Foolish Atheist

As one can see from the above YouTube video, a rather thoughtful Australian atheist, Kelly Jones, has provided a short critique of the Scripturalism of John Robbins. I say “rather thoughtful” because her critique of Robbins is just silly. You’ll notice she does not object to Dr. Robbins defining the word Logos in Scripture as logic, but complains that he refers to the Logos of Scripture as something that exists.  Well, of course it… or better He…exists. To put it another way, Ms. Jones doesn’t deny that logic exists because she experiences it when she thinks.  In her YouTube profile she even says that reason is her “sole friend.”  However, and in the very passage Dr. Robbins explicates, the Apostle John explains why Ms. Jones experiences what she does.  That’s because John 1:9 tells us that  the Logos, the divine Second Person of the Trinity, “enlightens every man” (John 1:9).  The Bible, and not the atheistic positivism Ms. Jones presupposes, provides the account for logic in man.

Therefore, ironically and more than a bit tragically, what Ms. Jones is experiencing when she recognizes and affirms the architecture of her own mind, is God.  After all, besides the Scriptures teaching that man is the very image of God (2 Cor. 4:4) who is Logic, Paul explains in Romans 1 that unbelievers like Ms. Jones will, in spite of the clear testimony of Scripture and the truth of God revealed within her, suppress the truth. Ms. Jones has provided a classic example of the suppression of the truth even as she simultaneously recognizes and affirms it.  As Paul explains:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Notice, the truth of God is evident within Ms. Jones, to the point where she even refers to reason — the very Logos of God enlightening her mind – as her “sole friend.”  Yet, she suppresses the truth and merely asserts that the Logos of Scripture that lights her mind does not exist because, she claims, this is something she cannot experience. How foolish is that?

Later in the video Ms. Jones objects that Dr. Robbins does not explain why he accepts the definition of God given in the Scripture and simply assumes that the biblical definitions are true. This objections is also silly.  As opposed to her brand of logical positivism, Dr. Robbins has chosen the axiom of Scripture as his source of knowledge and truth. Her objection comes down to nothing more than Robbins is a Christian who accepts the Bible as true and as the axiomatic starting point of his philosophy and she does not. Big deal.

About these ads
Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

77 Comments on “Foolish Atheist”

  1. Ben Buskey Says:

    Same old trick you hear from just about every atheist that thinks they are VERY smart… try to destroy an argument for the existence of God, while at the same time affirming the validity of they argument they are trying to destroy. Why is it that so many atheists try and use logic and yet it is very evident that they need to take an introductory course on logic just to see their own simple errors???

  2. Joel Tay Says:

    Excellent article

  3. Kelly Jones Says:

    Hi Sean,

    I’ll post the following in my Youtube video response to your PM and above blog entry:

    I don’t mind equating logic with what enlightens, but I do mind you doing what Robbins does, and which he knows is a no-no: equivocation.

    This is the equivocation:

    logic = thinking
    thinking = God
    God = (according to Robbin reading the Westminster catechism) “spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth”

    That is clearly a contradiction of the law of identity, since these attributes are not the same as thinking. I’ll explain your mistake further in the video.

    Kelly Jones

  4. kimeradrummer Says:

    I Kelly, God bless you.

    There is no equivocation. If we take logic as the way God think, then the concept is implied in the term “Spirit”, because “Spirit” refers to the rational mind of God. So, the problems is that you don’t understand Robbins and the Westminster.

    Because Robbins follows Clark on this subject, I recommend you to read the following:

    http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/015a-GodandLogic.pdf

    God bless…

  5. Sean Gerety Says:

    Hi Kelly, thanks for your response. I agree with the above and I think the equivocation is perhaps in your own mind as I don’t see where Dr. Robbins was making the argument you attribute to him.

    Dr. Robbins said that per John’s prologue logic is not created and is not something superior to God, but rather logic is God (John 1:1); i.e., logic is the way God thinks. Logic is the architecture of God’s mind in whose imagine man was created. Consequently, when man thinks logically he thinks as God thinks.

    FWIW, Robbins was not offering a proof for God’s existence which perhaps explains your tendency to read into what he was saying.

    OTOH, I am interested in one thing. Toward the end of your video where you play a section of Robbins’ lecture, you wrote that the the fundamental axiom of logic cannot be proven is false. I found this interesting since arguably the central failure of all secular philosophy has been it’s complete inability to account for logic. Here you seem to assert that there is a proof for logic. I’d like to see this proof if you would care to provide it? Gordon Clark (I believe in “Thales to Dewey”) makes the point that even Aristotle failed on this score and no one since has done any better. Maybe you’re the exception to thousands of years of secular philosophy?

    FWIW whereas a Christian can certainly account for logic based on the Scriptures alone as Dr. Robbins has done, I just don’t see how an atheist can provide such an account? From what can you deduce this proof? Or is this some sort of inductive inference from some subjective internal experience?

    Of course, even on the face of it your claim seems problematic. If the axiom of logic can be proven, then why call it an axiom in your system? Wouldn’t whatever it is you deduced logic from be the axiom and logic a theorem? I guess the other question is, how can any axiom be proved and still be an axiom? Isn’t a provable axiom a contradiction in terms?

  6. Kelly Jones Says:

    kimeradrummer, do you see that one’s behaviour is affected by what one is thinking?

  7. Kelly Jones Says:

    Sean, have a look at “Deceitful Definitions, part 2″ for a response to your comments. I posted it about 8 hours before you asked them, but it manages to answer them. Efficient, eh?

  8. kimeradrummer Says:

    Hi Kelly.

    I don’t see the relevance of your question. Can you explain it to me?

  9. Kelly Jones Says:

    kimeradrummer, the point may be clearer to you when you’ve provided an answer. What’s your view?

  10. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly:

    I cannot give an answer when I really don’t understand what are you talking and what has to do with what we are discusing. What do you mean with ‘thinking’? What do you mean with ‘behavior’? What’s the relation between both and with our actual topic?

    So, in order to give a answer I ask you to be more especific and clear.

    P.D.: What’s the starting point of your thinking, the law of identity?

  11. Kelly Jones Says:

    kimeradrummer, I’ll rephrase it, then. Do you see that a person’s thoughts have an effect on their actions, namely, what they do?

    “what’s the starting point of your thinking?”

    Do you mean what is the true proposition on which my philosophy is based? or do you mean, when was I first conscious?

    Kelly

  12. Sean Gerety Says:

    OK, saw your video and I confess I’m more confused concerning your position and your opposition to the Scripturalism of John Robbins and Christianity in general than I was before. You state that an axiom has to “be true to begin with and then you proceed on that basis.” So far so good. However, a more accurate statement would be that an axiom has to be “presumed to be true to begin with….” That’s why when Robbins said an axiom cannot be proven, you said this is false because the proposition you begin with “has to be proven true before it can be used … you can’t just assume that it is true.” This is absurd for the simple reason that if any given axiom can be demonstrated to be true then it would cease to be an axiom. Axiom is defined, at least as Dr. Robbins is using it, as a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference: a postulate. Consequently, while an axiom cannot be proved, axioms can certainly be disproved. For example, take logical positivism. Gordon Clark writes:

    The principle, A sentence is meaningful only if verifiable by sense, can itself never be verified by sense. Thus by its own test Logical Positivism is nonsense. [Christian Philosophy, 88,89].

    Logical Positivism is self refuting. But, before continuing, I admit that I thought you were suggesting that the “axiom of logic,” which is not Robbins axiom (but it is surely yours), could be proven. I see now you were saying that because any proof would be tautological. Fair enough. Of course, that still doesn’t account for why (human) thought consists of logical forms and their violations. This is what I thought you were implying you could do. I see now this was not the case.

    Next, you say that Robbins is wrong when he said that the axiom of Christianity, the Scriptures, cannot be proven because in your mind he is surreptitiously equating the law of identity with the Scriptures, but that is not what he has done at all. Logic is certainly presupposed by every word of Scripture, simply because for any word to mean anything it must not mean something else. However, you conclude by saying that “if you start off with an axiom it is not a reliable premise because you haven’t proven it to be true ….” Again, this is just silly. If one could prove the Scriptures are true, then the Scriptures would not be the axiom of Christianity, but rather a theorem. Further, whereas you cannot deduce anything from A = A, and rationalism has historically failed to provide any truth at all, you can validly deduce any number of propositions from Scripture; things like as “all men are sinners” and a man is justified by belief alone. Again, you confuse the nature of axioms with their theorem.

    Next, you claim that “if you being this way [with the propositions of Scripture as your axiom] your consequent line of thinking, is… just a mess, you might as well just chuck it all out,” but this doesn’t follow. If one assumes the Scriptures are true, then not only can the laws of logic be accounted for, but so can epistemology, ethics, politics, history, and everything else is gobbled up in one bite. That’s because any valid inferences from any true propositions are necessarily true. Christianity claims to be true, therefore the axiom of Christianity, the Scriptures, covers all that follows. Christianity, at least per the authors of the Westminster Confession and their heirs, is a rational and deductive system of thought whose truth is evidenced by the logical harmony of propositions.

    Anyway, thank you for taking the time to reply to my comments on YouTube and for taking the time to interact with Dr. Robbins’ lecture.

  13. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly:

    Yes. More especific, what we believe, wich is the basis of what objects of thought we will be inclined to entertain and what will be our interest and priorities, will define the way we will be inclined to act. Now, can you explain me the relevance of this with our topic?

    And for the second point, I refer to what you say in your first question.

  14. Kelly Jones Says:

    Sean, you say “Axiom is defined, at least as Dr. Robbins is using it, as a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference: a postulate”.

    I reject that definition wholesale, because it supposes just any old declaration can be used as an axiom. There has to be some reason for accepting an axiom as true, rather than assuming simply on the face of it. The truth-value comes via a line of deductive reasoning.

    Incidentally, your example is irrelevant, because deductive reasoning is not the same as reasoning based on ‘observation of sensory data’ (if by ‘sense’ that’s what you meant).

    “If one could prove the Scriptures are true, then the Scriptures would not be the axiom of Christianity, but rather a theorem.”

    This sentence can be discarded since it relies on the definition of axiom which I have shown to be rubbish.

    “Further, whereas you cannot deduce anything from A = A,”

    This indicates you fail to understand the significance of the fundamental axiom of logic. If anything could be deduced from it, it would not be the law of identity.

    “all men are sinners”

    This is not a logical deduction but a faulty premise.

    “If one assumes the Scriptures are true, then not only can the laws of logic be accounted for,”

    That’s a big if.

    But trying to account for the law of identity by referring to a specific identity is again indicating your lack of understanding.

    Kelly Jones

  15. Kelly Jones Says:

    kimeradrummer, you wrote “More especific, what we believe, wich is the basis of what objects of thought we will be inclined to entertain and what will be our interest and priorities, will define the way we will be inclined to act. Now, can you explain me the relevance of this with our topic?”

    Sure, we’re getting to it. First, do you think all actions by all humans are defined by objects of thought that are just, holy, good, powerful and wise? If not, how do you account for them, given that you believe thinking is identical with God, and God is just, holy, good, powerful, wise, etc.?

    Kelly

  16. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly:

    To your first question and the beggining of your second question, my answer is no, and my account for that is that we all are sinners, and even believers fall ocassionally on sin.

    And, to what you say here: – ‘…given that you believe thinking is identical with God, and God is just, holy, good, powerful, wise, etc.?’, my answer is that you are equivocating the term ‘think’. When we say that when mens think rationally (logical thinking) they are thinking in the same way God think, we are refering to the PROCESS ON THINKING. Till now, we are (at least I was) refering to the OBJECTS OF THOUGHT, which are processed with our minds.

    I hope this clear your missunderstanding.

    God bless…

  17. kimeradrummer Says:

    Just a word on the Axiom of Christianity: Our Axiom is accepted and pressuposed true BY LOGICAL NECESSITY, not in an arbitrary way. This is because all God Word by logical necessity is true, and, therefore, we receive the Axiom based on His own merits (selfjustification); i.e. because is the Word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13). Then, the objection you pose to Sean here: ‘…I reject that definition wholesale, because it supposes just any old declaration can be used as an axiom…’, doesn’t have any basis, and, in fact, show a big missunderstandig of our position.

    Rejecting it, therefore, is not only sin; it is irrational too. How can be rational someone who reject God, this is, someone who reject truth?

    God bless…

  18. Sean Gerety Says:

    Sean, you say “Axiom is defined, at least as Dr. Robbins is using it, as a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference: a postulate”.

    I reject that definition wholesale, because it supposes just any old declaration can be used as an axiom.

    You might reject it, but that is what the word “axiom” means. Look it up for yourself. Or just recall your old Geometry classes. And, yes, any old declaration can and has been used. Christianity is hardly unusual in this respect. Every philosophy for it to start must start somewhere, and that somewhere is that system’s axiom.

    There has to be some reason for accepting an axiom as true, rather than assuming simply on the face of it. The truth-value comes via a line of deductive reasoning.

    Again, if an axiom could be proved true it wouldn’t be an axiom. Consider the Christian axiom of Scripture. There can be nothing prior to God’s own self revelation for without it God would be otherwise unknown. This is why Scripture says; “since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself…”(Heb6:13). For that matter, without self revelation you and I would be otherwise unknown and unknowable. And, if God’s self revelation could be deduced from something prior, then there would be something prior to God which is absurd. However, since the Scriptures evidence to the mind of man, and in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith(WCF), “a consent of all the parts,” that is, the Scriptures present to the mind a logical and harmonious system of truths, then we have evidence (albeit not proof) that the Bible alone is the Word of God. Truth is known by the logical relationship of propositions and not by contradictions, antinomies and paradoxes.

    That said, and as previously mentioned, while an axiom, any axiom, cannot be proved they can be disproved.

    Incidentally, your example is irrelevant, because deductive reasoning is not the same as reasoning based on ‘observation of sensory data’ (if by ’sense’ that’s what you meant).

    That’s correct. Only deductive reasoning can provide conclusions that are either true or false. Inductive reasoning, those that result from “observation of sensory data,” are by necessity false for the form of the premises are not the same as the form of the conclusions. This is why Russel called the problem of induction the “unsolved problem of logic.” Induction does not result in true/false conclusions, but rather only probable conclusions that can be just as easily true as they are false.

    “If one could prove the Scriptures are true, then the Scriptures would not be the axiom of Christianity, but rather a theorem.”

    This sentence can be discarded since it relies on the definition of axiom which I have shown to be rubbish.

    You’ve shown no such thing. You’ve merely asserted it is rubbish, but then you’d have to wipe out the entire English language along with a few thousand years of Geometry to substantiate your claim. Have fun.

    “Further, whereas you cannot deduce anything from A = A,”

    This indicates you fail to understand the significance of the fundamental axiom of logic. If anything could be deduced from it, it would not be the law of identity.

    Well if you cannot deduce anything from A=A, or at the very least you haven’t shown that you can, it certainly suggest that the “fundamental axiom of logic” is utterly useless as the fundamental axiom of anything. This is why Gordon Clark argued in “God and Logic” linked above that “The law of contradiction is not to betaken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.” You may replace LNC with the LI if you prefer. You simply cannot deduce anything from A = A. It is the recognition of a form from which nothing can be deduced.

    “all men are sinners”

    This is not a logical deduction but a faulty premise.

    It’s only a faulty premise because you reject the axiom it is derived from. However, if the axiom is true, as I maintain, then not only is that universal necessarily true but so is it universally true that “all men have fallen short of the glory of God” along thousands of other universals derived from Scripture alone. This is something all your inferences from sensory observations can never give you. You cannot arrive at one universal from observing any number of particulars. It is impossible. Consequently, and for a whole host of reasons, I’d recommend giving up the vanity of atheism and accept Jesus Christ, the Logos of God that lighteth every man and “who became flesh and dwelt among us.”

    “If one assumes the Scriptures are true, then not only can the laws of logic be accounted for,”

    That’s a big if.

    It’s not a big “if” at all, since LNC and certainly LI have been already accounted for and by extension so has LEM in accordance with the axiom of Scripture. You just reject the Scriptures. OK, you’re an atheists and not a Christian. Big surprise.

    But trying to account for the law of identity by referring to a specific identity is again indicating your lack of understanding.

    I can only assume you’ve misunderstood or are simply reading into what Dr. Robbins was saying. The divine Logos or Logic of God, who “lighteth every man,” is the same one who “became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). This is the truth which I demonstrated and Paul said you suppress in unrighteous. This is not identifying or equating the law of identity with God, but rather the laws of logic are not some cosmic accident. They are the architecture of mind of God in whose image we were created. Along with reading the short essay, God and Logic, I would recommend you listen again to Dr. Robbins lecture. At least understand first what he was saying if you’re going to attempt to refute him.

  19. Kelly Jones Says:

    Sean, you need to stop taking other people’s definitions at face value. It makes you look totally ridiculous.

    When they say that an axiom is self-evidently true, or taken for granted as true, they don’t mean that reasoning has been avoided in accepting the axiom.

    For instance, 1+1=2 or (a+b = b+a) is an axiom that is taken as true only because of the way it has been constructed. It is not “simply true”, but has been constructed according to the fundamental axiom of logic, A=A. You see, there are reasons here.

    If there is no reason to take an axiom as true, such as where it contradicts A=A, then it should not be.

    You say “Only deductive reasoning can provide conclusions that are either true or false.”

    Deductive reasoning provides true conclusions only. If the conclusion is false, it is not deductive reasoning. The propositions have to be true as well.

    You say “if you cannot deduce anything from A=A, or at the very least you haven’t shown that you can, it certainly suggest that the “fundamental axiom of logic” is utterly useless as the fundamental axiom of anything.”

    There is nothing deduced from A=A, but it is used as an axiom in the way I demonstrated above. This indicates that it is not useless.

    Kelly

  20. Kelly Jones Says:

    Kimeradrummer, you say “When we say that when mens think rationally (logical thinking) they are thinking in the same way God think,”

    Alright. So when men condone rape, murder, looting, genocide, child abuse, or slavery, would you say that they are thinking in the same way God thinks?

    Just to remind you, the Xian God condones all these things. Read your bible…..

    Kelly

  21. Sean Gerety Says:

    Sean, you need to stop taking other people’s definitions at face value. It makes you look totally ridiculous.

    What looks totally ridiculous Kelly is to dishonestly impose a foreign definition on others, insist that they adhere to it, and then attempt to refute them based on your own definition. It’s called a straw man argument. That is the extent of your objection to Dr. Robbins. In this case the “deceptive definition” is your own and of your own making.

    When they say that an axiom is self-evidently true, or taken for granted as true, they don’t mean that reasoning has been avoided in accepting the axiom.

    And, if you have been paying attention I never said that “reasoning has been avoided” in the acceptance of an axiom, specifically the Christian one. Also, neither I or Dr. Robbins in his lecture has said that the Scriptures are “self-evidently” true, which is another straw man. They are self-authenticating and they evidence their truthfulness through the logical coherence and “consent of all the parts.”

    If there is no reason to take an axiom as true, such as where it contradicts A=A, then it should not be.

    Have you been paying attention at all or have I been writing for my own entertainment? Again, while axioms are chosen, not proved, that doesn’t mean they cannot be disproved. If an axiom were self-contradictory or self-refuting, for example the axiom of the Logical Positivist per the example I gave above, then one would be irrational to accept it or maintain it as their axiom. Admittedly some people are persistent and maintain nonsense while feigning an allegiance to reason.

    You say “Only deductive reasoning can provide conclusions that are either true or false.”

    Deductive reasoning provides true conclusions only. If the conclusion is false, it is not deductive reasoning.

    Well obviously, provided the deduction is valid and the premises are true, but here again is your tendency to read or misconstrue what others are saying. One can validly deduce a conclusion from false premises, yes? Whereas, all valid deductions from true premises are necessarily true, but how do you, an atheist, arrive at any true premises? Through experience or “observation of sensory data”? Hardly. If that were the case then science would be a cognitive enterprise, when in fact it is anything but. Science, as Karl Popper argued long ago, is not interested in truth. Popper wrote:

    …in science there is no ‘knowledge’ in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. What we usually call ’scientific knowledge’ is, as a rule, not knowledge in this sense, but rather information regarding the various competing hypotheses and the way in which they have stood up to various tests; it is, using the language of Plato and Aristotle, information concerning the latest, and the best tested, scientific ‘opinion’. This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science….In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory. (What may occur, however, are refutations of scientific theories.)

    Ironically, your love of reason, what you call your sole friend, has provided you with nothing but empty forms leaving you groping in darkness. You have the illusion and appearance of someone who loves the truth, but the truth that is so evident within you you reject. Or as Paul said, you are left “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” By contrast, Jesus said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life….”

    The propositions have to be true as well.

    Yes, in order for the deduction to be both valid and sound, but what’s your point? How do you arrive at any true propositions from “observation of sensory data”? It would seem to me that your entire claim to truth is one giant petitio.

    There is nothing deduced from A=A, but it is used as an axiom in the way I demonstrated above. This indicates that it is not useless.

    It is useless insofar as 1) you are unable to account for logic even the law of identity from sense observation, and 2) there is no system that you can validly, much less soundly, deduce from A = A.

  22. Kelly Jones Says:

    Sean, you say “[The scriptures] are self-authenticating and they evidence their truthfulness through the logical coherence and “consent of all the parts.” ”

    Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. You’re not presenting the view that the ‘scriptures are the axiom of Xianity’ not because the axiom itself is true, but because you are looking at the *content* of the scriptures.

    That is, you believe the scriptures are the starting point for any consequent reasoning *after* you have tested their content according to *your own reason*.

    So, since you are clearly not saying here that you haven’t tested the content of the scriptures for ‘logical coherence’, therefore, I can pose the same question to you that I did to kimeradrummer:

    If God is defined as goodness, then is it logically coherent for goodness to commit bad acts, e.g. rape, murder, theft, genocide, child abuse, and torture?

    Is it logically coherent to forbid utterly and completely, all acts of murder and theft, but also to permit them?

    Kelly

    P.S. I already stated that logical deductions, such as the truth that a thing is what it is, are not made using observation of sensory data, so I don’t know why you’re thrashing that dead horse.

  23. Kelly Jones Says:

    Sean, you asked “One can validly deduce a conclusion from false premises, yes?”

    No. But feel free to provide an example if you can find one.

  24. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly:

    You’re still not understanding what we are talking about. You’re still not understanding the difference between ‘THINKING’ (subject X to the process of logical thought) and the ‘OBJECT OF THOUGHT’ (the ‘X’ on the last definition).

    Now, ‘think’ is not the same as ‘condone’, wich in the context you propose means a moral judge. A moral judge can be the result of logical thinking, but is not the same as think. So, your still equivocating the terms.

    Now, here is a funny question to you about moral judge: What rationally justify any moral judge you make as objetive and true? I believe you take rape, murder, looting, genocide, etc. as morally wrong, but, why anyone have to take your judge as relevant, objetive, authoritarian, etc.?

    Therefore, unless you rationally justify your ethic pharameter of judge, then the only thing you do with comments like the one you said is apeal to emotional reaction, not to rational aproval. Of course, irrational people will be inclined to accept your comment, but so what?

    God bless…

  25. Paul Riemann Says:

    Kelly said:

    “If God is defined as goodness, then is it logically coherent for goodness to commit bad acts, e.g. rape, murder, theft, genocide, child abuse, and torture?”

    By definition, whatever God does is good. God is not obligated by His own laws. If God takes the life of one of His creatures, then He has not murdered because He has no law giver over Him to tell Him He cannot do it.

    God owns all because He created all, ex nihilo. If God kills one of His creatures He has the sovereign right to do so, at any time, for any reason at all.

    If you are making an ethical claim against God, then you must demonstrate by what standard He is held accountable, and you must do so from your bankrupt empiricism. Good luck.

    You cannot get an “ought” from an “is”.

    –TLC

  26. Kelly Jones Says:

    Sean, just reading over some of your earlier points, and wished to correct two in particular:

    1. “Truth is known by the logical relationship of propositions and not by contradictions, antinomies and paradoxes.”

    Truth is known by the law of identity, a thing is what it is. It’s not got anything to do with the relationship of propositions.

    Check out the video I made a week ago: “Logic 101″.

    2. “Inductive reasoning, those that result from “observation of sensory data,” are by necessity false for the form of the premises are not the same as the form of the conclusions. This is why Russel called the problem of induction the “unsolved problem of logic.” Induction does not result in true/false conclusions, but rather only probable conclusions that can be just as easily true as they are false.”

    I’d stick to “probable” rather than true or false, if I were you, since you’re applying qualities to induction that it doesn’t have.

    Stating that science is false, as you and Robbins are keen to do, misrepresents it utterly. It never has entered the realm of logical deduction, and doesn’t work that way, so it’s naive to accuse of not doing that.

    Kelly

  27. Kelly Jones Says:

    kimeradrummer,

    You say god is rational thinking. Can I just ask, how do you know what signifies rational thinking? Do you just assume? Or do you define it in a particular objective way and make some kind of objective judgment?

    Of course, you can respond, who are we to be an objective judge of rationality? ;-) but if you do, I can then safely ignore everything you say from then on.

  28. Kelly Jones Says:

    Paul, you say ‘By definition, whatever God does is good. God is not obligated by His own laws. If God takes the life of one of His creatures, then He has not murdered because He has no law giver over Him to tell Him He cannot do it.’

    What a wretched life you must lead, in the belief that there is an all-powerful being who has you completely at his mercy. A person who has no predictable laws or morals, who does as He damn well pleases, and to hell with everyone else. Nice.

    Such a being is pure evil, and I regard it as completely ethical to do everything I can to destroy it. It’s not too difficult, given that it’s a fantasy in the mind of the insecure.

    Paul: ‘God owns all because He created all, ex nihilo. If God kills one of His creatures He has the sovereign right to do so, at any time, for any reason at all.’

    Or for no reason at all, at a pure whim. Nice morals you’ve got there, again.

    By the way, you say that God creates. That means, God requires causation in order to create. Are you equating God with causation, or making God a separate entity to causation?

    If the latter, then God is finite, and therefore itself created. There goes the claim to omnipotence.

    Paul: “If you are making an ethical claim against God, then you must demonstrate by what standard He is held accountable, and you must do so from your bankrupt empiricism. Good luck.”

    There’s that straw man again. You guys seem not to do your research. I’ve already said at least twice in this thread that logical deduction is not derived from induction (reasoning based on observation of sensory data). It’s like talking to a brick wall.

    If you bothered to look at my video “Logic 101″ which was uploaded a week ago, and before “Deceitful Definitions”, you would have found out as much.

    Kelly

  29. Kelly Jones Says:

    Paul, I just realised you admitted that child abuse, murder, genocide, torture, slavery, and rape, are all good when God commands it.

    So, you believe it’s fine to murder or rape a child if God is commanding you.

    I think you’re completely amoral, and no one is safe around you.

    Kelly

  30. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly:

    The concept is implied in the Bible in many terms used there refering to the process itself and things related to it, such as meditation, truth, knowledge, understanding, mind, reason, etc. Of course, John 1:1 describing our Lord and God Jesus as the Logos is one of the more evidents there. I recommend you to hear the first lecture of John Robbins ‘Thinking Biblically’ in the TF page.

    Now, I don’t know what do you mean with ‘objetive’. Of course, I think you wouldn’t accept the definition deduced from Scripture as ‘objetive’ (how can something deduced from truth not been objetive?), but first I want to know what do you accept as ‘objetive’ and how you justify that.

  31. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly:

    Just one thing. Making aside a lot of affirmations you made to Paul with reference to Christian ethics that shows that you really don’t undestand it, I can say that your answer is a big beggin the question, because you make a lot of moral judgements without justifying your own ethic position.

    By the way, just because some proposition is in armony with the laws of logic, that doesn’t mean that that proposition is true. X can be subjected to logical thinking and some things can be validly deduced from it, but that doesn’t mean that X is necessarily true unless it is self justifying or a deduction from a self justifying first principle.

    God bless…

  32. Sean Gerety Says:

    Sean, you asked “One can validly deduce a conclusion from false premises, yes?”

    No. But feel free to provide an example if you can find one.

    You’re kidding, right?

    But, OK.

    (1) All dogs are immortal.

    (2) Socrates is a dog.

    –> Socrates is immortal.

    The argument is valid, but unsound.

    Here’s one from a intro to logic textbook:

    (1) All pigs can fly.

    (2) Anything that can fly can swim.

    –> All pigs can swim.

    The premises are obviously false, but the argument is valid.

    Wikipedia even has provided an example:

    …consider this syllogism, which involves an obvious false premise:

    * If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
    * The streets are wet. (premise)
    * Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)

    This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false – one could hose down the streets, the local river could have flooded, etc.

    Hope that helps. If it doesn’t then you’d better check to see if reason is still your “sole friend.” ;)

  33. Roger Mann Says:

    Sean is absolutely correct. Logic itself contains no information. For example, even though the law of contradiction is logically undeniable (you must affirm it in the very attempt to deny it), it is totally insufficient as a first principle (i.e., axiom) because it doesn’t contain any information that can be deduced from it, including the very information that you need to tell you how you could know about the law in the first place (a theory of epistemology). The same holds true for the law of identity.

    A rational first principle must have the content to justify itself — it must supply all the information on which to construct a coherent worldview (metaphysics, epistemology, linguistics, ethics, etc., etc.). Otherwise, the first principle itself would not have enough information to make itself possible. Therefore your repeated assertion that A=A is the “fundamental axiom” of logic is less than useless in this discussion. As Sean has rightly pointed out, acknowledging the law of identity is simply “the recognition of a form from which nothing can be deduced.” Unless you start with a complete and true worldview, and then proceed by deduction, the worldview will always fail and lead to nonsensical foolishness: “Professing to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). And you have demonstrated yourself to be nonsensical and foolish many times during this debate.

    This is different for the Christian. The whole Bible is his first principle from which he deduces all the necessary information for his worldview. Logic is already an integral part of Scripture from the start, but it is not (and can not be) a standalone axiom.

  34. Roger Mann Says:

    Reason is definitely not her sole friend!

  35. Roger Mann Says:

    A person who has no predictable laws or morals, who does as He damn well pleases, and to hell with everyone else. Nice. Such a being is pure evil, and I regard it as completely ethical to do everything I can to destroy it.

    On what basis is such a being “pure evil?” By your own admission you can’t deduce such a proposition from your “fundamental axiom” of logic. So by what standard are you judging God’s nature as evil? From whence is it derived. If it’s not validly deduced from a true premise, then your entire philosophy of ethics is irrational and unjustifiable.

    Nevertheless, your blasphemous charge against the triune God simply demonstrates your ignorance of Biblical teaching. God’s actions are “predictable” on the basis of His immutable, holy, righteous, and just character. There’s no need for any external “law” or force to constrain God, for everything He does is holy, righteous, and just by definition — to include when He torments you in hell for all eternity! You may shake your fists and rail against God all you want, but the Lord’s response will be the same as it is to all who are in rebellion against Him:

    “He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, and distress them in His deep displeasure.” Psalm 2:4-5

    “For you are not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, nor shall evil dwell with You. The boastful shall not stand in Your sight; You hate all workers of iniquity. You shall destroy those who speak falsehood.” Psalm 5:5-6

    “The Lord tests the righteous, but the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates. Upon the wicked He will rain coals; Fire and brimstone and a burning wind shall be the portion of their cup.” Psalm 11:5

    By the way, you say that God creates. That means, God requires causation in order to create. Are you equating God with causation, or making God a separate entity to causation? If the latter, then God is finite, and therefore itself created. There goes the claim to omnipotence.

    God “causes” all things by a simple act of His sovereign decretive will. So what? How does that in any way pertain to the topic at hand?

  36. Sean Gerety Says:

    Truth is known by the law of identity, a thing is what it is. It’s not got anything to do with the relationship of propositions.

    Check out the video I made a week ago: “Logic 101?.

    I watched your video and I hardly know what to say. Rather than defining logic as the science of necessary inference or something similar, you define logic as:

    “The mechanism of consciousness whereby something is recognized, i.e., epereience reflecting back on itself to INDENTIFY.”

    Since A=A is tautological, perhaps you can just grunt and point instead and call it logic. :)

    FWIW, and I’m probably talking to deaf ears at this point (I mean, you even take issue with the copula “is” in standard logical forms), but contrary to your objection, only propositions (defined as the meaning of a declarative sentence) can be either true or false.

    2. “Inductive reasoning, those that result from “observation of sensory data,” are by necessity false for the form of the premises are not the same as the form of the conclusions. This is why Russel called the problem of induction the “unsolved problem of logic.” Induction does not result in true/false conclusions, but rather only probable conclusions that can be just as easily true as they are false.”

    I’d stick to “probable” rather than true or false, if I were you, since you’re applying qualities to induction that it doesn’t have.

    A conclusion drawn from a fallacious argument is false. But if you’d prefer to stick with probable rather than true or false, since that is the best any inductive argument can provide, fine by me. However, I thought on your Youtube site you claimed to be interested in truth? Were you just being facetious? Because in light of your arguments so far I would say your claim that your philosophy is premised on the “will to truth” is spurious at best, or, at the very least, an overstatement.

    Also, while I haven’t commented on some of your other posts, I very much agree with Paul Riemann and others and that your moral outrage concerning “rape, murder, looting, genocide, child abuse, or slavery,” and anything else you might want to add as you stand in judgment of the God of Scripture, appears to be a lot of bluster without any force. Since you hold to the notion that one can arrive at truth (or would that be arrive at what may or may not be probable) via “observation of sensory data,” I fail to see how you can arrive at any moral norms at all through your chosen method or axiom? Even A=A cannot give rise to any universal moral norms. Same goes for “observation of sensory data.” The best “observation of sensory data” can tell you, and this is being kind, is what IS. The problem is you can’t derive an “OUGHT” from an “IS.” An atheistic universe is a dead one. There is no murder, rape, slavery or anything other than what is. You are merely borrowing Christian capital and are appealing to the law written on your mind (Romans 2:15) in order to attack the God of Scripture and Christianity in general. I hope the irony isn’t lost on you.

    Anyway, I do appreciate your interactions so far. I hope that you don’t feel like you’re being ganging up on. So, and unless you have a specific question for me, I’ll drop out.

  37. Kelly Jones Says:

    Sean, you provided this example to indicate that a valid argument can be drawn from false premises:

    “(1) All dogs are immortal.
    (2) Socrates is a dog.
    –> Socrates is immortal.
    The argument is valid, but unsound.”

    But as I indicated to you via my video ‘Logic 101′, this is a false syllogism. This method of reasoning doesn’t established true premises, but only assumes any declaration is true by definition.

    For instance:

    x = (is) z.

    If x is the label given to something specific, such as ‘dog’, which is a scientific identity and requiring a mass of observable data to define, it can never be certain what x really is.

    Thus, using the false syllogism is not a valid argument.

    Kelly

  38. Kelly Jones Says:

    kimeradrummer, you say “I don’t know what do you mean with ‘objetive’.”

    I accept the definition you implied here:

    ‘how can something deduced from truth not been objetive?’

    But, as you say, I wouldn’t accept the definition that truth is deduced from Scripture.

    Think about what truth is.

    The word ‘truth’ is derived from treowe, which is the same word used for ‘tree’. The person who invented this word a long time ago, had the sense of wood’s reliability, its sturdiness, and how strong and resilient it is.

    It’s the concept for absolutely reliable.

    That is, truth is about ‘what is’. It’s about what is immediately undeniable, like “something is happening”.

    It’s not about particular ‘truths’, like, “Eating food will assuage hunger.”

    Truth is the underlying concept.

    Truth is not a person, a rule, a set of rules, or any specific thing.

    Kelly

  39. Kelly Jones Says:

    kimeradrummer, you say “By the way, just because some proposition is in armony with the laws of logic, that doesn’t mean that that proposition is true. X can be subjected to logical thinking and some things can be validly deduced from it, but that doesn’t mean that X is necessarily true unless it is self justifying or a deduction from a self justifying first principle.”

    The law of logic, A=A, is a first principle that means “X is itself”. Would you call that self justifying?

  40. Kelly Jones Says:

    Roger, you say “A rational first principle must have the content to justify itself — it must supply all the information on which to construct a coherent worldview (metaphysics, epistemology, linguistics, ethics, etc., etc.).”

    You’ve made rather an oversight here. The very fact that the law of identity, “a thing is what it is”, gives no specific information, is entirely informative in creating a worldview.

    That is, with the knowledge that what is has no specific identity, we are at once staring at the true nature of reality. That is the only coherent and complete worldview possible, given that it presents nothing uncertain or illogical.

    But I reject your claim that the Bible offers a worldview. Rather, it offers social mores suitable for humans in the Bronze Age.

    E.g. a menstruating woman is unclean. We now realise this was a way to get men not to have sex with women when they are infertile.

    That’s not a worldview, but an attempt at science during the childhood of humankind.

    Kelly

  41. Kelly Jones Says:

    Roger Mann,

    I wrote: “A person who has no predictable laws or morals, who does as He damn well pleases, and to hell with everyone else.”

    You replied: “God’s actions are “predictable” on the basis of His immutable, holy, righteous, and just character. There’s no need for any external “law” or force to constrain God, for everything He does is holy, righteous, and just by definition — to include when He torments you in hell for all eternity!”

    You say God doesn’t obey any laws, yet the Bible refers to him regretting his past behaviour. It also refers to him being dissuaded by humans from following a course of action.

    You believe it’s all “right”, but the Bible reveals an extremely nasty little personage, selfish, jealous, changeable, and rather inclined to gloat.

    For instance, if you also think God is omnipotent, then God Himself is behind the refusal of some people to reject Him.

    So, his use of eternal hell fires to torture and torment people who did what *He has forced them to do* cannot be anything than sadistic.

    Ah…. You might call sadism just, in your warped worldview.

    One cannot help but realise that Man created God in his own image.

    I wrote: “Such a being is pure evil, and I regard it as completely ethical to do everything I can to destroy it.”

    You wrote: “On what basis is such a being “pure evil?” By your own admission you can’t deduce such a proposition from your “fundamental axiom” of logic. So by what standard are you judging God’s nature as evil? From whence is it derived. If it’s not validly deduced from a true premise, then your entire philosophy of ethics is irrational and unjustifiable.

    My fundamental axiom of logic, that a thing is what it is, doesn’t tell anyone what to do. So it is not itself a generator of ethics.

    However, another expression of the law of identity is the truth of causation. That is, a thing is caused to be what it is.

    Causation carries an ethical overtone, because it tells us that whatever we do has consequences.

    Thus, if I am caused to value wisdom, then I will be caused to pay attention to the ramifications of my actions, and call it ‘good’ or ‘ethical’ to do so.

    Thus, I would regard as evil any behaviour that does not pay attention to the consequences, such as the rule that one can do whatever one likes, and to hell with anyone else.

    You wrote: ‘God “causes” all things by a simple act of His sovereign decretive will. So what? How does that in any way pertain to the topic at hand?’

    In the way that I described in my question to Paul, which neither you nor he has answered:

    “Are you equating God with causation, or making God a separate entity to causation?

    If the latter, then God is finite, and therefore itself created. There goes the claim to omnipotence.”

    Kelly

  42. Kelly Jones Says:

    Sean, you say ‘only propositions (defined as the meaning of a declarative sentence) can be either true or false.’

    That is what the academics are so fond of pointing out, but it never states how a true proposition is known from a false. That is why I point back to the law of identity as the basis for all truth.

    Kelly

  43. Kelly Jones Says:

    Sean,

    I wrote: ‘I’d stick to “probable” rather than true or false, if I were you, since you’re applying qualities to induction that it doesn’t have.’

    You replied: ‘A conclusion drawn from a fallacious argument is false.’

    Yes. The process of inductive reasoning is not fallacious, so long as it doesn’t present scientific identities are certain.

    You wrote: ‘But if you’d prefer to stick with probable rather than true or false, since that is the best any inductive argument can provide, fine by me. However, I thought on your Youtube site you claimed to be interested in truth? Were you just being facetious?’

    I’ve mostly been using deductive reasoning.

    These are examples of truths used in deductive reasoning, as I’ve presented them in this discussion:

    A=A.
    A thing is what it is.
    The law of identity is the basis of all truth.
    Logic is based on the law of identity.
    The identity of any specific thing is uncertain.
    A coherent worldview refers to the true nature of things.
    All things are caused.
    To cause anything, requires causation.
    I am caused to do what I do.
    Something that causes something else is finite.
    If God causes something to happen, God is finite.
    I am caused to pay attention to consequences and ramifications, and regard that as ethical.
    I am caused to see that it is inethical to be heedless of causation.
    If God doesn’t pay heed to consequences, God is inethical.

    Kelly

  44. Kelly Jones Says:

    Sean,

    You say “An atheistic universe is a dead one. There is no murder, rape, slavery or anything other than what is.”

    Don’t be silly. Murder is the name given to a scientific identity: killing a human. I can’t be certain of the identity of what I observe, nevertheless, whatever happens, is what it is.

    “I hope that you don’t feel like you’re being ganging up on.”

    No, I don’t feel that. I think each of you has a slightly different approach to the idea of God, and you don’t agree with each other. So it is interesting to watch your different psychologies unfolding.

    Kelly

  45. Kelly Jones Says:

    An open question to all:

    If you had never read the Bible, and personally received a letter, signed “The Unnameable, who is the Truth, Justice, Holiness, Wisdom, Righteousness, Omnipotent, Omniscience, and without error”, and containing some very plausible information on how you ought to live, would you accept the information as true?

    If not, why not?

    Kelly

  46. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly: Answering your comment dealing with truth.

    An assertion doesn’t amount to an argument. You said that you ‘wouldn’t accept the definition that truth is deduced from Scripture’, because you don’t believe Scripture is true, but that doesn’t prove your assertion. By the way, only propositions can be true or false.

    Now, I think one of the reasons why you don’t accept the Bible as truth is because it doesn’t give you psicological conviction. I assume that from the next thing you wrote: ‘…It’s about what is immediately undeniable’. If I’m wrong, feel free to tell it.

    If I’m right, I will say to you to not confuse subjetive conviction with objetive reality. Something is not true because to your mind is inmediately undeniable, because it can be possible that your thinking process is defective or simply you don’t want to accept it, etc. Truth is truth even if you or anyone don’t inmediately recognise it.

    Now, logically speaking, God as the perfect Omnicient and Omnipotent Being He is, by definition always tell the truth. When someone says that God don’t tell the truth, he does it because he don’t know who God is and, therefore, doesn’t know what he was saying. In fact, what he said is actually a contradiction, an absurd, a nonsense. What I say till now only aplies to the Christian God.

    This lead us to the Axiom of Christianity, ‘The Bible is the Word of God’, and because it is the Word of God, by logical necessity is true. What I said before is not an external prove for the Axiom, wich is absurd, but actually an implication from the Axiom itself. The Axiom is self justifying.

    Understandind the meaning of the words that compose the Axiom, it is logically, absolutely and necessarily undeniable. In fact, if we were not afected by sin, we will accept it without any objection. So, I conclude that your rejection of it has to do with prejudice, false assumption, emotional rejection, etc. because of sin, but not because of rational judge.

    Everything God says is objetively truth, because God sayd it.

  47. Paul Riemann Says:

    Kelly wrote:

    “Are you equating God with causation, or making God a separate entity to causation?”

    God is not a “separate entity to causation” if by that you mean that “cause” is a phenomenon independent of God.

    The Westminster Confession states:

    Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. (WCF c.5, s.2)

    God is the primary “cause” of all that comes to pass, yet the decrees fall out through secondary causes.

    Since you are an empiricist I would like to ask you a some questions. Is the universe eternal or finite?

    If finite, then what is it’s cause? Since something that comes INTO existence cannot be the cause of it’s own existence because this would require it to be, and not be, at the same time.

    If eternal, then how did we reach the present time if time extends eternally into the past?

    You perhaps “observed” the cause of the universe? Perhaps you were there? Huh? And why not, you have already stated that you can “experience” logic, for which Red Bettle (Monty Collier) challenged you to tell us the color of logic, or it’s taste. You still have not answered him. Empiricism always starts, and ends, in ignorance.

    Listen Kelly. God is pure actuality with no potency. You would know this if you read Rome’s Angelic Doctor: Thomas Aquinas. Even Aquinas knew this, and he was an empiricist like you!

    Sensation, sensation, sensation! Ignorance is NOT bliss, as they say.

    Repent and believe the gospel!

    –TLC

  48. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly: Answering your question on the law of identity.

    The law of identity is self justifying only in the sense that in reject it we assume it, and, therefore, is objetive and rationally undeniable. But, as a first principle of a worldview, it doesn’t have the necessary information to justify itself epistemologically, or to give us any sistem of ethics, etc.

    For example, how do you know the law of identity? This is, you know it, but how do you came to know it in the first place? Can you give an answer only apealing to information deduced from the law itself? And the answer is no, because the law in itself doesn’t give us any information at all. You give to logic the information in order to be processed, but logic itself doesn’t give us any information at all. Because of that, logic can’t be the first principle of any sistem of thought.

    God bless…

  49. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly: Answering your open question.

    If a letter like that exist, the only option is that the information contained in it was exactely the same as the information contained on the Bible, because that’s the only possible, plausible and rational information.

    By the way, if you have work in understanding my comments, sorry for my english. I’m chilean.

    God bless…

  50. Paul Riemann Says:

    Kelly said:

    “If you had never read the Bible, and personally received a letter, signed “The Unnameable, who is the Truth, Justice, Holiness, Wisdom, Righteousness, Omnipotent, Omniscience, and without error”, and containing some very plausible information on how you ought to live, would you accept the information as true? If not, why not?”

    Christ, the Logos, answers you via the Apostle John.

    In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. (John 3:3)

    No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)

    He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him. (John 6:65)

    Pay very close attention to this last one.

    But you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
    (John 10:26)

    You have not (at least yet) been granted the gift of faith. You are presumably numbered among the reprobate.

    Until you acknowledge your sin, you need only hear the law.

    Read Romans 3:10-18

    Again, I say repent and believe the gospel!

    –TLC

  51. Kelly Jones Says:

    Paul, the scenario is: you had never read the Bible, and you receive the letter. Do you accept it as true?

    Kelly

  52. Kelly Jones Says:

    kimeradrummer, your English is clear enough for me.

    As to your decision about accepting the letter: “the only option is that the information contained in it was exactely the same as the information contained on the Bible,” may I ask:

    which versions of the Bible would you not look at, to verify a perfect match?

    In other words, how would you tell which Bibles were not the right ones?

    There have been many versions over the last few thousand years. Apparently, the Jews meant that the Septuagint was the Bible (Greek, ‘the books’). So, would you take the Septuagint, or not?

    Kelly

  53. Kelly Jones Says:

    Remember, kimeradrummer, the scenario is, you’ve never had a look at a Bible before and you receive the letter purporting to be from God. How do you judge the true word of God?

  54. Kelly Jones Says:

    Paul, you say “Since you are an empiricist”

    There’s that dead horse you and Sean keep thrashing. I don’t know how many times I have to repeat that logical deductions aren’t made using observations of sensory data. That logic is based on the law of identity, that a thing is what it is, does not require any sensory data to recognise.

    Shall I say it again?

    “I would like to ask you a some questions. Is the universe eternal or finite?”

    If ‘universe’ is defined as the known world, then the logical conclusion is that it is finite. If ‘universe’ is defined as absolutely everything, then it is not finite.

    ‘If finite, then what is it’s cause? Since something that comes INTO existence cannot be the cause of it’s own existence because this would require it to be, and not be, at the same time.’

    A finite thing is always caused by something else. We can safely say that the known world was not caused by itself.

    ‘If eternal, then how did we reach the present time if time extends eternally into the past?’

    We can divide any finite portion of time up into an infinite number of traversible stages. Yet a finite portion of time can be traversed. Using the not-finite meaning of Universe, we can say that it has lasted forever, by the aggregation of an infinite number of traversible stages.

    ‘You perhaps “observed” the cause of the universe? Perhaps you were there? Huh? And why not’

    What’s that got to do with my above deduction?

    “you have already stated that you can “experience” logic, for which Red Bettle (Monty Collier) challenged you to tell us the color of logic, or it’s taste. You still have not answered him. Empiricism always starts, and ends, in ignorance.”

    Something is happening. Offer a rebuttal.

    You see, it’s a purely deductive truth, not empirical.

    Or do you think reasoning is empirical?

    Kelly

  55. Kelly Jones Says:

    Paul, you say “God is not a “separate entity to causation” if by that you mean that “cause” is a phenomenon independent of God.”

    God is either *is identical with* causation, or is a specific cause. There’s no alternative.

    If God=causation, then God is absolutely everything. Including evil, unholiness, unwisdom, unrighteousness, hell, demons, Satan, etc. Of course.

    If Godcausation, then God is not absolutely everything, and is no different to us in the sense of being finite.

    Kelly

  56. Kelly Jones Says:

    There was supposed to be a ‘not-equals’ sign between the second God and causation in my last reply to Paul.

    Kelly

  57. Roger Mann Says:

    Kelly wrote:

    You’ve made rather an oversight here. The very fact that the law of identity, “a thing is what it is”, gives no specific information, is entirely informative in creating a worldview.

    You’re sounding more and more ridiculous with each post. Your entire epistemology boils down to a blatant contradiction: That which “gives no specific information…is entirely informative in creating a worldview.” If the law of identity gives no specific information, then it necessarily follows that it cannot inform us of anything. That’s why it is entirely insufficient as a first principle — it does not contain any information that can be deduced from it, including the very information that you need to tell you how you could know about the law in the first place (a theory of epistemology)!

    That is, with the knowledge that what is has no specific identity, we are at once staring at the true nature of reality. That is the only coherent and complete worldview possible, given that it presents nothing uncertain or illogical.

    If what is “has no specific identity” then it hardly supplies us with a “complete worldview” — it supplies us with nothing at all! We are merely left with the tautology that A=A. Brilliant! As Sean insightfully pointed out, “perhaps you can just grunt and point instead and call it logic.”

    But I reject your claim that the Bible offers a worldview. Rather, it offers social mores suitable for humans in the Bronze Age. E.g. a menstruating woman is unclean. We now realise this was a way to get men not to have sex with women when they are infertile. That’s not a worldview, but an attempt at science during the childhood of humankind.

    No, you don’t reject the “claim” that the Bible offers a worldview — rather you reject the “worldview” that the Bible presents because you despise and hate it:

    “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” John 3:19-20

    Moreover, how do you know that the Biblical worldview offers social mores “suitable for humans in the Bronze Age?” By your own admission you can’t validly deduce this proposition from your “fundamental axiom” of logic (since it “gives no specific information” and what is “has no specific identity”). Your “fundamental axiom” of logic supplies you with no information at all! Therefore, everything in your worldview necessarily reduces to irrational speculation and unjustified emotional responses.

    You say God doesn’t obey any laws, yet the Bible refers to him regretting his past behaviour. It also refers to him being dissuaded by humans from following a course of action.

    Yes, the Bible often uses literary devices such as anthropopathisms and anthropomorphisms to describe God. So what? How does this fact in any way contradict my earlier statement — “There’s no need for any external ‘law’ or force to constrain God, for everything He does is holy, righteous, and just by definition — to include when He torments you in hell for all eternity!” Is this supposed to amount to a serious objection to the Biblical position?

    For instance, if you also think God is omnipotent, then God Himself is behind the refusal of some people to reject Him.

    Yes, that is precisely what the Bible teaches:

    “Therefore He [God] has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.” Romans 9:18

    You blaspheme against God, saying (without any rational basis at all) that this “cannot be anything than sadistic.” But Scripture shuts your mouth by its irrefutable response:

    “But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why have you made me like this?’ Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” Romans 9:20-24

    My fundamental axiom of logic, that a thing is what it is, doesn’t tell anyone what to do. So it is not itself a generator of ethics. However, another expression of the law of identity is the truth of causation. That is, a thing is caused to be what it is.

    How do you know that “a thing is caused to be what it is.” If this cannot be validly deduced from your “fundamental axiom” of logic (which it can’t), then you have no rational basis upon which you can possibly know this! As usual, you are making no sense whatsoever.

    Causation carries an ethical overtone, because it tells us that whatever we do has consequences.

    First, how is “causation” validly deduced from your “fundamental axiom” of logic (which “gives no specific information”)? Prove it! Second, how does “causation” validly imply that whatever we do has moral consequences. Prove it! Of course you can’t, because your just spouting off more irrational nonsense.

    Thus, I would regard as evil any behaviour that does not pay attention to the consequences, such as the rule that one can do whatever one likes, and to hell with anyone else.

    Since “causation” cannot be validly deduced from your “fundamental axiom” of logic (which “gives no specific information”), and moral “consequences” cannot be validly deduced from “causation,” your assertion amounts to nothing more than irrational nonsense.

    “Are you equating God with causation, or making God a separate entity to causation? If the latter, then God is finite, and therefore itself created. There goes the claim to omnipotence.”

    You claim that Paul and I never answered this question. But I clearly stated that “God ‘causes’ all things by a simple act of His sovereign decretive will.” And Paul clearly said that “God is not a ‘separate entity to causation’ if by that you mean that ‘cause’ is a phenomenon independent of God.” He also quoted the Westminster Confession of Faith which plainly states that God is “the first cause” of all things (WCF 5.2). So not only are you repeatedly spouting off irrational nonsense, but you are not even paying the slightest bit of attention to what we have been saying. You are truly a foolish woman!

  58. Paul Riemann Says:

    Kelly wrote:

    “If God=causation, then God is absolutely everything. Including evil, unholiness, unwisdom, unrighteousness, hell, demons, Satan, etc. Of course.”

    I have already given you the distinction between God as primary cause, and His creatures as secondary causes. His creatures “causing” the coming to pass of God’s decrees.

    You cannot bring a charge against God until you provide the objective standard by which He can be held accountable for anything He does.

    Atheists must constantly borrow capital from Christianity in order to make ethical claims because their worldview has no grounds for an objective, binding, ethical system. Again, you cannot get an “ought” from an “is”.

    Your ethics will always reduce to subjectivism, or at best, the collective of human convention. Either way, who cares? The whole world may shake their fist at God–and they do–because they hate their creator. But God sits on His throne and laughs!

    A few scriptures will paint a picture of my point.

    All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth;
    And no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’
    (Daniel 4:35)

    He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.
    (Psalm 2:4)

    But the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming.
    (Psalm 37:13)

    But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.
    (Psalm 115:3)

    Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.
    (Psalm 135:6)

    You are a yapping little dog, a speck of dust on a tiny planet among God’s vast universe. He mocks you Kelly.

    You would do well to carefully read the responses made to you here, and to give them some serious thought. You are too quick to respond with a rebuttal. Give some thought to what I and Roger Mann have said to you on this subject.

    I recommend you go read the following articles by Vincent Cheung, a student and follower of Gordon H. Clark. He has written some very good articles on the “problem” of evil.

    I would also recommend you get a copy of Gordon Clark’s – God and Evil: The Problem Solved (available at the Trinity Foundation’s website for $5.95). Clarks’ apologetic is excellent and air tight. Cheung’s articles can be found via the links below.

    The Author Of Sin
    http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/05/31/the-author-of-sin/

    Why God Created Evil
    http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/06/09/why-god-created-evil/

    Better Than “Ex Lex”
    http://www.vincentcheung.com/2005/12/23/better-than-ex-lex/

    Only Calvinism can answer the “problem” of evil.

    You should also consider that Christianity teaches that God has a GOOD purpose for all the evil that He has decreed. It is for His glory, and the benefit, ultimately, of His saints. Why? Because through it He brings salvation to a lost world and redeems a people who are His own; by glorifying His Son in His work of securing the salvation of His people.

    The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks:

    Q. What is the chief end of man?

    A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, [a] and to enjoy him for ever. [b]

    [a]. Ps. 86:9; Isa. 60:21; Rom. 11:36; I Cor. 6:20; 10:31; Rev. 4:11
    [b]. Ps. 16:5-11; 144:15; Isa. 12:2; Luke 2:10; Phil. 4:4; Rev. 21:3-4
    (WSC Question 1)

    And that end is achieved through God’s eternal plan and providence, which includes the evil thoughts and actions of man.

    Repent and believe the gospel!

    –TLC

  59. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly: Answering your comments on Bible versions.

    What are you talking? Without denying that there are versions who where unjustifiedly corrupted (like the version of thet JW), the basic diference is not the content of the versions, but things like translation, paraphrasing, actualization of laguage, etc. So, I don’t understand what are you asking and its relevance.

    There’s no problem with that. Jesus use the LXX version during His ministry, validating the practice and use of diferent verions. The content was the same, but things like the ones I told you above were the natural effect of translating a document from one idiom to another.

    Your objection is irrelevant.

  60. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly: Answering your comment on the proposed scenario.

    My last answer responds to the reason that for any given scenario, the necessary precondition is the God of the Bible, and because of that the content of that letter would be the same as the one in the Bible.

    Been that the case, I will receive that letter, not only because of its own merits, but the inward work of the Holy Ghost would be definitory (1 John 2:20,27).

    And if that letter only claims to be the Word of God but wasn’t, then by its own merits it would fall, because like all unbiblical worldviews, it would be indefensible and without the content to make itself possible.

  61. Kelly Jones Says:

    kimeradrummer,

    You say Jesus used the LXX version, and that it is *the same* as — what? The version coming after the LXX version?

    Presumably you know Jesus used the LXX version because it’s written in the version coming after the LXX version that he did, and not in the actual version he used while living. So then the version coming after was *not* the same.

    Kelly

  62. Kelly Jones Says:

    Roger, you say “If what is ‘has no specific identity’ then it hardly supplies us with a ‘complete worldview’ — it supplies us with nothing at all!”

    That’s right. It takes a very strongly rational mind to grasp this point. Most people can intuit that the world (that is, the entire universe including what is known and beyond that) is infinite. I’m pointing to the nature of that Universe, rather than the specific details – which are infinitely varied….

    You say ‘[God] has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.’ Romans 9:18 You blaspheme against God, saying (without any rational basis at all) that this “cannot be anything than sadistic.”

    It is sadistic to punish a person if they are not responsible for their actions. If A forces B to do something, then A is sadistic to punish B for doing what is A’s action.

    You ask: ‘How do you know that “a thing is caused to be what it is.” ‘

    A thing can be defined as having parts, external or internal to it. Without these parts, the thing cannot exist. Thus, these parts are causes for the thing’s existence.

    You ask: ‘First, how is “causation” validly deduced from your “fundamental axiom” of logic (which “gives no specific information”)?’

    I said that the causation of things is another expression of the law of identity. Namely, that a thing is what it is, and since things are defined as made of parts, and parts are causes for the existence of things, therefore things are ultimately causes. Thus, the law of identity can also be expressed as: causation.

    You ask: ‘Second, how does “causation” validly imply that whatever we do has moral consequences.’

    There’s no such thing as a moral consequence, firstly.

    There are consequences that one can interpret according to certain values, ie. one’s morality.

    Causation doesn’t imply morality, but it is the source of any goals and values we may have. That is, if one is *caused* to see ‘good’ in meeting those goals, and abiding by those values, then one is caused to have a certain morality.

    Last point of your post:

    I asked Paul: “Are you equating God with causation, or making God a separate entity to causation? If the latter, then God is finite, and therefore itself created. There goes the claim to omnipotence.”

    You replied: “You claim that Paul and I never answered this question. But I clearly stated that “God ‘causes’ all things by a simple act of His sovereign decretive will.””

    This is not a clear answer. It doesn’t say, “No, God is not causation.” Nor, “Yes, God is causation.”

    You continued: “And Paul clearly said that “God is not a ‘separate entity to causation’ if by that you mean that ‘cause’ is a phenomenon independent of God.””

    Well, since causation is not a phenomenon, is this answer meant to mean “Yes, God is causation”?

    You continued: “He also quoted the Westminster Confession of Faith which plainly states that God is “the first cause” of all things (WCF 5.2). So not only are you repeatedly spouting off irrational nonsense, but you are not even paying the slightest bit of attention to what we have been saying. You are truly a foolish woman!”

    In reality, your reasoning is really a masquerade to disguise fanaticism. Your nervous tendency to rely on emotional arguments is inevitable, Rog.

    A first cause is definitely not a second, nor a third. So Paul’s response means God is not causation, since if God were identical to causation, then God would be present in all causes.

    In other words, the God you lot argue for is definitely finite. Thus, no different to you and me, and hardly omnipotent.

    Kelly

  63. Kelly Jones Says:

    kimeradrummer, interesting that, even though I explicitly stated a couple of times that the scenario is of never having read the Bible before reading the letter, you refer to a Bible verse to judge whether the letter is acceptable or not.

    You do realise the scenario is exactly the same one as you have faced in accepting the Bible?

    So, are you really sure that God = logic? Perhaps that’s just a nice, comfy rationalisation………

    Kelly
    Kelly

  64. Kelly Jones Says:

    I’ve published an easy-to-read compilation of comments from this discussion, specifically those that head straight for the nitty-gritty:

    http://www.naturalthinker.net/letters/sheepdom.html

    Thanks for the interesting insights into psychology, fellas.

    Kelly

  65. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly: Answering your comments on the Septuagint or LXX.

    What do you mean when you speak about ‘versions’? Do you understand what is a translation? In a translation, the content is the same, but the laguage change. Because of that, I don’t know why are do you insist on this, as if this was relevant.

    The LXX version (or Septuagint) is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament to Greek laguage. Nothing less and nothing more. So, I don’t know what’s the relevance of this objection.

    I think that you don’t undertand the diference, or you aren’t making more clear and specific your intention. In fact, I don’t know how you still insist on this after my last answer and clarification.

    Please, tell me the relevance.

  66. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly: Answering your comment on the scenario.

    What you ask me to do is, in fact, an impossible. Even if I put myself in that scenario, whatever answer I give will necessarily be influenced by my own worldview.

    For example, I can say that if that letter was really the Word of God, I will reject it, not because I’m so wise and intelligent, but because as an unbeliever I’m a wicked and irrational sinner. Of course, in that position, maybe I will feel as the more objetive and rational human being for not believe in ‘miths’ or something, but that’s simply an ilusion.

    So, the work of the Sovereign God in my soul will be definitory on this topic, because He’s the One who give faith to whom He wants. I believe because of the Grace of God, Who open my eyes to see His Word.

  67. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly: Answering your comment of your page.

    You write in the introduction of our dialogue the following: ‘kimeradrummer himself judges God to be holiness, but when I say the Xian God condones murder, theft, rape, child abuse, torture, and genocide, he then says no one can judge what is holy’.

    First, that introduction is missleading, because it puts in my mouth something that I’m not saying and predispose those who will read it to put that words on my comment. For example, you said that God condones all that acts but offer no justification to suport your words, so I leave that and point out that you as an atheist haven’t any rational and justified parameter to make any objetive moral judge.

    In my answer, I don’t make any comment acepting those acts as holy. In fact, I was not dealing with that point, because what I ask to you as priority in order for you to make any objection based on moral judgements. So, unless you make a rational and moral justification of your own ethical parameter, establishing its truthfulness and objetivity, I’m in no obligation to answer your moral objection. You can’t move forward unless you do what I ask.

    Read again that dialogue and try to understand the difference between the process of thinking and the objects of thought, because you’re still not understanding that and equivocating the terms, wich is a fallacy.

    By the way, God tells the truth because He is GOD. If you say that God don’t tell the truth, you’re not talking about a possibility (because it’s not), but an absurd just like the square/circle and similars. Finally, think that God doen’t tell the truth is not to think in God, but in an idol created in our minds.

    And second, you write: ‘This is what kimeradrummer does. His belief is this: “the scriptures are true” is logically true because there is a verse in the scriptures that says it is the word of God, and another verse that says God is truth’.

    The only thing we conclude on your words is that I am a Christian who believes in the Bible as the Word of God. So what? In fact, if I don’t do what you note in your comment means, at least by implication, that I believe that there are something outside tha Bible who judge it, wich means that I have a problem of inconsistency and incredulity. As the starting point of my position, I can use the Bible whatever I want.

    The Bible as the Axiom of Christianity is self justified, and the only thing I do is point out that. Can you rationally prove the contrary?

  68. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly: Just a comment on a confusion you have.

    Reading the dialogue between Sean and you on your page, I note the next confusion you have, wich is the same I note you have with me: YOU CONFUSE THE PROCESS OF THINKING ITSELF WITH THE INFORMATION BEEN PROCESSED.

    You can process false premises and the form of the argument can be valid. Maybe the deductions are valid, but the information false. So, you have to justify the premises first in order to establish their truthfulness and then you can have true conclusions.

    You see the distintion and difference between one thing and the other?

  69. Kelly Jones Says:

    kimeradrummer,

    “The LXX version (or Septuagint) is a translation of the Hebrew Old Testament to Greek laguage.”

    Is that the version you use? That’s not the King James version, which Robbins refers to.

    “So, the work of the Sovereign God in my soul will be definitory on this topic, because He’s the One who give faith to whom He wants. I believe because of the Grace of God, Who open my eyes to see His Word.”

    Remember the scenario is you haven’t read the Bible (any Bible!) so what’s working in your soul may well be Satan. How would you know?

    “For example, you said that God condones all that acts but offer no justification to suport your words,”

    Check out this video:

    “what I ask to you as priority in order for you to make any objection based on moral judgements.”

    I am capable of judging the acts of an evil person, including the Xian God, because I am caused to value certain things. There is no such thing as objective morality, since there are no intrinsic morals embedded in reality. We all pick and choose according to our goals.

    “The Bible as the Axiom of Christianity is self justified, and the only thing I do is point out that. Can you rationally prove the contrary?”

    Yes. One only needs to examine the definitions of terms.

    1. The Bible is not a fixed entity. Some books are included in some versions of the Bible, and not in others. Because an axiom needs to be reliable, the uncertainty of what the Bible really is, is in itself, a good reason to reject your claim.

    2. Christianity means, being like Christ. Yet the Jesus in some Bibles is different to the Jesus in others. So, here again, there is no way to know – on the basis of a Bible – how to be like Christ.

    “YOU CONFUSE THE PROCESS OF THINKING ITSELF WITH THE INFORMATION BEEN PROCESSED.”

    There is only reason when information is processed correctly; there is no way to identify it otherwise. Therefore, the information is part and parcel of the identity of thinking.

    “You can process false premises and the form of the argument can be valid.”

    You are still assuming that the false syllogism is a valid form of argument. It is not.

    “So, you have to justify the premises first in order to establish their truthfulness and then you can have true conclusions.”

    You don’t even know how to judge what a true premise is. You just repeat what you hear without knowing whether it is true or not.

    Kelly

  70. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly: Answering a lot of missunderstanding from your part.

    Definitely, you can’t, or don’t want to, understand what is a translation. You cannot see that in a translation the content remains the same, but the laguage change. Therefore, I will not follow on this point in particular unless you really see that you are talking nonsense.

    On the scenario, as I said before, you are ask me something impossible. You want me to leave my own worldview in order to answer. So, on this point to, I will not follow, not only because you want me to do something impossible, but because you aren’t making explicit the relevance and the goal of this scenario. For example, I will not know about Satan if not for the information the Bible gives, for example.

    On ethics, your justification reduce to irrationality, and, therefore, you concede me the victory. You said: ‘I am capable of judging the acts of an evil person, including the Xian God, because I am caused to value certain things’, but that you are ’caused to value certain things’ doesn’t mean that your values are true and objective. That’s confirmed on the next words: ‘There is no such thing as objective morality, since there are no intrinsic morals embedded in reality. WE ALL PICK AND CHOOSE ACCORDING TO OUR GOALS’. Therefore, your ethics reduce to relativity and any moral judge you make, including any argument based on morality you do, is reduced to your very personal opinion, and nothing more.

    Because of that, again, I will not follow on this point because you’re not been rational and honest, because you acusse God of inmorality, as if something like objetive morality exist and as if your opinion was true, but you don’t have any rational basis to do that. In your worldview, things like pedophile, rape, murder, etc. are not objetively bad, but they are bad acording to the personal opinion of each individual.

    On your examination of the Axiom of Christianity:

    1.- There is not uncertainity, but confusion and ignorance from your part. The books that composse the Bible we have in our hands are the same as the book the first Christians receive and read. That the Roman Church then added without justification books to the Old Testament (not to the New) in answer to the Reformation is other thing.

    2.- Christianity is the worldview based on the Bible. Being like Christ is included, but is not the only thing in Christianity. So, your definition fails from the beggining.

    I will ask again, What are you talking about? There are not a lot of Bibles, that’s something you create in your mind surely because you haven’t really deal with the subject and you’re repeating what you heard from your faulty sources.

    So, there aren’t a lot of Jesus, but only One well defined in the only Bible out there. There are a lot of missunderstanding and missrepresentations of the Jesus of the Bible because of bad interpretation and ignorance, but there aren’t a lot of Bibles and a lot of Jesus.

    On reason: Reason is the faculty of the mind to process information. So, information is one thing and the process other thing. The relation between both is that one is processed by the other, but the distintion is clear and only obstination from your part denies it. You are inventing a definition and trying to imposse it to us without justifying it. Even in your answer to me on this point you can’t avoid to make the distintion. Of course, information is related to thinking in the same sense I said before, but think is what you have to do with the information you receive.

    On syllogism: I’m not assuming, but just consistently aplying the concept of thinking and the distintion between the information and the process. The form of the argument (the process of thinking) can be right, but the information processed can be false.

    Therefore, you are renewing the concepts and imposing them to us. So, I ask you to rationally justify the concepts you sustain before proceding.

    On true premises: I can truly judge because my worldview arms me with true informations and parameters in order to do it.

    Now, I will pose you a challenge: I believe that you will answer this last comment I write, but for each answer you make I will ask you to justify it and show me how you deduce it from A=A. Where in A=A is the information you deduce in order to answer me? If you cannot do it, then your have a faulty first principle.

    That’s all.

  71. Kelly Jones Says:

    kimeradrummer, I suggest you read this, in reference to how the Bible has changed over time in its content:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

    But only if *you* wish to stop appearing uneducated, because I don’t care one way or the other.

    The main argument I have against your views, kimeradrummer, is that everything you write is evidence that you don’t understand how to discern a true proposition from a false.

    I expect you will, like Sean, be unable to tell how I use deduction to establish the principle, and then use induction to interpret evidence, to come up with the above. Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to be able to tell.

    Thanks for the interaction. That’s all from me.

    Kelly

  72. kimeradrummer Says:

    Kelly:

    First, the article you cited doesn’t deal with changes in the Bible, but deal with the apocriphal books. The books of the Bible were the same then and now, but there are other books who some people claim to be from the Bible, wich are not. So, you stay in the same nonsense position.

    You don’t know the distintion between the process of thinking and information and tell me that I don’t know how to know a true premise from a false one? Give me a break. You are the one who create new definitions and denied to justify them, not me. You are the one who doesn’t want to tell us how can you sustain and deduce an entire worldview from A=A, not me.

    Ok, that’s all.

    God bless…

  73. Kelly Jones Says:

    I guess you aren’t competent enough to parse the fact that the Septuagint contains apocryphal books.

  74. kimeradrummer Says:

    And I think that you are ignorant of the fact that the one who ask for the translation wants jewish literature, not only the Old Testament. So, those books you claim to be part of the Old Testament were simply jewish literature apart from it and translated in obedience to what was asked.

  75. Sean Gerety Says:

    I think this discussion has become a bit bogged down. If anyone would like to make a closing statement, now is the time.

  76. jumpy66 Says:

    It’s time to make a step back. More precisely a step from Proverbs 26:5 back to the previous verse :)

  77. Bob S Says:

    A bit bogged down?
    Really? Like how do you know that?
    Did you deduce or induce it?
    Do you have any evidence of that or is it an axiom?
    Was it caused, causal or causation, or even an entity separate from causation?

    Seriously, Sean, you don’t want to make a closing statement? IMO you owe it to the truth, if not your opponent to put them out of their misery again, even if you did it the first time.


Comments are closed.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 82 other followers

%d bloggers like this: