qualities have my contempt. >> >> Robert > > So you only accept what is reproducible, etc.? Historically based > science is out of the question then. You can give no opinion on the > beginning of life or so many other theories commonly deemed >"scientific." If you do have such opinions, then you hypocritically > apply your requirements to things that make you uncomfortable while > ignoring those that you don't find uncomfortable. This is paramount to > self-delusion. It is also close-minded and limiting. Methinks you assume to much. I was not stating my opinion of inductive methods of acquiring knowledge. I was stating my respect for deductive methods, and stating my contempt for those who hold deride deductive methods. Inductive logic is as valid a tool for thinking as deductive logic. However, only deductive logic can offer the sort of rigorous proof I was referring to; inductive logic cannot provide "proof" in this sense, only probability. The so-called "scientific method" is a deductive one. Historical research is inductive. When historical research or other inductive investigation suggests ways of using deductive logic to provide proof, it should be followed up in a deductive fashion: with hypothesis and experiment. If historical investigation fails to provide such suggestions, it must stand on it's own as providing some degree of certainty as to what once happened, while leaving some degree of uncertainty. You, however, have posited a proposition which you believe is logically, that is, deductively provable: "God exists." You may believe you have historical research to back that proposition up, but I am not concerned with that now. Your argument was deductive in form, and as a deductive argument, it fails. You want to know what I think about evolution? I think it's a fact and a very good theory. I has a great deal of power to explain why life is the way it is here on Earth. It doesn't explain the existence of the universe, and it doesn't disprove "God," although it certainly puts those "creation scientists" who would posit a young Earth in an uncomfortable position. Of couse, they are employing circular reasoning, begging the question. That is not science. You may want to check out <http://www.talkorigins.org>. Robert
Mark Harpt's Third Message
From: markh@superb.com To: Robert McNally <ironwolf@dangerousgames.com> Subject: Re: Who Created God? Robert McNally wrote: > markh@superb.com wrote: >> Robert McNally wrote: >> >>> I disagree that you have shown anything of the sort. You have > merely >>> repeated well-known arguments which, at best, are consistent with > any >>> number of hypotheses other than the Christian God such as deism or >>> polytheism, and at worst simply fall apart due to embedded > fallacies >>> (especially begging the question) and nonsensical phrases (such as >>> "outside >>> of time".) >> >> I do address who the God that exists is. Perhaps you missed that. > It >> can be found at www.superb.com/wwcw/whoisgod.html. > > I didn't miss it. However, discussing it at this point begs the > question. > You have not proven that any god exists, so the question of which god > exists is moot. I show that God exists at www.superb.com/wwcw/godexists.html. Perhaps you missed that. > > >> Also, you'll have to >> be more specific when you make accusations. Please quote or make > other >> such references to exactly what you are talking about so I can defend > >> against the accusations. > > Well, you certainly don't give much to quote. Your arguments amount to > a > superficial restatement of the design argument and the first cause > argument, and you didn't present anything new, your footnotes and > references notwithstanding. I will withdraw my statement about > question > begging, however, as your basic restatements don't appear to do that. > > I will refrain from posting a complete refutation of your arguments; > it > would take far more space than you have seen fit to spend on stating > them. > See > > <http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#design> > > Nonsensical Phrases: "Outside of time" combines a spatial concept and > a > temporal concept in a meaningless way. Time has no inside or outside; > it is > a one-dimensional continuum. On the other hand, the concept of > "space-time" > used in physics is a valid way of combining these concepts, in which > case > you have a four-dimensional continuum; three of space and one of time. > > Unfortunately, you still can't say that "God exists outside of > space-time," > because space-time includes all space, and therefore the concept of > something existing "outside" of all space depends on the concept of > space. > This kind of proposition commits what is known as the "fallacy of the > stolen concept." You can try substituting words which have fuzzier > meaning, > like "God transcends space-time," but you still have to define that > word in > a meaningful way. I don't think you can do it. Semantics. My argument takes care of such. > > >>> >>> >>> You seem to feel that everything in the universe, including it's >>> fundamental nature and origins, should be intuitively > understandable >>> to lay >>> persons, and that common sense and introspection should lead one to > >>> the >>> necessary conclusion of the Christian God. However, if you have > ever >>> spent >>> any time studying something like electronics, you know that useful >>> analogies to common experience such as "electrical current in wires > is >>> like >>> water flowing through pipes" break down quickly, and you simply > have >>> to >>> learn to understand electricity on it's own terms. Cosmology is no >>> different; our experiential understanding of the concepts of time > and >>> causality break down close to what we call the Big Bang, so our >>> ability to >>> talk about what happened "before", "outside" or even "underneath" > it >>> depends on precise (and often mathematical) defintions of terms, > many >>> of >>> which may not correspond directly (or at all) to those with which > we >>> are >>> familiar. Most lay persons are not willing to take the time to >>> understand >>> fundamental relationships of electronics such as Ohm's Law, much > less >>> to >>> understand the concepts and terminology used by those who study >>> cosmology. >> >> One thing you are missing - when we talk about the beginning, > eventually >> we must talk in philosophical terms. Sometimes these philosophical >> concepts are anything but complex. > > "Philosophy" is one of those overloaded terms I think people get mushy > > about. Philosphy has several definitions, and breaks down into several > > different areas of study. > >> For example, the laws of nature >> appear ordered and unchanging. If one proposes that the universe > popped >> into existence out of nothing, he is in a real pickle because on any >> level, nothing cannot beget something. No matter what we imagine >> conditions to be at the big bang, there were no conditions before it > if >> it is proposed to have come from nothing. Nothing is nothing. > > Similarly, if you claim that God had no beginning, on what basis do > you > make an exception for him? The Bible? Won't work-- question begging. I don't do that, see my argument (the URL has been provided). > > > Anyway, I don't recall making _any_ assertions about where _I_ believe > the > universe came from, so I don't think I'm in that pickle just yet. :) > >> I think it a cop-out to claim that we cannot theorize about such >> things. That is what you're saying because cosmologists have taken > up >> philosophy to explain these things, not science. What is your > argument >> for this line of reasoning, if you so reason, that when we theorize >> about the beginning we will always be wrong? > > There is nothing wrong with theorizing about beginnings. I have not > said we > cannot theorize about such things, or that we will always be wrong; > simply > that we must tread lightly when we start theorizing about things > outside of > our practical experience. The standards by which we judge our theories > must > be rigorous, and all too often we see little or no standards at all > used by > theists except that it "makes them feel good" or they "just can't > imagine a > universe without God," or the ever-popular yet ultimately ineffable > "faith." I never used such standards. > > >> I think your main problem is the motivation behind your current >> reasoning. You fight, consciously or not, what a the beginning of > order >> implies. This is disingenuous, at least to your own self. Try to > look >> at this from an open mind - no preconceptions and no fear of >> implications - then see what you find when you study the evidence. > > I think you are rushing to impute motives. Do you think I _like_ the > idea > of my own annihiliation upon death (to say nothing of the eternal > torment > many Christians say will be the fate of non-believers?) I do not. I > like > life; at this point I would like to live on indefinitely. I grew up > Christian and considered myself Christian for 25 years. I have only > been > atheist for close to three years. Do you think it was easy giving > theism > up? Do you think I did it just to satisfy my own "sinful desires" in > this > life now? Guess again. I did it because I searched and studied and > finally > decided to face the hard truth that we have no decent evidence that > any > kind of god exists, and realized that I'm not willing to sacrifice my > life > to a myth just because it comforts me. I face the prospect of my > eventual > annihilation every day, and it makes life all the more precious to me, > but > don't equivocate that to mean that I somehow get a kick out of the > thought > of dying that Jesus never gave me; I certainly don't. You obviously didn't look into with a clear motive. As I have shown, there is plenty of evidence. You might read the book, "The Creation Hypothesis." It's a collection of writings from several Christians with Ph.D.s in secular fields. If you cannot refute their arguments, you must accept them or continue to hold to your blind faith in atheism. > > > Let's do a thought experiment in common sense: who is making the > greater > sacrifice? > > A) An atheist, who lays down his or her life to save a friend or loved > one > from harm, or spends their life on a worthy cause (raising children, > saving > the wolves, whatever), believing it is the only life they will ever > have, or > > B) Jesus Christ, who allegedly died on a cross positively knowing he'd > be > alive again in three days, and would live on forever with incredible > power? > > Mere humiliation and physical pain aside, Christ's mythical > "sacrifice" > doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice to me compared to a single life > > well-lived. > > Simple common sense. You said you were a Christian once? Do you not understand that perfect God becoming sin for us is more of a sacrifice than any other person can ever make? I don't think you ever understood what a relationship with Christ was. Did you ever believe that you had the Holy Spirit inside you? > > >>> >>> >>> Not that I am not saying that any level of understanding is open > only >>> to >>> the intellectual elite. I am saying, however, that our tendency to >>> want pat >>> answers to complex questions breeds a kind of intellectual laziness > >>> where >>> we become willing throw mushy terminology around and then go on to >>> draw >>> self-satisfying conclusions from our "arguments". I think the > concept >>> of >>> "God" is the greatest of those self-satisfying conclusions; it > merely >>> replaces the mystery (not miracle!) of existence with a greater and > >>> more >>> complex mystery of God's existence, and does so without yielding > any >>> new >>> information. >> >> A conclusion from the evidence that God exists doesn't replace the >> mystery I think science is most concerned with - how things work and >> exploration. Those pursuits don't go away. > > I also know they don't go away for those who don't believe in God. On > the > other hand, how many times have you heard evangelicals railing against > > science, and even reason itself? I've heard it many times both > historically > and today. Perhaps as a believer who actually respects science and > reason, > you could spend some time educating other believers about their > positive > aspects, and the value of the scientific method? That's what we're try to do! The problem is that science is philosophically geared against Christianity. We will keep trying though. > > >> Claiming there is no God sounds like it is "self-satisfying" to you. > > Again, here you impute motives. I have not claimed there "is no God." > However, I _am_ an atheist. How can this be? I have found vanishingly > weak > evidence of "god(s)", and I claim that I can prove that particular > gods of > specific definition (including the Christian one) do not exist. But as > I > have said, I think the origin of the universe is a mystery. Could > there be > some kind of creator? Sure. Could it have a creator? Why not? But why > stop > there? Let's have an infinite regress! > > On second thought, how about just stopping with the universe? I know > it > exists: there's ample evidence. I can take it's existence as a > postulate > and add gods later if there turns out to be a need. So far there's > been no > need. If it was created by God and if he has a purpose for you, there is certainly a need. > > >> How do you explain the contradiction of not allowing others >> self-satisfaction (if that were really my goal, it is not) because > this >> would not satisfy you? > > Let me be more clear. If I care more about whether the premises I base > my > beliefs upon satisfy emotional urges or needs than whether or not they > > undermine my understanding of objective reality, I have reached a > self-satisfying conclusion. The conclusion could be _true_ by > coincindence, > but it is not _valid_, and is just as likely (or more) to be _false_. > For > example, if I like chocolate, the idea that I can eat as much of it as > I > want to the exclusion of a more complete diet is self-satisfying. You're mixing up objective and subjective reasoning here. > > > So, there is no contradiction. Drawing self-satisfying conclusions > from > specious arguments is as wrong for me as anyone. I like to feel > "satisfied" > as much as anyone, but this is not the usage I was referring to; I > used it > more in the sense of smugness or hubris. > >> Also, on what do you base the idea that >> naturalistic explanations are inherently "better" than non > naturalistic >> ones? Please offer your proof. > > "Non-naturalistic"? Please give me a useable definition of what a > non-naturalistic explanation is (a clear example would help as well), > and > then I'll tell you why I prefer "naturalistic" explanations over > "non-naturalistic" ones. In any case I don't recall using the word > "naturalistic" before now. I think that explanations are explanations, > and > nonsense is nonsense. Naturalism says that everything must be explained by the laws of nature. Naturalism is a self-disproving theory because it can't be shown with the laws of nature.. > > >>> >>> >>> My respect goes to those who are slow to draw such conclusions-- > slow >>> to >>> the point of demanding testable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence >>> before >>> accepting the most parsimonious hypothesis available whether or not > it >>> >>> comforts them in some existential way, and who even then stay open > to >>> new >>> evidence. Those who deride scientists and the scientific method for > >>> these >>> same qualities have my contempt. >>> >>> Robert >> >> So you only accept what is reproducible, etc.? Historically based >> science is out of the question then. You can give no opinion on the >> beginning of life or so many other theories commonly deemed >>"scientific." If you do have such opinions, then you hypocritically >> apply your requirements to things that make you uncomfortable while >> ignoring those that you don't find uncomfortable. This is paramount > to >> self-delusion. It is also close-minded and limiting. > > Methinks you assume to much. I was not stating my opinion of inductive > > methods of acquiring knowledge. I was stating my respect for deductive > > methods, and stating my contempt for those who hold deride deductive > methods. > > Inductive logic is as valid a tool for thinking as deductive logic. > However, only deductive logic can offer the sort of rigorous proof I > was > referring to; inductive logic cannot provide "proof" in this sense, > only > probability. > > The so-called "scientific method" is a deductive one. Historical > research > is inductive. When historical research or other inductive > investigation > suggests ways of using deductive logic to provide proof, it should be > followed up in a deductive fashion: with hypothesis and experiment. If > > historical investigation fails to provide such suggestions, it must > stand > on it's own as providing some degree of certainty as to what once > happened, > while leaving some degree of uncertainty. > > You, however, have posited a proposition which you believe is > logically, > that is, deductively provable: "God exists." You may believe you have > historical research to back that proposition up, but I am not > concerned > with that now. Your argument was deductive in form, and as a deductive > > argument, it fails. How is it in deductive form? > > > You want to know what I think about evolution? I think it's a fact and > a > very good theory. I has a great deal of power to explain why life is > the > way it is here on Earth. It doesn't explain the existence of the > universe, > and it doesn't disprove "God," although it certainly puts those > "creation > scientists" who would posit a young Earth in an uncomfortable > position. Of > couse, they are employing circular reasoning, begging the question. > That is > not science. > > You may want to check out <http://www.talkorigins.org>. > > Robert Mark
Robert McNally's Fourth Message
To: markh@superb.com From: Robert McNally <ironwolf@dangerousgames.com> Subject: Re: Who Created God? >> I didn't miss it. However, discussing it at this point begs the >> question. >> You have not proven that any god exists, so the question of which god >> exists is moot. > > I show that God exists at www.superb.com/wwcw/godexists.html. Perhaps > you missed that. I didn't miss that either. >> Unfortunately, you still can't say that "God exists outside of >> space-time," >> because space-time includes all space, and therefore the concept of >> something existing "outside" of all space depends on the concept of >> space. >> This kind of proposition commits what is known as the "fallacy of the >> stolen concept." You can try substituting words which have fuzzier >> meaning, >> like "God transcends space-time," but you still have to define that >> word in >> a meaningful way. I don't think you can do it. > > Semantics. My argument takes care of such. Resorting to name-calling, I see. Meaning isn't important to you? Don't care to define your terms before using them? How specifically does your argument take care of such? >> The standards by which we judge our theories >> must >> be rigorous, and all too often we see little or no standards at all >> used by >> theists except that it "makes them feel good" or they "just can't >> imagine a >> universe without God," or the ever-popular yet ultimately ineffable >> "faith." > > I never used such standards. No? You don't even have faith smaller than a grain of mustard? You don't believe faith, which we all know "is the evidence of things unseen" is desirable? It doesn't make you feel good to be one of the "saved"? How do you know that your "logic" isn't just a show to cover up for the fact that you really just want to believe? Furthermore, it appears that your standards aren't high enough to include "no nonsense." You start talking about common sense, but when challenged to define your terms they all start turning to mush. >>... I face the prospect of my >> eventual >> annihilation every day, and it makes life all the more precious to me, >> but >> don't equivocate that to mean that I somehow get a kick out of the >> thought >> of dying that Jesus never gave me; I certainly don't. > > You obviously didn't look into with a clear motive. As I have shown, > there is plenty of evidence. You might read the book, "The Creation > Hypothesis." It's a collection of writings from several Christians with > Ph.D.s in secular fields. If you cannot refute their arguments, you > must accept them or continue to hold to your blind faith in atheism. I can and I have refuted many theistic arguments, and reviewed a great deal of evidence. Is there anything _new_ in this book? If so, what? I don't think you can bring yourself to believe that _anyone_ might with a clear head and heart leave Christianity and theism. You're clearly closed-minded about this, and so I don't see what evidence or testimony to the contrary would convince you (or even influence you) otherwise. >> Let's do a thought experiment in common sense: who is making the >> greater >> sacrifice? >> >> A) An atheist, who lays down his or her life to save a friend or loved >> one >> from harm, or spends their life on a worthy cause (raising children, >> saving >> the wolves, whatever), believing it is the only life they will ever >> have, or >> >> B) Jesus Christ, who allegedly died on a cross positively knowing he'd >> be >> alive again in three days, and would live on forever with incredible >> power? >> >> Mere humiliation and physical pain aside, Christ's mythical >> "sacrifice" >> doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice to me compared to a single life >> >> well-lived. >> >> Simple common sense. > > You said you were a Christian once? Absolutely. > Do you not understand that perfect > God becoming sin for us is more of a sacrifice than any other person can > ever make? I understand the story. I believed it once. Children often believe that Santa fits through fireplaces. Many adults believe in UFOs. What common sense standard do I use to judge any of these stories? > I don't think you ever understood what a relationship with > Christ was. I thought Christians were supposed to let God judge other people's heart and motives. > Did you ever believe that you had the Holy Spirit inside > you? Yes, I did believe that. I was baptized and believed I would be in God's kingdom. You know, lots of children also have invisible "friends" who keep them company. Allow me to question _your_ motives for a minute: I think that's what you're doing. I think deep down you really want to avoid dying so badly that you've latched onto whatever offers some hope, and you've been told that if you believe and do all the right Christian things your invisible friend will save you. >> Perhaps as a believer who actually respects science and >> reason, >> you could spend some time educating other believers about their >> positive >> aspects, and the value of the scientific method? > > That's what we're try to do! You think you're web site will teach the value of science to other believers? It's totally preaching to the choir! > The problem is that science is > philosophically geared against Christianity. Boy, how often do I hear that from theists? Many scientists, even evolutionists, consider themselves Christian. What specific aspect(s) of science do you feel are "philosophically geared against" Christianity? Do you feel that way just because many scientists don't end up buying into Christianity? > We will keep trying > though. Try harder. How about an exposition of the scientific method right at the top of your page? >> On second thought, how about just stopping with the universe? I know >> it >> exists: there's ample evidence. I can take it's existence as a >> postulate >> and add gods later if there turns out to be a need. So far there's >> been no >> need. > > If it was created by God and if he has a purpose for you, there is > certainly a need. Those are two propositions in need of evidence before you can go asserting that conclusion. No, you haven't shown them already. >> Let me be more clear. If I care more about whether the premises I base >> my >> beliefs upon satisfy emotional urges or needs than whether or not they >> >> undermine my understanding of objective reality, I have reached a >> self-satisfying conclusion. The conclusion could be _true_ by >> coincindence, >> but it is not _valid_, and is just as likely (or more) to be _false_. >> For >> example, if I like chocolate, the idea that I can eat as much of it as >> I >> want to the exclusion of a more complete diet is self-satisfying. > > You're mixing up objective and subjective reasoning here. Those are new terms for me. What is "objective reasoning" and how does it differ from "subjective reasoning?" What is the precise difference between the two, and why do they both qualify as "reasoning" of some kind? >> >> >> So, there is no contradiction. Drawing self-satisfying conclusions >> from >> specious arguments is as wrong for me as anyone. I like to feel >> "satisfied" >> as much as anyone, but this is not the usage I was referring to; I >> used it >> more in the sense of smugness or hubris. >> >>> Also, on what do you base the idea that >>> naturalistic explanations are inherently "better" than non >> naturalistic >>> ones? Please offer your proof. >> >> "Non-naturalistic"? Please give me a useable definition of what a >> non-naturalistic explanation is (a clear example would help as well), >> and >> then I'll tell you why I prefer "naturalistic" explanations over >> "non-naturalistic" ones. In any case I don't recall using the word >> "naturalistic" before now. I think that explanations are explanations, >> and >> nonsense is nonsense. > > Naturalism says that everything must be explained by the laws of > nature. Naturalism is a self-disproving theory because it can't be > shown with the laws of nature.. Simply because something hasn't been explained by science doesn't mean it will not be or cannot be in principle, so I don't see how you call it self-disproving. In any case, you've still failed to show what "non-naturalistic" means, or to provide a clear example of it. >> You, however, have posited a proposition which you believe is >> logically, >> that is, deductively provable: "God exists." You may believe you have >> historical research to back that proposition up, but I am not >> concerned >> with that now. Your argument was deductive in form, and as a deductive >> >> argument, it fails. > > How is it in deductive form? Oh, come on! You don't know that? Please go read: <http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html> and then get back to me. Robert
Mark Harpt's Fourth Message
From: markh@superb.com To: Robert McNally <ironwolf@dangerousgames.com> Subject: Re: Who Created God? Robert McNally wrote: >>> I didn't miss it. However, discussing it at this point begs the >>> question. >>> You have not proven that any god exists, so the question of which > god >>> exists is moot. >> >> I show that God exists at www.superb.com/wwcw/godexists.html. > Perhaps >> you missed that. > > I didn't miss that either. Well, since my argument for the existence of God precedes my argument for who the God that exists is, then what's your point? To see the order of arguments again, check www.superb.com/wwcw/god_exists.html. Do you admit that you are mistaken here? > > >>> Unfortunately, you still can't say that "God exists outside of >>> space-time," >>> because space-time includes all space, and therefore the concept of > >>> something existing "outside" of all space depends on the concept of > >>> space. >>> This kind of proposition commits what is known as the "fallacy of > the >>> stolen concept." You can try substituting words which have fuzzier >>> meaning, >>> like "God transcends space-time," but you still have to define that > >>> word in >>> a meaningful way. I don't think you can do it. >> >> Semantics. My argument takes care of such. > > Resorting to name-calling, I see. Meaning isn't important to you? > Don't > care to define your terms before using them? How specifically does > your > argument take care of such? What do you mean "resorting to name-calling"? If I was a typical alt.atheism atheist I would gloat and berate you for not knowing that the meaning of the word "semantics." I will do no such thing simply because I think such actions are childish. By "semantics" I meant "word games." > > >>> The standards by which we judge our theories >>> must >>> be rigorous, and all too often we see little or no standards at all > >>> used by >>> theists except that it "makes them feel good" or they "just can't >>> imagine a >>> universe without God," or the ever-popular yet ultimately ineffable > >>> "faith." >> >> I never used such standards. > > No? You don't even have faith smaller than a grain of mustard? You > don't > believe faith, which we all know "is the evidence of things unseen" is > > desirable? It doesn't make you feel good to be one of the "saved"? How > do > you know that your "logic" isn't just a show to cover up for the fact > that > you really just want to believe? I use no such standards in my arguments because it's not necessary. There's plenty of evidence to base ones faith on, as I present. One can judge my arguments without appealing to how it makes them feel. I wish more atheists would do that. > > > Furthermore, it appears that your standards aren't high enough to > include > "no nonsense." You start talking about common sense, but when > challenged to > define your terms they all start turning to mush. Please give an example of this. It is nonsensical to claim that the universe is not designed, in my opinion. Especially given the evidence. > > >>>... I face the prospect of my >>> eventual >>> annihilation every day, and it makes life all the more precious to > me, >>> but >>> don't equivocate that to mean that I somehow get a kick out of the >>> thought >>> of dying that Jesus never gave me; I certainly don't. >> >> You obviously didn't look into with a clear motive. As I have shown, > >> there is plenty of evidence. You might read the book, "The Creation >> Hypothesis." It's a collection of writings from several Christians > with >> Ph.D.s in secular fields. If you cannot refute their arguments, you >> must accept them or continue to hold to your blind faith in atheism. > > I can and I have refuted many theistic arguments, and reviewed a great > deal > of evidence. Is there anything _new_ in this book? If so, what? Unrefutable arguments for the existence of God. Much better than mine, BTW. Another good book is "Christian Apologetics." If I were you, considering what's at stake, I'd check it out. I try to keep up with the lastest anti-God arguments. > > > I don't think you can bring yourself to believe that _anyone_ might > with a > clear head and heart leave Christianity and theism. You're clearly > closed-minded about this, and so I don't see what evidence or > testimony to > the contrary would convince you (or even influence you) otherwise. I haven't ever met anyone with a clear head who left Christianity (who were ever Christians in the first place). It's always something deeper. > > >>> Let's do a thought experiment in common sense: who is making the >>> greater >>> sacrifice? >>> >>> A) An atheist, who lays down his or her life to save a friend or > loved >>> one >>> from harm, or spends their life on a worthy cause (raising > children, >>> saving >>> the wolves, whatever), believing it is the only life they will ever > >>> have, or >>> >>> B) Jesus Christ, who allegedly died on a cross positively knowing > he'd >>> be >>> alive again in three days, and would live on forever with > incredible >>> power? >>> >>> Mere humiliation and physical pain aside, Christ's mythical >>> "sacrifice" >>> doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice to me compared to a single > life >>> >>> well-lived. >>> >>> Simple common sense. >> >> You said you were a Christian once? > > Absolutely. > >> Do you not understand that perfect >> God becoming sin for us is more of a sacrifice than any other person > can >> ever make? > > I understand the story. I believed it once. Children often believe > that > Santa fits through fireplaces. Many adults believe in UFOs. What > common > sense standard do I use to judge any of these stories? Evidence. BTW, you obviously don't have any idea of what I'm talking about. We were talking about who is making the greater sacrifice. That is the question I answered - an answer that seemed to go right over your head. > > >> I don't think you ever understood what a relationship with >> Christ was. > > I thought Christians were supposed to let God judge other people's > heart > and motives. Wrong again, but that's a different subject. > > >> Did you ever believe that you had the Holy Spirit inside >> you? > > Yes, I did believe that. I was baptized and believed I would be in > God's > kingdom. You know, lots of children also have invisible "friends" who > keep > them company. Allow me to question _your_ motives for a minute: I > think > that's what you're doing. I think deep down you really want to avoid > dying > so badly that you've latched onto whatever offers some hope, and > you've > been told that if you believe and do all the right Christian things > your > invisible friend will save you. Interesting perspective - it tells me a lot. First of all, there are no right things one can do to become saved. Second of all, returning to our natural place with our creator is excaping enslavement of purely physical things. Third, you are nieve to assume that all there is what can be seen. Even scientists are theorizing that more than 4 dimensions exist. Fourth, the evidence cannot be excaped. Fifth, becoming a Christian and receiving the Holy Spirit is anything but imaginary. You never felt Him? Think hard because your heart is hardened right now. > > >>> Perhaps as a believer who actually respects science and >>> reason, >>> you could spend some time educating other believers about their >>> positive >>> aspects, and the value of the scientific method? >> >> That's what we're try to do! > > You think you're web site will teach the value of science to other > believers? It's totally preaching to the choir! Not too long ago an atheist became a Christian because of it. Actually, because of the Holy Spirit who worked through my page. This type of thing is common in Internet ministries. I spend a lot of my own money making the truth available to people on the Internet. A person with an open mind will soon realize that it is foolish to claim that God does not exist when he visits my pages. > > >> The problem is that science is >> philosophically geared against Christianity. > > Boy, how often do I hear that from theists? Many scientists, even > evolutionists, consider themselves Christian. What specific aspect(s) > of > science do you feel are "philosophically geared against" Christianity? > Do > you feel that way just because many scientists don't end up buying > into > Christianity? Many scientists are Christians. What I mean is science is ruled by naturalism (a philosophy) that says, for no good reason, "the supernatural cannot exist." > > >> We will keep trying >> though. > > Try harder. How about an exposition of the scientific method right at > the > top of your page? >>> On second thought, how about just stopping with the universe? I > know >>> it >>> exists: there's ample evidence. I can take it's existence as a >>> postulate >>> and add gods later if there turns out to be a need. So far there's >>> been no >>> need. >> >> If it was created by God and if he has a purpose for you, there is >> certainly a need. > > Those are two propositions in need of evidence before you can go > asserting > that conclusion. No, you haven't shown them already. My arguments referenced do. > > >>> Let me be more clear. If I care more about whether the premises I > base >>> my >>> beliefs upon satisfy emotional urges or needs than whether or not > they >>> >>> undermine my understanding of objective reality, I have reached a >>> self-satisfying conclusion. The conclusion could be _true_ by >>> coincindence, >>> but it is not _valid_, and is just as likely (or more) to be > _false_. >>> For >>> example, if I like chocolate, the idea that I can eat as much of it > as >>> I >>> want to the exclusion of a more complete diet is self-satisfying. >> >> You're mixing up objective and subjective reasoning here. > > Those are new terms for me. What is "objective reasoning" and how does > it > differ from "subjective reasoning?" What is the precise difference > between > the two, and why do they both qualify as "reasoning" of some kind? Subjective is opinion. Objective is not. > > >>> >>> >>> So, there is no contradiction. Drawing self-satisfying conclusions >>> from >>> specious arguments is as wrong for me as anyone. I like to feel >>> "satisfied" >>> as much as anyone, but this is not the usage I was referring to; I >>> used it >>> more in the sense of smugness or hubris. >>> >>>> Also, on what do you base the idea that >>>> naturalistic explanations are inherently "better" than non >>> naturalistic >>>> ones? Please offer your proof. >>> >>> "Non-naturalistic"? Please give me a useable definition of what a >>> non-naturalistic explanation is (a clear example would help as > well), >>> and >>> then I'll tell you why I prefer "naturalistic" explanations over >>> "non-naturalistic" ones. In any case I don't recall using the word >>> "naturalistic" before now. I think that explanations are > explanations, >>> and >>> nonsense is nonsense. >> >> Naturalism says that everything must be explained by the laws of >> nature. Naturalism is a self-disproving theory because it can't be >> shown with the laws of nature.. > > Simply because something hasn't been explained by science doesn't mean > it > will not be or cannot be in principle, so I don't see how you call it > self-disproving. A theory cannot be valid if it doesn't pass its own test. > > > In any case, you've still failed to show what "non-naturalistic" > means, or > to provide a clear example of it. > >>> You, however, have posited a proposition which you believe is >>> logically, >>> that is, deductively provable: "God exists." You may believe you > have >>> historical research to back that proposition up, but I am not >>> concerned >>> with that now. Your argument was deductive in form, and as a > deductive >>> >>> argument, it fails. >> >> How is it in deductive form? > > Oh, come on! You don't know that? Please go read: > > <http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html> > > and then get back to me. > Mark
Robert McNally's Fifth Message
To: markh@superb.com From: Robert McNally <ironwolf@dangerousgames.com> Subject: Re: Who Created God? > Well, since my argument for the existence of God precedes my argument > for who the God that exists is, then what's your point? To see the > order of arguments again, check www.superb.com/wwcw/god_exists.html. Do > you admit that you are mistaken here? No, no mistake. I originally responded to your "Who Created God?" page not because I accepted your prior arguments, but because I found your answer fallacious. >>> >>> Semantics. My argument takes care of such. >> >> Resorting to name-calling, I see. Meaning isn't important to you? >> Don't >> care to define your terms before using them? How specifically does >> your >> argument take care of such? > > What do you mean "resorting to name-calling"? If I was a typical > alt.atheism atheist I would gloat and berate you for not knowing that > the meaning of the word "semantics." And you do so implicitly be even mentioning gloating and berating, so you're no better. Your statement is like "Don't think of the color blue." If you didn't want me to think of it why did you mention it? In any case, I understand perfectly what semantics means. Briefly, it is the study of meaning. Why don't you address what I actually said now, and define your terms before you use them? > I will do no such thing simply > because I think such actions are childish. By "semantics" I meant "word > games." You can "call" what I say word games, but that is name-calling. I am being honest and open with you, and if you won't give me the benefit of any doubt in that regard, I don't see what we have to discuss. >> >> No? You don't even have faith smaller than a grain of mustard? You >> don't >> believe faith, which we all know "is the evidence of things unseen" is >> >> desirable? It doesn't make you feel good to be one of the "saved"? How >> do >> you know that your "logic" isn't just a show to cover up for the fact >> that >> you really just want to believe? > > I use no such standards in my arguments because it's not necessary. > There's plenty of evidence to base ones faith on, as I present. One can > judge my arguments without appealing to how it makes them feel. I wish > more atheists would do that. Your arguments are nothing new. I have judged them: they fail. >> >> >> Furthermore, it appears that your standards aren't high enough to >> include >> "no nonsense." You start talking about common sense, but when >> challenged to >> define your terms they all start turning to mush. > > Please give an example of this. "Outside of time." > It is nonsensical to claim that the universe is not designed, in my > opinion. Especially given the evidence. Then let God come down and take his own credit for them, instead of relying on proxies like the self-contradictory Bible and your so-called "arguments." >> >> >>>>... I face the prospect of my >>>> eventual >>>> annihilation every day, and it makes life all the more precious to >> me, >>>> but >>>> don't equivocate that to mean that I somehow get a kick out of the >>>> thought >>>> of dying that Jesus never gave me; I certainly don't. >>> >>> You obviously didn't look into with a clear motive. As I have shown, >> >>> there is plenty of evidence. You might read the book, "The Creation >>> Hypothesis." It's a collection of writings from several Christians >> with >>> Ph.D.s in secular fields. If you cannot refute their arguments, you >>> must accept them or continue to hold to your blind faith in atheism. >> >> I can and I have refuted many theistic arguments, and reviewed a great >> deal >> of evidence. Is there anything _new_ in this book? If so, what? > > Unrefutable arguments for the existence of God. Much better than mine, > BTW. Another good book is "Christian Apologetics." If I were you, > considering what's at stake, I'd check it out. I try to keep up with > the lastest anti-God arguments. Shall I quote you from page 215 of the copy of "Christian Apologetics" I have in front of me? (This is just to show you that I do indeed have a copy.) << Chapter 12: Atheism Atheists claim that there is no God. They contend that there is no God in the world (as pantheism holds) and there is no God beyond the world (as deism claims). Futhermore, there is no God who is actually both in the world and beyond the world as theism claims, nor is there any panentheistic God beyond the world who is related to the world as a mind to body. There is no kind of God of any kind, anywhere. >> I have read "Christian Apologetics." I bought it with an open mind before I ever knew I would end up becoming atheist. I bought it hoping that I would find something in it to save my faith. It actually showed me how desperate Christians are to cling to an appearance of rationality, when in reality they base their belief on emotional needs, and _then_ go looking for arguments to back it up. >> I don't think you can bring yourself to believe that _anyone_ might >> with a >> clear head and heart leave Christianity and theism. You're clearly >> closed-minded about this, and so I don't see what evidence or >> testimony to >> the contrary would convince you (or even influence you) otherwise. > > I haven't ever met anyone with a clear head who left Christianity (who > were ever Christians in the first place). It's always something deeper. Of course, for you it has to be or it shoots holes in what you believe. Go ahead, make reality fit what you believe instead of the other way around. >>>> Let's do a thought experiment in common sense: who is making the >>>> greater >>>> sacrifice? >>>> >>>> A) An atheist, who lays down his or her life to save a friend or >> loved >>>> one >>>> from harm, or spends their life on a worthy cause (raising >> children, >>>> saving >>>> the wolves, whatever), believing it is the only life they will ever >> >>>> have, or >>>> >>>> B) Jesus Christ, who allegedly died on a cross positively knowing >> he'd >>>> be >>>> alive again in three days, and would live on forever with >> incredible >>>> power? >>>> >>>> Mere humiliation and physical pain aside, Christ's mythical >>>> "sacrifice" >>>> doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice to me compared to a single >> life >>>> >>>> well-lived. >>>> >>>> Simple common sense. >>> >>> You said you were a Christian once? >> >> Absolutely. >> >>> Do you not understand that perfect >>> God becoming sin for us is more of a sacrifice than any other person >> can >>> ever make? >> >> I understand the story. I believed it once. Children often believe >> that >> Santa fits through fireplaces. Many adults believe in UFOs. What >> common >> sense standard do I use to judge any of these stories? > > Evidence. BTW, you obviously don't have any idea of what I'm talking > about. We were talking about who is making the greater sacrifice. > That is the question I answered - an answer that seemed to go right over > your head. Excuse me? Where above was your answer to my thought experiment? I think you asked a bunch of questions in response to my question. I'd like a simple answer from you based on common sense, not more questions. >> >> >>> I don't think you ever understood what a relationship with >>> Christ was. >> >> I thought Christians were supposed to let God judge other people's >> heart >> and motives. > > Wrong again, but that's a different subject. Oh, so you believe that Christians should judge (anyone but yourself, that is)? Then how do you know you judge rightly? Aren't you putting yourself in God's place? >> >> >>> Did you ever believe that you had the Holy Spirit inside >>> you? >> >> Yes, I did believe that. I was baptized and believed I would be in >> God's >> kingdom. You know, lots of children also have invisible "friends" who >> keep >> them company. Allow me to question _your_ motives for a minute: I >> think >> that's what you're doing. I think deep down you really want to avoid >> dying >> so badly that you've latched onto whatever offers some hope, and >> you've >> been told that if you believe and do all the right Christian things >> your >> invisible friend will save you. > > Interesting perspective - it tells me a lot. What does it tell you? > First of all, there are no > right things one can do to become saved. Yes, "faith not works," I know. Pity more christians don't just keep their faith and not try to impose their "works" on others. > Second of all, returning to > our natural place with our creator is excaping enslavement of purely > physical things. Mere assertions. > Third, you are nieve to assume that all there is what > can be seen. You are naive to assume that's what I assume. I don't believe in the so-called "supernatural", but if you think I don't believe in atoms and molecules and such just because I can't "see" them, think again. > Even scientists are theorizing that more than 4 dimensions > exist. Yes, but that's irrelevant to any point I have raised. > Fourth, the evidence cannot be excaped. More mere assertions. > Fifth, becoming a > Christian and receiving the Holy Spirit is anything but imaginary. So say you, but UFO folks say the aliens aren't imaginary as well. You're in the same boat. > You > never felt Him? Think hard because your heart is hardened right now. You never felt that pang of hypocrisy because deep down you know your Holy Spirit is just an imaginary friend? Think hard because your brain is hardened right now. (I say this to point out how condescending and stupid Christian rhetoric like your previous statement sounds.) >> >> >>>> Perhaps as a believer who actually respects science and >>>> reason, >>>> you could spend some time educating other believers about their >>>> positive >>>> aspects, and the value of the scientific method? >>> >>> That's what we're try to do! >> >> You think you're web site will teach the value of science to other >> believers? It's totally preaching to the choir! > > Not too long ago an atheist became a Christian because of it. Actually, > because of the Holy Spirit who worked through my page. This type of > thing is common in Internet ministries. I spend a lot of my own money > making the truth available to people on the Internet. A person with an > open mind will soon realize that it is foolish to claim that God does > not exist when he visits my pages. Boy, you sure take a lot of credit for "your" arguments and "your" pages. Well, I've got news for you: first, your pages are nothing unique on the Web. There are plenty of apologetics sites more thorough than yours. Second: it goes both ways. I credit the wide availability of arguments on both sides of the theism/atheism issue on the Internet for helping me make up my mind to give up religion. >>> The problem is that science is >>> philosophically geared against Christianity. >> >> Boy, how often do I hear that from theists? Many scientists, even >> evolutionists, consider themselves Christian. What specific aspect(s) >> of >> science do you feel are "philosophically geared against" Christianity? >> Do >> you feel that way just because many scientists don't end up buying >> into >> Christianity? > > Many scientists are Christians. What I mean is science is ruled by > naturalism (a philosophy) that says, for no good reason, "the > supernatural cannot exist." Everything in our common experience can be explained by natural law. Everything we have discovered outside the realm of our common experience can be explained by natural law. Even if there are some things which proveably _cannot_ be explained by natual law, that does _not_ imply a "supernatural law", it simply points to postulates of existence which must be accepted on their own terms. Even if I grant for the sake of argument that mystery allows for "supernatural law", then you open up the door for "super-supernatural law" and an infinite regress. >>>> Let me be more clear. If I care more about whether the premises I >> base >>>> my >>>> beliefs upon satisfy emotional urges or needs than whether or not >> they >>>> >>>> undermine my understanding of objective reality, I have reached a >>>> self-satisfying conclusion. The conclusion could be _true_ by >>>> coincindence, >>>> but it is not _valid_, and is just as likely (or more) to be >> _false_. >>>> For >>>> example, if I like chocolate, the idea that I can eat as much of it >> as >>>> I >>>> want to the exclusion of a more complete diet is self-satisfying. >>> >>> You're mixing up objective and subjective reasoning here. >> >> Those are new terms for me. What is "objective reasoning" and how does >> it >> differ from "subjective reasoning?" What is the precise difference >> between >> the two, and why do they both qualify as "reasoning" of some kind? > > Subjective is opinion. Objective is not. So we have "opinion reasoning" and "non-opinion reasoning". What do those mean? >>>> So, there is no contradiction. Drawing self-satisfying conclusions >>>> from >>>> specious arguments is as wrong for me as anyone. I like to feel >>>> "satisfied" >>>> as much as anyone, but this is not the usage I was referring to; I >>>> used it >>>> more in the sense of smugness or hubris. >>>> >>>>> Also, on what do you base the idea that >>>>> naturalistic explanations are inherently "better" than non >>>> naturalistic >>>>> ones? Please offer your proof. >>>> >>>> "Non-naturalistic"? Please give me a useable definition of what a >>>> non-naturalistic explanation is (a clear example would help as >> well), >>>> and >>>> then I'll tell you why I prefer "naturalistic" explanations over >>>> "non-naturalistic" ones. In any case I don't recall using the word >>>> "naturalistic" before now. I think that explanations are >> explanations, >>>> and >>>> nonsense is nonsense. >>> >>> Naturalism says that everything must be explained by the laws of >>> nature. Naturalism is a self-disproving theory because it can't be >>> shown with the laws of nature.. >> >> Simply because something hasn't been explained by science doesn't mean >> it >> will not be or cannot be in principle, so I don't see how you call it >> self-disproving. > > A theory cannot be valid if it doesn't pass its own test. Your use of the term naturalism is fallacious. It is like asking "Can god make a mountain so big he cannot move it?" You would quite rightly respond that God cannot do self-contradictory things. The naturalism I hold to posits that anything _explainable_ can be explained in terms of natural law. Anything non-explainable (postulates) must be accepted on their own terms. Trying to explain the non-explainable is nonsensical, even if you try to bring in the "supernatural", because the "supernatural" is itself non-explainable, so no new information is added-- it explains nothing. >>> How is it in deductive form? >> >> Oh, come on! You don't know that? Please go read: >> >> <http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html> >> >> and then get back to me. Robert
Mark Harpt's Final Message
From: markh@superb.com To: Robert McNally <ironwolf@dangerousgames.com> Subject: Re: Who Created God? Robert McNally wrote: >> Well, since my argument for the existence of God precedes my argument > >> for who the God that exists is, then what's your point? To see the >> order of arguments again, check www.superb.com/wwcw/god_exists.html. > Do >> you admit that you are mistaken here? > > No, no mistake. I originally responded to your "Who Created God?" page > not > because I accepted your prior arguments, but because I found your > answer > fallacious. This is indicative of how you atheists think. You read an argument abased on another argument (clearly stated at the top of the page), ignore the another argument and claim there is no basis for the argument you're reading. If that's not enough, you then do not admit this illogical attempt to discredit views that are "dangerous" to your own. Why the double standard? What are you afraid of? > > >>>> >>>> Semantics. My argument takes care of such. >>> >>> Resorting to name-calling, I see. Meaning isn't important to you? >>> Don't >>> care to define your terms before using them? How specifically does >>> your >>> argument take care of such? >> >> What do you mean "resorting to name-calling"? If I was a typical >> alt.atheism atheist I would gloat and berate you for not knowing that > >> the meaning of the word "semantics." > > And you do so implicitly be even mentioning gloating and berating, so > you're no better. Your statement is like "Don't think of the color > blue." > If you didn't want me to think of it why did you mention it? Because I want you to see the difference between myself and the alt.atheism crowd. Even the difference between me and you. > > > In any case, I understand perfectly what semantics means. Briefly, it > is > the study of meaning. Why don't you address what I actually said now, > and > define your terms before you use them? Because what you said was gibberish and word games. There was no logical argument to refute. > > >> I will do no such thing simply >> because I think such actions are childish. By "semantics" I meant > "word >> games." > > You can "call" what I say word games, but that is name-calling. I am > being > honest and open with you, and if you won't give me the benefit of any > doubt > in that regard, I don't see what we have to discuss. Again the double standard. You were playing word games. Stating as much is in no way name-calling. Except I guess, in your mind, if a Christian does it. That's very close to bigotry in my mind. > > >>> >>> No? You don't even have faith smaller than a grain of mustard? You >>> don't >>> believe faith, which we all know "is the evidence of things unseen" > is >>> >>> desirable? It doesn't make you feel good to be one of the "saved"? > How >>> do >>> you know that your "logic" isn't just a show to cover up for the > fact >>> that >>> you really just want to believe? >> >> I use no such standards in my arguments because it's not necessary. >> There's plenty of evidence to base ones faith on, as I present. One > can >> judge my arguments without appealing to how it makes them feel. I > wish >> more atheists would do that. > > Your arguments are nothing new. I have judged them: they fail. Yet you cannot refute them. > > >>> >>> >>> Furthermore, it appears that your standards aren't high enough to >>> include >>> "no nonsense." You start talking about common sense, but when >>> challenged to >>> define your terms they all start turning to mush. >> >> Please give an example of this. > > "Outside of time." What else would you call the absence of the time dimension? Since the universe and time itself had a beginning, this is a valid consideration - cosmologists do it all the time. > > >> It is nonsensical to claim that the universe is not designed, in my >> opinion. Especially given the evidence. > > Then let God come down and take his own credit for them, instead of > relying > on proxies like the self-contradictory Bible and your so-called > "arguments." First of all, the Bible is not self-contradicting. Second of all, my argument on the existence of God doesn't use the Bible. > > >>> >>> >>>>>... I face the prospect of my >>>>> eventual >>>>> annihilation every day, and it makes life all the more precious > to >>> me, >>>>> but >>>>> don't equivocate that to mean that I somehow get a kick out of > the >>>>> thought >>>>> of dying that Jesus never gave me; I certainly don't. >>>> >>>> You obviously didn't look into with a clear motive. As I have > shown, >>> >>>> there is plenty of evidence. You might read the book, "The > Creation >>>> Hypothesis." It's a collection of writings from several > Christians >>> with >>>> Ph.D.s in secular fields. If you cannot refute their arguments, > you >>>> must accept them or continue to hold to your blind faith in > atheism. >>> >>> I can and I have refuted many theistic arguments, and reviewed a > great >>> deal >>> of evidence. Is there anything _new_ in this book? If so, what? >> >> Unrefutable arguments for the existence of God. Much better than > mine, >> BTW. Another good book is "Christian Apologetics." If I were you, >> considering what's at stake, I'd check it out. I try to keep up with > >> the lastest anti-God arguments. > > Shall I quote you from page 215 of the copy of "Christian Apologetics" > I > have in front of me? (This is just to show you that I do indeed have a > > copy.) > > << > Chapter 12: Atheism > Atheists claim that there is no God. They contend that there is no God > in > the world (as pantheism holds) and there is no God beyond the world > (as > deism claims). Futhermore, there is no God who is actually both in the > > world and beyond the world as theism claims, nor is there any > panentheistic > God beyond the world who is related to the world as a mind to body. > There > is no kind of God of any kind, anywhere. >>> > > I have read "Christian Apologetics." I bought it with an open mind > before I > ever knew I would end up becoming atheist. I bought it hoping that I > would > find something in it to save my faith. It actually showed me how > desperate > Christians are to cling to an appearance of rationality, when in > reality > they base their belief on emotional needs, and _then_ go looking for > arguments to back it up. Nice dodge. You didn't address the unrefutatble arguments. You bought that book knowing you wouldn't, nor did you really want to. You probably couldn't follow it anyway, from what I read of you philosophical prowess. This is a true statement not meant to be an insult. You chose one type of faith for another, never being able defend either faith. This means that you must have chosen your faith because of other reasons - not wanting to control certain behavior, the need to fit in, cowardice. You know what. > > >>> I don't think you can bring yourself to believe that _anyone_ might > >>> with a >>> clear head and heart leave Christianity and theism. You're clearly >>> closed-minded about this, and so I don't see what evidence or >>> testimony to >>> the contrary would convince you (or even influence you) otherwise. >> >> I haven't ever met anyone with a clear head who left Christianity > (who >> were ever Christians in the first place). It's always something > deeper. > > Of course, for you it has to be or it shoots holes in what you > believe. Go > ahead, make reality fit what you believe instead of the other way > around. My statement still stands. You seem to be proof. You lost your faith because you didn't understand it or the arguments for or against it! > > >>>>> Let's do a thought experiment in common sense: who is making the > >>>>> greater >>>>> sacrifice? >>>>> >>>>> A) An atheist, who lays down his or her life to save a friend or > >>> loved >>>>> one >>>>> from harm, or spends their life on a worthy cause (raising >>> children, >>>>> saving >>>>> the wolves, whatever), believing it is the only life they will > ever >>> >>>>> have, or >>>>> >>>>> B) Jesus Christ, who allegedly died on a cross positively > knowing >>> he'd >>>>> be >>>>> alive again in three days, and would live on forever with >>> incredible >>>>> power? >>>>> >>>>> Mere humiliation and physical pain aside, Christ's mythical >>>>> "sacrifice" >>>>> doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice to me compared to a > single >>> life >>>>> >>>>> well-lived. >>>>> >>>>> Simple common sense. >>>> >>>> You said you were a Christian once? >>> >>> Absolutely. >>> >>>> Do you not understand that perfect >>>> God becoming sin for us is more of a sacrifice than any other > person >>> can >>>> ever make? >>> >>> I understand the story. I believed it once. Children often believe >>> that >>> Santa fits through fireplaces. Many adults believe in UFOs. What >>> common >>> sense standard do I use to judge any of these stories? >> >> Evidence. BTW, you obviously don't have any idea of what I'm talking > >> about. We were talking about who is making the greater sacrifice. >> That is the question I answered - an answer that seemed to go right > over >> your head. > > Excuse me? Where above was your answer to my thought experiment? I > think > you asked a bunch of questions in response to my question. I'd like a > simple answer from you based on common sense, not more questions. You asked whose sacrifice is greater. > > >>> >>> >>>> I don't think you ever understood what a relationship with >>>> Christ was. >>> >>> I thought Christians were supposed to let God judge other people's >>> heart >>> and motives. >> >> Wrong again, but that's a different subject. > > Oh, so you believe that Christians should judge (anyone but yourself, > that > is)? Then how do you know you judge rightly? Aren't you putting > yourself in > God's place? No, you MUST judge certain things. You should know that, since you were supposedly a Christian. >>>> Did you ever believe that you had the Holy Spirit inside >>>> you? >>> >>> Yes, I did believe that. I was baptized and believed I would be in >>> God's >>> kingdom. You know, lots of children also have invisible "friends" > who >>> keep >>> them company. Allow me to question _your_ motives for a minute: I >>> think >>> that's what you're doing. I think deep down you really want to > avoid >>> dying >>> so badly that you've latched onto whatever offers some hope, and >>> you've >>> been told that if you believe and do all the right Christian things > >>> your >>> invisible friend will save you. >> >> Interesting perspective - it tells me a lot. > > What does it tell you? > >> First of all, there are no >> right things one can do to become saved. > > Yes, "faith not works," I know. Pity more christians don't just keep > their > faith and not try to impose their "works" on others. Huh? > > >> Second of all, returning to >> our natural place with our creator is excaping enslavement of purely >> physical things. > > Mere assertions. > >> Third, you are nieve to assume that all there is what >> can be seen. > > You are naive to assume that's what I assume. I don't believe in the > so-called "supernatural", but if you think I don't believe in atoms > and > molecules and such just because I can't "see" them, think again. > >> Even scientists are theorizing that more than 4 dimensions >> exist. > > Yes, but that's irrelevant to any point I have raised. > >> Fourth, the evidence cannot be excaped. > > More mere assertions. > >> Fifth, becoming a >> Christian and receiving the Holy Spirit is anything but imaginary. > > So say you, but UFO folks say the aliens aren't imaginary as well. > You're > in the same boat. > >> You >> never felt Him? Think hard because your heart is hardened right now. > > You never felt that pang of hypocrisy because deep down you know your > Holy > Spirit is just an imaginary friend? Think hard because your brain is > hardened right now. (I say this to point out how condescending and > stupid > Christian rhetoric like your previous statement sounds.) I thought not. > > >>> >>> >>>>> Perhaps as a believer who actually respects science and >>>>> reason, >>>>> you could spend some time educating other believers about their >>>>> positive >>>>> aspects, and the value of the scientific method? >>>> >>>> That's what we're try to do! >>> >>> You think you're web site will teach the value of science to other >>> believers? It's totally preaching to the choir! >> >> Not too long ago an atheist became a Christian because of it. > Actually, >> because of the Holy Spirit who worked through my page. This type of >> thing is common in Internet ministries. I spend a lot of my own > money >> making the truth available to people on the Internet. A person with > an >> open mind will soon realize that it is foolish to claim that God does > >> not exist when he visits my pages. > > Boy, you sure take a lot of credit for "your" arguments and "your" > pages. > Well, I've got news for you: first, your pages are nothing unique on > the > Web. There are plenty of apologetics sites more thorough than yours. > Second: it goes both ways. I credit the wide availability of arguments > on > both sides of the theism/atheism issue on the Internet for helping me > make > up my mind to give up religion. I take no credit. I can do nothing by myself in these matters. > > >>>> The problem is that science is >>>> philosophically geared against Christianity. >>> >>> Boy, how often do I hear that from theists? Many scientists, even >>> evolutionists, consider themselves Christian. What specific > aspect(s) >>> of >>> science do you feel are "philosophically geared against" > Christianity? >>> Do >>> you feel that way just because many scientists don't end up buying >>> into >>> Christianity? >> >> Many scientists are Christians. What I mean is science is ruled by >> naturalism (a philosophy) that says, for no good reason, "the >> supernatural cannot exist." > > Everything in our common experience can be explained by natural law. I see, so there's nothing that cannot be explained? > Everything we have discovered outside the realm of our common > experience > can be explained by natural law. Doesn't the discovery bring it into our experience? > Even if there are some things which > proveably _cannot_ be explained by natual law, that does _not_ imply a > > "supernatural law", it simply points to postulates of existence which > must > be accepted on their own terms. Even if I grant for the sake of > argument > that mystery allows for "supernatural law", then you open up the door > for > "super-supernatural law" and an infinite regress. Not true in the case of a supernatural lawgiver. I explain that in a link to the URL I gave you. Your entire natural law argument falls flat when I ask this one question - How do you explain the natural laws themselves? By definition, the natural laws don't follow natural laws. Therefore, natural laws, which are obviously part of our experience, cannot be explained by naturalism. Thus, naturalism a self-contradictory philosophy - it doesn't account for itself. Another thing to worry about when limiting yourself to naturalistic explanations is what if the reality of something requires a supernatural explanation? By definition, you can never know the reality of that thing. Therefore, naturalism is setup to be unrefutable. So science is based on a philosophy that is untestable and unrefutable. Naturalism is circular reasoning. So, a person would be a better scientist if he did not limit himself to naturalism. That way he'd have a better chance at discovering the truth. > > >>>>> Let me be more clear. If I care more about whether the premises > I >>> base >>>>> my >>>>> beliefs upon satisfy emotional urges or needs than whether or > not >>> they >>>>> >>>>> undermine my understanding of objective reality, I have reached > a >>>>> self-satisfying conclusion. The conclusion could be _true_ by >>>>> coincindence, >>>>> but it is not _valid_, and is just as likely (or more) to be >>> _false_. >>>>> For >>>>> example, if I like chocolate, the idea that I can eat as much of > it >>> as >>>>> I >>>>> want to the exclusion of a more complete diet is > self-satisfying. >>>> >>>> You're mixing up objective and subjective reasoning here. >>> >>> Those are new terms for me. What is "objective reasoning" and how > does >>> it >>> differ from "subjective reasoning?" What is the precise difference >>> between >>> the two, and why do they both qualify as "reasoning" of some kind? >> >> Subjective is opinion. Objective is not. > > So we have "opinion reasoning" and "non-opinion reasoning". What do > those mean? > >>>>> So, there is no contradiction. Drawing self-satisfying > conclusions >>>>> from >>>>> specious arguments is as wrong for me as anyone. I like to feel >>>>> "satisfied" >>>>> as much as anyone, but this is not the usage I was referring to; > I >>>>> used it >>>>> more in the sense of smugness or hubris. >>>>> >>>>>> Also, on what do you base the idea that >>>>>> naturalistic explanations are inherently "better" than non >>>>> naturalistic >>>>>> ones? Please offer your proof. >>>>> >>>>> "Non-naturalistic"? Please give me a useable definition of what > a >>>>> non-naturalistic explanation is (a clear example would help as >>> well), >>>>> and >>>>> then I'll tell you why I prefer "naturalistic" explanations over > >>>>> "non-naturalistic" ones. In any case I don't recall using the > word >>>>> "naturalistic" before now. I think that explanations are >>> explanations, >>>>> and >>>>> nonsense is nonsense. >>>> >>>> Naturalism says that everything must be explained by the laws of >>>> nature. Naturalism is a self-disproving theory because it can't > be >>>> shown with the laws of nature.. >>> >>> Simply because something hasn't been explained by science doesn't > mean >>> it >>> will not be or cannot be in principle, so I don't see how you call > it >>> self-disproving. >> >> A theory cannot be valid if it doesn't pass its own test. > > Your use of the term naturalism is fallacious. It is like asking "Can > god > make a mountain so big he cannot move it?" You would quite rightly > respond > that God cannot do self-contradictory things. The naturalism I hold to The naturalism you hold to is Naturalism. It is also a philosophical theory. > posits that anything _explainable_ can be explained in terms of > natural > law. Except the theory of naturalism itself. What law tells us it is true? > Anything non-explainable (postulates) must be accepted on their own > terms. Trying to explain the non-explainable is nonsensical, even if > you > try to bring in the "supernatural", because the "supernatural" is > itself > non-explainable, so no new information is added-- it explains nothing. Please offer me a proof that supernatural things can never be explained. This is especially odd of you to say since I have explained the supernatural in my URLs. > > >> Well, I'm done with this conversation. You need to think about the fact that you blindly hold contradictory ideas. The first and foremost is Naturalism, which I have shown to be self-contradictory and an example circular reasoning. This stuff is important and I take no joy in defeating someone in debate if that defeat is not followed by a revaluation of his or her beliefs. I wish you long life, Mark www.superb.com/wwcw
Robert McNally's Final Message
To: markh@superb.com From: Robert McNally <ironwolf@dangerousgames.com> Subject: Re: Who Created God? markh@superb.com wrote: > Robert McNally wrote: > >>> Well, since my argument for the existence of God precedes my argument >> >>> for who the God that exists is, then what's your point? To see the >>> order of arguments again, check www.superb.com/wwcw/god_exists.html. >> Do >>> you admit that you are mistaken here? >> >> No, no mistake. I originally responded to your "Who Created God?" page >> not >> because I accepted your prior arguments, but because I found your >> answer >> fallacious. > > This is indicative of how you atheists think. You read an argument > abased on another argument (clearly stated at the top of the page), > ignore the another argument and claim there is no basis for the argument > you're reading. If that's not enough, you then do not admit this > illogical attempt to discredit views that are "dangerous" to your own. > Why the double standard? What are you afraid of? A fallacy is a fallacy wherever it occurs. >> >> >>>>> >>>>> Semantics. My argument takes care of such. >>>> >>>> Resorting to name-calling, I see. Meaning isn't important to you? >>>> Don't >>>> care to define your terms before using them? How specifically does >>>> your >>>> argument take care of such? >>> >>> What do you mean "resorting to name-calling"? If I was a typical >>> alt.atheism atheist I would gloat and berate you for not knowing that >> >>> the meaning of the word "semantics." >> >> And you do so implicitly be even mentioning gloating and berating, so >> you're no better. Your statement is like "Don't think of the color >> blue." >> If you didn't want me to think of it why did you mention it? > > Because I want you to see the difference between myself and the > alt.atheism crowd. Even the difference between me and you. It doesn't work that way. You have failed to show any difference between you and the alt.atheism bleaters, or the alt.christnet bleaters for that matter. >> >> >> In any case, I understand perfectly what semantics means. Briefly, it >> is >> the study of meaning. Why don't you address what I actually said now, >> and >> define your terms before you use them? > > Because what you said was gibberish and word games. There was no > logical argument to refute. You can't make an argument if you won't define your terms. >> >> >>> I will do no such thing simply >>> because I think such actions are childish. By "semantics" I meant >> "word >>> games." >> >> You can "call" what I say word games, but that is name-calling. I am >> being >> honest and open with you, and if you won't give me the benefit of any >> doubt >> in that regard, I don't see what we have to discuss. > > Again the double standard. You were playing word games. Stating as > much is in no way name-calling. Except I guess, in your mind, if a > Christian does it. That's very close to bigotry in my mind. This is not even worth a respnse. >> >> >>>> >>>> No? You don't even have faith smaller than a grain of mustard? You >>>> don't >>>> believe faith, which we all know "is the evidence of things unseen" >> is >>>> >>>> desirable? It doesn't make you feel good to be one of the "saved"? >> How >>>> do >>>> you know that your "logic" isn't just a show to cover up for the >> fact >>>> that >>>> you really just want to believe? >>> >>> I use no such standards in my arguments because it's not necessary. >>> There's plenty of evidence to base ones faith on, as I present. One >> can >>> judge my arguments without appealing to how it makes them feel. I >> wish >>> more atheists would do that. >> >> Your arguments are nothing new. I have judged them: they fail. > > Yet you cannot refute them. This is not worth a response either. >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> Furthermore, it appears that your standards aren't high enough to >>>> include >>>> "no nonsense." You start talking about common sense, but when >>>> challenged to >>>> define your terms they all start turning to mush. >>> >>> Please give an example of this. >> >> "Outside of time." > > What else would you call the absence of the time dimension? Since the > universe and time itself had a beginning, this is a valid consideration >- cosmologists do it all the time. Which ones? Theistic cosmologists? >> >> >>> It is nonsensical to claim that the universe is not designed, in my >>> opinion. Especially given the evidence. >> >> Then let God come down and take his own credit for them, instead of >> relying >> on proxies like the self-contradictory Bible and your so-called >> "arguments." > > First of all, the Bible is not self-contradicting. Second of all, my > argument on the existence of God doesn't use the Bible. Your evidence does not have God's signature on it. He has not stepped forward to take personal credit for them, nor show how he did it. You have therefore failed to show that God gets any credit for what exists. >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>... I face the prospect of my >>>>>> eventual >>>>>> annihilation every day, and it makes life all the more precious >> to >>>> me, >>>>>> but >>>>>> don't equivocate that to mean that I somehow get a kick out of >> the >>>>>> thought >>>>>> of dying that Jesus never gave me; I certainly don't. >>>>> >>>>> You obviously didn't look into with a clear motive. As I have >> shown, >>>> >>>>> there is plenty of evidence. You might read the book, "The >> Creation >>>>> Hypothesis." It's a collection of writings from several >> Christians >>>> with >>>>> Ph.D.s in secular fields. If you cannot refute their arguments, >> you >>>>> must accept them or continue to hold to your blind faith in >> atheism. >>>> >>>> I can and I have refuted many theistic arguments, and reviewed a >> great >>>> deal >>>> of evidence. Is there anything _new_ in this book? If so, what? >>> >>> Unrefutable arguments for the existence of God. Much better than >> mine, >>> BTW. Another good book is "Christian Apologetics." If I were you, >>> considering what's at stake, I'd check it out. I try to keep up with >> >>> the lastest anti-God arguments. >> >> Shall I quote you from page 215 of the copy of "Christian Apologetics" >> I >> have in front of me? (This is just to show you that I do indeed have a >> >> copy.) >> >> << >> Chapter 12: Atheism >> Atheists claim that there is no God. They contend that there is no God >> in >> the world (as pantheism holds) and there is no God beyond the world >> (as >> deism claims). Futhermore, there is no God who is actually both in the >> >> world and beyond the world as theism claims, nor is there any >> panentheistic >> God beyond the world who is related to the world as a mind to body. >> There >> is no kind of God of any kind, anywhere. >>>> >> >> I have read "Christian Apologetics." I bought it with an open mind >> before I >> ever knew I would end up becoming atheist. I bought it hoping that I >> would >> find something in it to save my faith. It actually showed me how >> desperate >> Christians are to cling to an appearance of rationality, when in >> reality >> they base their belief on emotional needs, and _then_ go looking for >> arguments to back it up. > > Nice dodge. You didn't address the unrefutatble arguments. You bought > that book knowing you wouldn't, nor did you really want to. Such presumption! > You > probably couldn't follow it anyway, from what I read of you > philosophical prowess. Such condescension! > This is a true statement not meant to be an > insult. Such provocation! > You chose one type of faith for another, never being able > defend either faith. And if I tell you that more than one person became a Christian through my witnessing while I was one (true), you'll say that it was God working through me. No way to win. > This means that you must have chosen your faith > because of other reasons - not wanting to control certain behavior, the > need to fit in, cowardice. You know what. Argumentum ad hominem. Look it up. >> >> >>>> I don't think you can bring yourself to believe that _anyone_ might >> >>>> with a >>>> clear head and heart leave Christianity and theism. You're clearly >>>> closed-minded about this, and so I don't see what evidence or >>>> testimony to >>