* dios_mio (fake@88.241.140.113) has joined #apologetics
[dios_mio] hi guyz
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, you should have been here yesterday.. i devastated your apologist friendz 🙂
[@RazorsKiss] since when?
[@RazorsKiss] what’re you up to.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, i debated your frienz here and i kicked them buttz 🙂
[@RazorsKiss] dios_mio: considering you think you win every debate, that’s not very hard 😛
[@RazorsKiss] I was having high hopes for you, a while back.
[@RazorsKiss] Go back and read bertrand russell a dozen times until you felt better? 😛
[dios_mio] you have no respect for Bertrand Russell?
[@RazorsKiss] not especially.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, your friend here yesterday tried to pull the presuppositionalist trick on me
[dios_mio] he wants to prove christianity true without ever having to argue for it lol
[dios_mio] thats having your cake and eating it too
[dios_mio] another friend of yours in here tried to negate the entire science of geology lol
[@RazorsKiss] dios_mio: how many epistemologies did Russell hold to?
[dios_mio] hmm no idea
[dios_mio] wasn’t he a sort of empiricist?
[@RazorsKiss] dios_mio: I’m really not interested in tattle-taling. This isn’t undernet 😀
[dios_mio] right
[@RazorsKiss] dios_mio: which 5-year period?
[dios_mio] I dont know
[@RazorsKiss] Hegelian, Platonic, atomism, extreme realism, logical constructionism, neutral monism, materialism.
[@RazorsKiss] That’s the “consistency” of russell.
[dios_mio] it is called maturing up
[@RazorsKiss] No, it’s called ping-pong 😀
[dios_mio] you are not being fair with him
[dios_mio] he contributed a lot to philosophy
[@RazorsKiss] reading through Russell’s stuff is such a mish-mash that although he was a bright guy – it’s hard to see why or how it matters, if he can’t give a coherent picture.
[dios_mio] well of course today he is mostly obsolete
[dios_mio] like many other philosophers before him
[dios_mio] philosophy keeps progressing
[@RazorsKiss] that’s the thing – he just kept bouncing until he got tired of it.
[dios_mio] nothing wrong with changing your mind with a new insight or evidence
[@RazorsKiss] further, he doesn’t believe in certainty, regardless.
[dios_mio] Heidegger and Wittgenstein are also known for changing their minds
[@RazorsKiss] So it’s really not relevant what he thought.
[dios_mio] well it is only relevant historically… he contributed then and made his impact in the history of philosopher
[dios_mio] philosophy
[@RazorsKiss] Because he just doesn’t know – like the rest of the philosophies based on subjective perception.
[@RazorsKiss] We went through that before – remember that?
[dios_mio] no I don’t
[dios_mio] first time I talk of Russell with you
[@RazorsKiss] no – about how subjective secularism is.
[dios_mio] oh?
[dios_mio] well
[@RazorsKiss] you can’t trust anything, because your feet are planted in midair/
[dios_mio] I don’t know if secularism is subjective, but the fact remains that we have no other reasonable option
[dios_mio] christianity is just an ancient tale, and cult of judaism
[dios_mio] judaism, christianity, islam, hinduism…
[dios_mio] a 21st century enlightened person cannot take them seriously anymore
[@Raz_Laptop] there you go again.
[@Raz_Laptop] what makes a 21st century person any smarter than someone in the 12th century?
[@Raz_Laptop] intelligence depends on ability, not on data.
[@Raz_Laptop] further – you used the term “reasonable” – on what basis do you trust “reason”?
[@Raz_Laptop] additionally, you’re trying to make an issue of whether they can be taken “seriously”
[@Raz_Laptop] please inform – on what basis is “serious” an argument of any sort?
[@Raz_Laptop] aren’t you making a value judgment? How can you judge the value of anything, with no objective standard from which to do so?
[dios_mio] well what then?
[dios_mio] what is the conclusion of this line of thinking?
[@Raz_Laptop] that you require an objective standard to know anything at all with warrant for it’s truthfulness.
[@Raz_Laptop] “truth” is meaningless without something to establish it by.
[dios_mio] why do you think we have no objective standard?
[dios_mio] well reality is what establishes truth
[@Raz_Laptop] I do – you don’t – not from within your worldview.
[dios_mio] my worldview doesn’t deny the existence of reality
[@Raz_Laptop] how do you know whether your perception is in accordance with it?
[@Raz_Laptop] that’s the definition of truth – perception and thinking of said perception in accordance with reality.
[dios_mio] because it works
[@Raz_Laptop] how do you know?
[dios_mio] I get by
[dios_mio] well I achieve my ends
[@Raz_Laptop] so what?
[dios_mio] mundane daily life ends, I achieve them, my perception must be working
[@Raz_Laptop] that has nothing to do with whether it’s true.
[dios_mio] if it wasn’t working I couldn’t get by
[dios_mio] what should I doubt about my perception?
[@Raz_Laptop] whether you’re having it.
[dios_mio] it seems to work fine
[@Raz_Laptop] whether it’s according to reality.
[dios_mio] I just need glasses thats all
[@Raz_Laptop] whether you exist to have the perception.
[dios_mio] well it must be, otherwise I couldn’t survive now could i?
[@Raz_Laptop] really?
[dios_mio] well obviously I exist, otherwise i wouldn’t have this experience
[@Raz_Laptop] Who says you’re operating by your own worldview?
[dios_mio] what?
[@Raz_Laptop] I certainly don’t.
[@Raz_Laptop] (think you are)
[dios_mio] I am not operating by a worldview, I am operating by my perception, it works
[@Raz_Laptop] your worldview defines your interpretation of your perceptions
[dios_mio] I used to get paranoid delusions but my medicine fixes that
[dios_mio] hardly
[@Raz_Laptop] I posit that you don’t operate by it.
[dios_mio] some unconscious convictions defines how to interpret the perception
[@Raz_Laptop] So, what basis do you have that you, in fact, exist?
[dios_mio] unconscious convictions… maybe even more: maybe kantian a priori categories
[dios_mio] well I exist because I have my experience
[@Raz_Laptop] and, I’ll posit, your unconscious is aware that your stated convictions are unlivable, and adjust your actions accordingly.
[@Raz_Laptop] and what justifies that your experience can be applied to future events?
[dios_mio] it doesnt
[@Raz_Laptop] you’re familiar with induction, are you not?
[dios_mio] well yes
[@Raz_Laptop] and the fact that it is an unwarranted form of thinking, under any worldview without an externally justified objective standard?
[dios_mio] so?
[@Raz_Laptop] so, you have no reason – whatsoever – to trust that your experience will hold true.
[@Raz_Laptop] you just do.
[dios_mio] how is that relevant with the question if I exist?
[@Raz_Laptop] is that from your worldview?
[dios_mio] you asked me if I existed
[dios_mio] how I know I exist, I said because I have my experience
[@Raz_Laptop] you don’t have warrant to assume that you exist from the fact that you think you do.
[dios_mio] why do you talk about future events now?
[@Raz_Laptop] because you aren’t even sure “you” exist TO think.
[dios_mio] well what else does “I exist” mean?
[dios_mio] a sure sign of existing is having an experience isnt it?
[@Raz_Laptop] it _assumes_ I is there to do the thinking.
[@Raz_Laptop] doesn’t it?
[@Raz_Laptop] that’s why descartes isn’t exactly top-notch.
[@Raz_Laptop] may as well say “I drink, therefore I am”
[@Raz_Laptop] so, what justification do you have for the “I” in “I exist”?
[dios_mio] but wouldn’t you agree that if one has an experience he exists?
[dios_mio] what else does existing mean?
[@Raz_Laptop] I know what it means – I don’t agree you’re justified in making that connection.
[dios_mio] I perceive my body
[@Raz_Laptop] It’s inductive.
[@Raz_Laptop] Who does?
[dios_mio] I occupy space
[@Raz_Laptop] Who does?
[dios_mio] what more proof do i need?
[@Raz_Laptop] Does who need?
[@Raz_Laptop] You begged the question in all 3 instances.
[@Raz_Laptop] “I”
[dios_mio] well lets define “I” as “my experience”
[dios_mio] it exists
[@Raz_Laptop] No, because “I” is the one having experiences.
[@Raz_Laptop] That’s still begging the question.
[dios_mio] well if he doesn’t exist how is he having experiences?
[@Raz_Laptop] I don’t know – is he?
[dios_mio] shouldn’t you first exist to perform actions?
[@Raz_Laptop] I don’t know – should he?
[@Raz_Laptop] further – what defines “should”?
[dios_mio] well, to me it seems that it is a prerequisite of performing actions to first exist
[@Raz_Laptop] it begs the question.
[dios_mio] why?
[@Raz_Laptop] “I” cannot be assume to prove “I”
[@Raz_Laptop] *d
[dios_mio] I didn’t
[@Raz_Laptop] Yes you did.
[dios_mio] don’t we need a subject to perform an action?
[@Raz_Laptop] if you assume a subject.
[dios_mio] no
[@Raz_Laptop] which we can’t, as that’s the question.
[dios_mio] the definition of performing an action requires there be a subject
[@Raz_Laptop] on what basis do subjects exist?
[@Raz_Laptop] or objects, for that matter.
[dios_mio] physically I guess
[@Raz_Laptop] that assumes objects
[@Raz_Laptop] (or subjects)
[dios_mio] maybe your question is flawed
[dios_mio] maye you want to ask “what manner”
[@Raz_Laptop] maybe you never thought about this before?
[@Raz_Laptop] we aren’t even to manner
[dios_mio] maybe you are just confused with half read philosophy
[@Raz_Laptop] we haven’t established “whether”
[dios_mio] well then your question of “basis” sounds meaningless
[@Raz_Laptop] No, this is entry level philosophy, man.
[@Raz_Laptop] “I” is _always_ assumed in philosophy.
[@Raz_Laptop] Why?
[@Raz_Laptop] Because they don’t have a basis for it.
[dios_mio] what do you mean by “basis”?
[@Raz_Laptop] warrant, justification
[dios_mio] a reason to believe it exists you mean?
[@Raz_Laptop] reason for
[@Raz_Laptop] a reason, external to you, for you to exist, that doesn’t assume you to answer the question.
[dios_mio] well why did you reject my whole grammatical argument by repeating the same original question then? because you asked me the “basis for subjects to exist” and now you say that is asking for a reason to believe it exists.. that is what we were already discussing and I was answering to
[@Raz_Laptop] dios: grammar doesn’t exist without “I” to parse it.
[dios_mio] no I disagree
[@Raz_Laptop] no, you can’t – we haven’t established “I” 😀
[dios_mio] back to my argument
[dios_mio] performing an action requires a subject, by definition.. agreed?
[@Raz_Laptop] and you haven’t established “I” to have a possessive “my” 😀
[@Raz_Laptop] if and only if said “I” can be warranted
[dios_mio] I don’t think you really understand what you are talking about.. just trying to direct the conversation to what you memorised.. without doing actual thinking
[@Raz_Laptop] or, if and only if subject/object has warrant
[@Raz_Laptop] dios: I don’t think you’re seeing what I’m talking about.
[dios_mio] you are not even addressing what I say directly, only repeating your memorized ready answers.. but they don’t fit
[dios_mio] pre-cooked answers
[@Raz_Laptop] no, I’m trying to direct you to the fundamental inductive leap you _have_ to make – and have no warrant for.
[@Raz_Laptop] that there is an “I” to make the action.
[@Raz_Laptop] or perform, etc
[dios_mio] I am not making any inductive leap
[@Raz_Laptop] so, from warrant can you derive I, for said actions I is said to perform?
[dios_mio] inductive leap you have in mind is about believing the world will be the same in future.. you are confusing issues here… your apologetic arguments get mixed up
[@Raz_Laptop] let me state it then,
[dios_mio] if an action is performed this proves there is an agent
[@Raz_Laptop] In the statement “I perform actions”
[dios_mio] because there is no action without an agent
[@Raz_Laptop] On what basis can I be said to exist, to perform said action?
[dios_mio] put “I” aside now
[@Raz_Laptop] no 😀
[dios_mio] I am talking of any agent
[@Raz_Laptop] ok.
[dios_mio] there is no action without an agent, agreed?
[@Raz_Laptop] In the statement “Any agent performs actions”
[@Raz_Laptop] On what basis can any agent be said to exist, to perform said action?
[dios_mio] what?
[dios_mio] if an action is performed, this proves there is an agent that performed it
[dios_mio] action exists, agent exists
[@Raz_Laptop] no, you assume I.
[dios_mio] lol
[@Raz_Laptop] or agent
[dios_mio] I said NOTHING about any “I”
[@Raz_Laptop] if said agent X is said to perform action Y
[dios_mio] no, start from the action
[@Raz_Laptop] what warrant does agent X have to be said to exist, to perform action Y?
[dios_mio] if an action exists, this means there is an agent who performed it, because an action is never without an agent
[@Raz_Laptop] No, that’s begging the question 😀
[dios_mio] we first observe the ACTION
[dios_mio] we first observe the ACTION
[dios_mio] ok?
[dios_mio] we first observe the action
[@Raz_Laptop] I’m not worried about observation.
[dios_mio] then we conclude that there is an AGENT
[dios_mio] because an ACTION is NEVER WITHOUT AN AGENT
[dios_mio] agreed?
[@Raz_Laptop] or, conversely, an agent is never without an action.
[dios_mio] no that doesn’t follow
[@Raz_Laptop] Yes it does.
[dios_mio] and I don’t claim that
[dios_mio] no it doesn’t
[dios_mio] an agent can exist and perform no action
[@Raz_Laptop] It just doesn’t from your argument 😀
[dios_mio] no
[@Raz_Laptop] no it can’t.
[dios_mio] you are putting words in my mouth
[dios_mio] why not?
[@Raz_Laptop] agents are not nihilistic.
[dios_mio] a person can exist without doing anything, example the deist God
[dios_mio] lol
[dios_mio] what does nihilism got to do with it??
[@Raz_Laptop] nihilist*ic*
[dios_mio] we are talking about doing things
[@Raz_Laptop] exactly.
[@Raz_Laptop] What is doing things?
[dios_mio] performing actions
[dios_mio] being the subject of a verb
[@Raz_Laptop] and why do you assume the action is the warrant for the existence of the things performing the action?
[dios_mio] because
[dios_mio] for the 10th time
[dios_mio] AN ACTION CANNOT BE WITHOUT A PERFORMER AGENT
[@Raz_Laptop] I heard you the first 9 😀
[@Raz_Laptop] Why?
[dios_mio] because that is part of the definition of “performing an action”
[@Raz_Laptop] okay.
[@Raz_Laptop] I disagree 😀
[dios_mio] give me an example of an action performed by no agent
[dios_mio] a performed action
[@Raz_Laptop] did I say there was?
[dios_mio] with no performer
[dios_mio] well then why do you deny what I said?
[@Raz_Laptop] The question was whether that was warrant for it.
[dios_mio] can there be a performed action with no performer?
[dios_mio] no
[dios_mio] answer my question please
[@Raz_Laptop] Of course not. But that assumes there is a performer.
[dios_mio] what assumes?
[@Raz_Laptop] Why must we assume an action always requires a performer?
[dios_mio] not any action
[dios_mio] but a PERFORMED action
[@Raz_Laptop] so some actions do not have a performer?
[dios_mio] correct
[@Raz_Laptop] Such as?
[dios_mio] it is raining
[@Raz_Laptop] or was there a qualifier such as “sentient” performer?
[dios_mio] “it is raining”
[@Raz_Laptop] And what performed that action?
[dios_mio] nothing
[dios_mio] but that is beyond our topic
[@Raz_Laptop] oh… so… ex nihilo rain?
[dios_mio] we are talking about performed actions.. there is such a category in grammar.. there are certain verbs that require an active subject performing them
[dios_mio] you are so confused my friend
[@Raz_Laptop] dios: I think you’re trying to dodge the induction required for your statement 😀
[dios_mio] i think you are confused, and you are mixing the existence of self problem with the induction argument presuppers use.. the two have no connection at all
[@Raz_Laptop] 1) you assume “I” exists to perform the action
[dios_mio] no
[dios_mio] I prove that I exist from the fact that there is such a thing as “my experience”
[@Raz_Laptop] 2) You assume that because the action “I” performs exists, the “I” is responsible for it
[@Raz_Laptop] 3) You assume that experience can be successfully applied to future events, due to past experience.
[dios_mio] you just heard from somewhere that Cartesian argument is circular, so you keep pressing that part, without ever confronting what I say at all… anything I say you will just repeat your memorized line.. it is pointless with you, because you heard that cartesian argument is circular, and you believe in strongly, and probably it is part of your apologetic too so you need it badly
[dios_mio] this is not going to work my friend
[@Raz_Laptop] dios: no, you’re just going to continue to assert it.
[@Raz_Laptop] I know you will, and I’m used to it.
[dios_mio] why is it important to prove I exist anyway?
[dios_mio] and how do you prove you exist by pointing at your bible? shouldn’t you first prove that your perception of the bible is real?
[@Raz_Laptop] because everything you perceive depends on your existence. You can’t even prove that without induction, so how can anything else be proven from that?
[dios_mio] so how do you do better? lets see
[dios_mio] if there is such a problem it is universal
[dios_mio] you cannot escape it talking of any phenomenon, jesus or the bible.. because ultimately they are YOUR PERCEPTION
[@Raz_Laptop] Only universal to those without an objective standard 😀
[dios_mio] you don’t have it
[@Raz_Laptop] Nope.
[@Raz_Laptop] Sure I do.
[dios_mio] how do you have it?
[dios_mio] prove you exist
[dios_mio] lets see
[@Raz_Laptop] Because I can inductively reason, with warrant.
[dios_mio] ok go ahead, I am listening
[@Raz_Laptop] 1) God exists
[@Raz_Laptop] 1a) God is self-existent, and created all things
[@Raz_Laptop] 1b) God is the basis for all possible contingencies, as the sole self-existent object
[@Raz_Laptop] 2) Scripture is the self-revelation of the self-existent God
[@Raz_Laptop] 2a) All knowledge necessary to warrant existence, true knowledge, and true faith can be derived from Scripture.
[@Raz_Laptop] 2b) Therefore, Scripture gives me warrant for any inductive reasoning in accordance with God’s self-revelation.
[@Raz_Laptop] I can be certain I exist – because God exists, revealed that He ordains all things in accordance with His will, and my existence is in accordance with that ordination.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, swell.. how do you know God exists though?
[@Raz_Laptop] 2)
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, do you mean (2) proves God’s existence? as in the bible?
[@Raz_Laptop] God’s self-revelation is sufficient ground to be certain He exists, yes.
[@Raz_Laptop] ie: provides warrant
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, well I thought you were going to prove you exist, but you make reference to something in the world, which is part of your experience, and it is exactly the reality of your experience that is we are doubting here… you PERCEIVE the bible, and you cannot use whats in it to prove that you exist, because if you dont exist the bible doesnt exist either
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, your argument is circular
[@Raz_Laptop] dios: no, I make reference to someone which both created and even sustains the world – by which all things exists, and for whom all things exist.
[@Raz_Laptop] dios: my perception of it, as one indwelt by the same God who wrote it, is sufficient warrant.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, you are making reference to phenomenon, things “you” perceive, you ASSUME they exist by assuming you exist, and then you use them to prove “you” exist.. circular..
[@Raz_Laptop] dios: the same reason I know I exist.
[dios_mio] raz, circular
[@Raz_Laptop] all things are referenced to and by the same standard.
[@Raz_Laptop] no, central.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, I hope you realize someday that the cartesian doubt is universal.. christian cannot escape it by referring to objects in the world
[@Raz_Laptop] all things are known and understood by a single reference.
[@Raz_Laptop] I don’t – I refer to the God who created it.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, you prove you exist by saying God sustains it, and you prove God by referring to the bible, and you prove the bible exists by referring to your perception of it, and the veracity of your perception is what you were set out to prove in the first place… circular
[@Raz_Laptop] His self-revelation is the means by which God reveals Himself to perception, and self-authenticates it by Himself, via the Holy Spirit.
[@Raz_Laptop] No, central, as I’ve already explained.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, what do you mean “central”?
[@Raz_Laptop] all facts exist solely because God exists.
[dios_mio] you are not explaining anything.. only repeating your argument
[dios_mio] you are not addressing my objection
[@Raz_Laptop] I think you’re missing the point, dios.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, I think you are evading my objection
[@Raz_Laptop] I don’t prove God exists.
[dios_mio] you only reject it calling your argument is “central”
[dios_mio] that is not addressing my argument
[@Raz_Laptop] I have warrant for all true beliefs because God exists.
[dios_mio] I asked you how you know God exists and you said because scripture gives you reason to believe in him
[dios_mio] and how do you know God exists?
[@Raz_Laptop] dios: I’m rejecting your premise that God has to be proven.
[@Raz_Laptop] God proves all things.
[dios_mio] well then how do you prove you exist?
[@Raz_Laptop] God exists – God revealed Himself to man – God’s revelation gives me sufficient warrant to know I exist – therefore, I exist.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, how do you know the bible you perceive exists?
[dios_mio] [Raz_Laptop] how do you know whether your perception is in accordance with it?
[@Raz_Laptop] dios: because I have the Spirit of God to verify it, which indwells believers.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, how do you know your perception of the “spirit of God” is a true perception?
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, how do you know you exist at all?
[@Raz_Laptop] because truth is defined solely by God – who defines all things.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, but how do you know God exists?
[@Raz_Laptop] and verifies his own statement.
[@Raz_Laptop] I’ve already answered that.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, you gave me two different answers for that.. first you said the bible proves it, then you said you dont have to prove it.. which is it?
[@Raz_Laptop] I don’t think I said “prove” – if I did, I misspoke.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, justify, warrant whatever.. same question.. go ahead
[@Raz_Laptop] no, they aren’t.
[@Raz_Laptop] they are specific terms.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, ok I ask the same question using the term justification..
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, how do you know God exists?.
[@Raz_Laptop] Any claim I make in accordance with the self-revelation of God is verified by the author of that self-revelation.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, what do you mean by the “self revelation”? the bible?
[@Raz_Laptop] Yes, I believe I defined that earlier.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, so are you telling me that you know God exists because there is a bible?
[@Raz_Laptop] I know God exists because He revealed Himself to exist, and then grants sufficient justification to His revelation internally to me, via the work of the Holy Spirit.
[@Raz_Laptop] *for His revelation
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, what about the bible? why are you changing your terms every second?
[@Raz_Laptop] In other words, dios
[GinoMan] or lets say I decided to mess with them
[@Raz_Laptop] every fact that exists is directly contingent on God.
[@Raz_Laptop] and there are none that are non-contingent.
[dios_mio] Raz_Laptop, is that from the definition of God?
[@RazorsKiss] Where is God defined?
@RazorsKiss changes computers
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, you said every fact that exists is contingent on God.. does that follow from the definition of God?
[@RazorsKiss] God is the sole self-existent being, and creator of all things – thus, yes, that is from the self-definition of God.
[@RazorsKiss] As found in Scripture.
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, so if God exists every fact will depend on him.. but what if he doesnt exist?
[@RazorsKiss] then I’d have to be entirely subjective – like you 😀
[@RazorsKiss] objectivity is a function of self-existence, I’d posit.
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, so you have no real argument for the existence of God, but just an arbitrary choice just to avoid the cartesian problem?
[@RazorsKiss] Define “arbitrary”, please?
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, I use arbitrary in its daily life meaning, as in based on whim
[@RazorsKiss] Then no, it’s not based on my “whim”
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, what is it based on then?
[@RazorsKiss] It is, however, based on it’s technical use – as based on the standard of an arbiter.
[dios_mio] ok nice pun
[dios_mio] but you are not answering my question
[@RazorsKiss] A self-existent God, who created everything that exists, will necessarily be the sole arbiter of all things.
[dios_mio] what do you mean self-existent? are you going to argue an ontological argument?
[@RazorsKiss] It is not from an attempt to avoid the cartesian problem – it is based on the nature of God.
[dios_mio] the definition of God?
[dios_mio] do you prove God from his definition?
[dios_mio] as in an ontological argument?
[@RazorsKiss] The ontological argument is useful as a definition of God as the necessary being.
[dios_mio] I didnt ask you what you think of the ontological argument
[@RazorsKiss] And can be taken from scripture.
[dios_mio] is your ultimate argument an ontological argument?
[dios_mio] we are still talking about how you know God exists..
[@RazorsKiss] However, God as self-existent is the foundation for an objective standard – and that is entirely from Scripture, as God;s self-revelation.
[dios_mio] are you trying to say that God must exist?
[@RazorsKiss] I know God exists, in one statement of the position, because it is impossible to believe anything whatsoever if He does not.
[dios_mio] so you choose to believe in God just to avoid subjectivism?
[@RazorsKiss] No.
[dios_mio] why then?
[@RazorsKiss] That’s positing a personal desire to avoid a certain philosophical position 😀
[dios_mio] right
[@RazorsKiss] Which isn’t the reason I do so 😀
[dios_mio] it seemed for a bit as though that was your intent
[dios_mio] but whatever.. why do you believe in God then?
[@RazorsKiss] I believe in God because He has revealed himself to exist, has perfectly justified Himself to exist through that revelation, and has verified His self-revelation through the Person of the Holy Spirit, granted to believers.
[dios_mio] how do you know that he revealed himself?
[@RazorsKiss] Further, I believe he exists, because I know Him, love Him, and have been saved by Him.
[@RazorsKiss] dios_mio: see 2) above.
[dios_mio] type it again please
[dios_mio] because scripture exists?
[@RazorsKiss] 2) Scripture is the self-revelation of the self-existent God
[@RazorsKiss] 2a) All knowledge necessary to warrant existence, true knowledge, and true faith can be derived from Scripture.
[dios_mio] so you know that God revealed himself to exist because there is a thing called the Bible?
[@RazorsKiss] 2b) Therefore, Scripture gives me warrant for any inductive reasoning in accordance with God’s self-revelation.
[dios_mio] so do you know that God revealed himself to exist because there is a thing called the Bible?
[@RazorsKiss] Everything we know about God is derived from Scripture, yes.
[dios_mio] how do you know that the scripture exists?
[@RazorsKiss] Because God exists, of course.
[dios_mio] how do you know God exists? because scripture exists
[dios_mio] circular
[@RazorsKiss] yet, God is also part of every believer.
[dios_mio] circular my friend
[dios_mio] so obviously blindingly circular
[@RazorsKiss] so, tell me why “actions exist because they have subjects to perform them, and subjects exist because they perform actions” isn’t? 😀
[dios_mio] ok lets say the cartesian solution to his own problem fails.. that was what I was arguing.. but we just seen that you have no solution either
[dios_mio] I was arguing the cartesian solution I mean
[@RazorsKiss] dios_mio: I have warrant – the self-existence of God 😀
[dios_mio] but that is beside the point
[dios_mio] do you accept that your solution is circular?
[dios_mio] no you have nothing
[@RazorsKiss] No, i don’t.
[dios_mio] you have just a circular argument
[dios_mio] which amounts to nothing
[@RazorsKiss] What warrants God, to complete the circle?
[@RazorsKiss] hrmm?
[dios_mio] why did you change the subject talking about the previous subject suddenly if you dont accept your argument is circular?
[dios_mio] you say God exists because scripture.. and you say scripture exists becuase God exists.. how is that not circular?
[@RazorsKiss] because you seem to think you don’t even have a circularity problem.
[@RazorsKiss] *I* know God exists because of Scripture.
[dios_mio] why is it relevant to what we are talking about?
[@RazorsKiss] *God* doesn’t exist because of Scripture.
[dios_mio] lets say my argument fails.. so what? that doest mean your argument is true.. we just saw that your argument is circular
[@RazorsKiss] There’s a crucial difference between the two concepts.
[dios_mio] but you said that he does
[@RazorsKiss] No, yours assumes subjectivity.
[dios_mio] ok how do you know God exists then?
[dios_mio] you said because scripture says so
[dios_mio] didn’t you?
[@RazorsKiss] Mine does not. My knowledge is contingent – but God’s knowledge is the cause for all contingent knowledge
[dios_mio] if I dont have a way out of cartesian doubt, then you don’t either
[@RazorsKiss] dios_mio: they don’t prove the other.
[dios_mio] that is how you define God.. but you cannot tell me why we should think that he exists
[@RazorsKiss] One is means.
[@RazorsKiss] The other is source.
[@RazorsKiss] They do not prove each other.
[dios_mio] I am not asking you the cause of God’s existence.. I am asking you the reason to believe he exists.. and you referred to the scripture.. yet you cannot prove that scripture exists without referring to God in a circular way
[@RazorsKiss] scripture is itself self-verifying.
[dios_mio] I am not talking about the truth of scripture’s content
[dios_mio] I am asking of its existence at all
[@RazorsKiss] I guess I don’t see what your objection is, then.
[dios_mio] I am asking you how you know that the bible you hold in your hands exists
[@RazorsKiss] Or maybe my eyes are starting to cross by being asked the same question 20+ times 😀
[@RazorsKiss] because God created/revealed it – and because God created me.
[dios_mio] and how do you know that God exists and did those things again?
[@RazorsKiss] because God revealed it in Scripture, and created me to know it.
[@RazorsKiss] That’s why they are presented together.
[@RazorsKiss] I will posit one thing that may be helpful.
[@RazorsKiss] How many steps back from “I” perceive am I, from my grounds of certainty?
[dios_mio] so you know because you read it in the scripture? but what if the whole experience of “holding and reading the scripture” or “listening to your preacher” or “praying” or “feeling God” and things are not true perceptions at all?
[@RazorsKiss] dios_mio: justified/verified/warranted by the presence of God in me.
[@RazorsKiss] dios_mio: how many steps back from “I perceive” are you, for your grounds of certainty?
[dios_mio] explain this “presence of God in you”… is it yet another perception ultimately? isn’t it part of your experience? and how do you it is a true perception?
[@RazorsKiss] Compare the two.
[dios_mio] don’t change the subject
[@RazorsKiss] It’s not a change of subject.
[@RazorsKiss] It’s the same subject all along.
[dios_mio] answer my question please
[@RazorsKiss] it differs from perception as object differs from perception of object.
[dios_mio] ok go on
[@RazorsKiss] When I say in me – I mean “in me”. God is a part of me – not identical to, but in addition to.
[dios_mio] do you have direct experience of it? or do you experience your perception of it?
[@RazorsKiss] It isn’t perception, but self.
[dios_mio] is he part of your experience you mean?
[dios_mio] oh God is your “self”?
[dios_mio] you are God then
[dios_mio] ?
[@RazorsKiss] notice the “not identical to, but in addition to”?
[@RazorsKiss] a “rider” to self, as it were.
[dios_mio] well I say all you have is your experience and nothing else ultimately.. what now?
[@RazorsKiss] you can say it.
[@RazorsKiss] That doesn’t mean it’s true 😀
[dios_mio] “god” is part of your experience
[dios_mio] well that is the jist of the cartesian doubt my friend
[dios_mio] and you are not avoiding it in anyway
[@RazorsKiss] Now, let’s compare to your warrant for any knowledge, shall we?
[dios_mio] especially not with your bible
[dios_mio] no, don’t change the subject
[dios_mio] not until you admit you cannot avoid the cartesian doubt
[@RazorsKiss] dios_mio: due to your assumption of what constitutes certainty, apparently.
[dios_mio] you cannot avoid the subjectivism
[@RazorsKiss] I don’t think you read that last statement carefully.
[dios_mio] you cannot prove that the bible you hold in your hands is real
[@RazorsKiss] Until you admit you cannot avoid cartesian doubt (subjectivism), you cannot avoid subjectivism.
[@RazorsKiss] so, let’s rephrase that. “until you admit you cannot avoid subjectivism – you cannot avoid subjectivism”
[@RazorsKiss] make sense?
[@RazorsKiss] Not so much.
[@RazorsKiss] The only way to _avoid_ subjectivism – is TO avoid cartesian doubt.
[dios_mio] lets say the cartesian solution to his own problem fails.. so what? it is not just my problem.. it is YOUR problem too.. you cannot avoid the problem simply referring to phenomena in the world such as the bible, or your psychological experience… cartesian demon goes deeper than any of them
[@RazorsKiss] dios_mio: unless, as I’ve been saying, I do avoid it.
[dios_mio] oh so lets avoid the cartesian problem by ARBITRARILY positing the existence of a God?
[@RazorsKiss] in which case, I have all the warrant in the world for every single thing I’ve said.
[dios_mio] you avoid nothing
[dios_mio] you have NOTHING
[@RazorsKiss] No, by the Arbiter God imposing His own will on all of creation, and necessarily being the objective standard for all knowledge.
[dios_mio] we’ve been through that my friend
[dios_mio] I refuted you
[@RazorsKiss] You aren’t going to accept it until God grants it to you.
[dios_mio] you are just not honest enough to come to terms with it
[@RazorsKiss] No, you refuted your view of it.
[@RazorsKiss] You assume that self-existence does not grant warrant – you have to assume it doesn’t exist to refute it.
[@RazorsKiss] If: God is self-existent, and created all things
[dios_mio] so are you going to argue an ontological argument?
[@RazorsKiss] If: God’s self-revelation is the source of all true knowledge
[dios_mio] do you mean God necessarily exists?
[dios_mio] if not then you have no case
[@RazorsKiss] Then: God’s existence is the necessary condition to render all things coherent, and knowable.
[dios_mio] you cannot prove God by referring to your experience of things..
[@RazorsKiss] Assuming I did – what’s your argument?
[dios_mio] lets see your ontological argument
[@RazorsKiss] refute anselm’s.
[dios_mio] existence is not a predicate
[@RazorsKiss] of?
[dios_mio] thats all
[dios_mio] thats the kantian answer
[@RazorsKiss] ok?
[dios_mio] yes
[dios_mio] anything else?
[@RazorsKiss] And?
[dios_mio] thats all
[dios_mio] I answered it
[@RazorsKiss] So… 5 words is the case.
[dios_mio] yes
[dios_mio] first time you hear it?
[@RazorsKiss] Nope.
[@RazorsKiss] You can’t… expand on that any?
[dios_mio] do you need it?
[@RazorsKiss] Kant sure did. For reams.
[@RazorsKiss] No, i don’t need it.
[dios_mio] do you first accept that there is no way out for you except for an ontological argument?
[@RazorsKiss] I don’t agree with it – but I’d like you to show a bit more effort, for all of the blustering 😀
[@RazorsKiss] 1) “no way out” is a bit… dramatic.
[dios_mio] way out from the cartesian demon
[dios_mio] tell me
[dios_mio] do you have any place
[@RazorsKiss] 2) You haven’t conclusively demonstrated anything except that you still require evidence for the source of all evidence – which doesn’t bode well for your understanding of the presup position.
[dios_mio] you dont doubt just the veracity of the perception, you doubt the self too.. you dont accept descartes’ own “cogito ergo sum”… you have to doubt the existence of everything right now
[@RazorsKiss] 3) Yes, you made the objection that the transference of the revelation is what you consider to be the failure point. My answers still stands- the presence of the Spirit counters it.
[@RazorsKiss] dios_mio: no, I don’t.
[@RazorsKiss] you have to – but I don’t.
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, you are failing the grasp how destructive descartes doubt is… you think you can talk of your bible and your perception of God as if it can validate the truth of your perception.. heck you dont even believe it is YOUR perception
[dios_mio] you do too
[dios_mio] it is an universal problem
[@RazorsKiss] I know exactly how destructive it is.
[@RazorsKiss] That’s why i used it in the first place.
[dios_mio] you are just too philosophical primitive to see it
[@RazorsKiss] ah, the “if you were only as smart as X” argument.
[@RazorsKiss] yeah, silly me, thinking induction is inherently destructive to any certainty whatsoever.
[dios_mio] descartes doubt is not about induction
[@RazorsKiss] yes it is.
[dios_mio] no it is not
[@RazorsKiss] You have to assume the “think” applies to “I”
[@RazorsKiss] the thoughts are assumed to be generated by self.
[@RazorsKiss] therefore, self exists.
[@RazorsKiss] ie: the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not entail it
[dios_mio] look, first comes Descartes doubt.. then comes his first answer of cogito to restore the “i exist”, then comes to restore the truth of his perception by an ontological proof of God, then he says God wouldnt deceive him
[@RazorsKiss] see what I’m getting at?
[@RazorsKiss] I don’t think “I” has any warrant for connection to “think”.
[dios_mio] induction is about the phenomena of the world.. Descartes is doubt the world ITSELF.. induction doesnt come to it
[@RazorsKiss] oh, i think it does.
[dios_mio] you need to read descartes again
[dios_mio] bye
* dios_mio (fake@88.241.140.113) Quit (The day that you stop running is the day that you arrive)

dios: I referred you here earlier today – and I hope you remember this conversation, and really think about it. once you do, I hope you read the followup in light of that, and see if I’ve been saying anything too different.

* dios_mio (test@88.243.102.125) has joined #apologetics
[dios_mio] dood
[dios_mio] is Christianity true or is atheism true?
[@RazorsKiss] Christianity is true, dios.
[dios_mio] how do you know?
[dios_mio] i was thinking about evolution, if it is true then we are just accidents
[dios_mio] then our existence is pointless
[@RazorsKiss] Because God reveals Himself through Scripture, in those who are believers, and in nature to both show this to be true, and to verify it as true.
[dios_mio] I honestly think that christians are the best people
[@RazorsKiss] It is true that evolution results in that.
[@RazorsKiss] I don’t think we’re the best people.
[dios_mio] the christian worldview has hope, contrasted with the bleak worldview of evolution and atheism
[@RazorsKiss] I think we’ve been given incredible gifts that we don’t deserve.
[@RazorsKiss] dios_mio: that’s why we’re told to “always be ready” to give an answer for the hope that is within us.
[dios_mio] i would rather be around christians than cynical atheists, or violent and dumb muslims
[dios_mio] yes
[dios_mio] but i dont think you have an adequate answer
[@RazorsKiss] So would I – because Christians share something in common – God in them.
[@RazorsKiss] Well, dios, the answer isn’t mine. That’s the problem.
[@RazorsKiss] We give an answer – but the answer is what Scripture commands us to give.
[dios_mio] because unfortunately evolution is true… that doesn’t mean that we must forsake our belief in our worth as human beings… if we surrender to the world of science we will lose the meaning of our world
[@RazorsKiss] If you assume that a priori, I can’t convince you otherwise.
[@RazorsKiss] Especially if you understand that it results in meaningless.
[@RazorsKiss] *meaninglessness
[dios_mio] it is not about assuming it, I just cant reject it when there is so much evidence
[dios_mio] yes its results are devastating
[@RazorsKiss] All evidence is filtered through assumptions.
[@RazorsKiss] But we’ve gone over that before 😀
[dios_mio] true, it is pointless to talk about whether evolution is true
[dios_mio] but lets talk about its implications
[@RazorsKiss] The main problem: do you accept scientists as having the correct assumptions?
[dios_mio] it offers a world devoid of value
[@RazorsKiss] Or do you accept God’s self-revelation to mankind?
[dios_mio] I believe that the debate about evolution is one scientists cannot lose in their own field
[@RazorsKiss] Remember – science relies on the assumption that only material things are “real”, and that uniformity is required to see the same result.
[@RazorsKiss] However, that same scientific assumption also says that the process that results in the evolution of humans is a _random_ process.
[@RazorsKiss] You can’t have it both ways.
[dios_mio] looking at the world from science’s perspective alone results in many contradictions
[@RazorsKiss] Is it uniform, or is it random?
[@RazorsKiss] but, you can’t assume it to be uniform without a real, underlying meaning for the laws that give it regularity. You can’t assume the random, evolving processes, unless you reject the uniformity of nature.
[@RazorsKiss] They’re contradictory principles – but yet scientists hold to both.
[dios_mio] we are facing a paradox, we cannot reject the findings of science and at the same time the results of science threatens to undermine our human world…
[@RazorsKiss] Why? Because they come to the data with certain assumptions.
[@RazorsKiss] the paradox is that people accept a self-contradictory system.
[dios_mio] the results of science threaten to undermine even the starting assumptions of science itself
[@RazorsKiss] Yes, they do.
[@RazorsKiss] But it’s not science doing it.
[@RazorsKiss] It’s the assumptions that science is approached with – by scientists.
[@RazorsKiss] you don’t approach facts in a vacuum.
[@RazorsKiss] There aren’t any “brute” facts.
[@RazorsKiss] They are facts – but they are always interpreted in the light of your philosophy, or worldview – your system of thinking.
[@RazorsKiss] and when your worldview is self-defeating, what can you expect of the results of it?
[dios_mio] yes, that is a common vantillian theme, and it is correct
[@RazorsKiss] My worldview can stand on it’s own principles, and not defeat itself.
[@RazorsKiss] The materialistic evolutionist _cannot_ account for his own principles within his own worldview.
[dios_mio] it is like when we said earlier that the results of science threaten to undermine the starting assumptions of science..
[@RazorsKiss] To make them meaningful, he has to pull aspects from elsewhere – which shows it’s bankruptcy
[BK_DL] did someone mention Van Til
[@RazorsKiss] Everything I know, is known because _of_ the foundation of my system, not in spite of it.
[BK_DL] ?
[BK_DL] 🙂
* BK_DL is now known as BK_
[dios_mio] if evolution is true it doesn’t matter what one believes anyway… because it doesn’t matter whether one believes in evolution or christianity
[@RazorsKiss] and, further, it doesn’t matter what evolution says – because it may or may not be true.
[@RazorsKiss] it undercuts it’s own foundation for whether or not anything is true.
[dios_mio] truth itself becomes meaningless.. like Bonz/Baawa refuses to use the word “truth”
[@RazorsKiss] Correct.
[@RazorsKiss] Now, let me ask you – do we not have minds that think, and think logically? (or can/should)
[dios_mio] yes certainly
[@RazorsKiss] If this is so – a materialistic account of origins has NO explanation – and in fact, denies – the very concept used to formulate it
[dios_mio] then there is the argument of plantinga against evolutionary naturalism, it makes an interesting point too
[@RazorsKiss] *explanation of
[@RazorsKiss] What possible reason is there to hold to the truth of a system that results in the denial of truth itself?
[@RazorsKiss] Is that even coherent? Can it make sense at all?
[dios_mio] the thing is the evolutionary worldview leaves us in a world devoid of any value or meaning,,, undermining the philosophical foundations of biology and all science,,,
[@RazorsKiss] it says, basically, that we’re doing nothing, for nothing, and know nothing
[dios_mio] we are meant to believe in some sort of God
[@RazorsKiss] What possible reason is there to hold to such a thing?
[@RazorsKiss] There is nothing to hold TO!
[@RazorsKiss] Yes, we are.
[@RazorsKiss] Scripture declares that very succinctly, in many places.
[@RazorsKiss] What scientists look at, are all God’s facts, and must be interpreted according to God’s principles, by which He governs and sustains the universe.
[dios_mio] but I think we must just accept the paradoxical situation that science ultimately undermines itself and shatters our worldview… because denying science isn’t easy
[@RazorsKiss] When you fail to do that, all you end up with is nihilism.
[dios_mio] I think that our existence is built upon such a foundation that it can only hold together if we look at it from a religious/theistic point of view….
[@RazorsKiss] I think that the problem isn’t denying science.
[@RazorsKiss] I don’t deny science.
[dios_mio] but that doesn’t mean that there is a God.. I dont think there is a God, but just that truth is meant to be contradictory and irrational
[@RazorsKiss] I deny the assumptions that the typical scientist uses to interpret the data he sees.
[@RazorsKiss] If truth is irrational, and has no grounds, it is not truth.
[dios_mio] well you deny the evolution part
[dios_mio] yeah, but that is the paradoxical nature of our existence
[@RazorsKiss] Evolution has no real data to support it. It is completely philosophical in nature.
[dios_mio] because see, evolution is indeed true, and scriptural religions are made up
[dios_mio] I dont think you have the biological credentials to dispute evolution
[@RazorsKiss] It doesn’t take a biology phd to realize that there are no transitional forms, there is no way to explain evolutionary biology with what we see, and that there is no evidence, whatsoever, of a complex organism evolving in an inter-species manner
[dios_mio] thats a simplistic view of biology
[@RazorsKiss] Not to mention the fact that even a cursory examination of the chemical composition, it’s ultimate complexity, the generally irreducible aspects of so, so many of the systems in only the human body, let alone those of a myriad of animals
[@RazorsKiss] cannot possibly lead an observer to surmise that the debate is evidencial, in any way.
[@RazorsKiss] It cannot be.
[@RazorsKiss] It was an off-the cuff response to an off-the-cuff comment – I wasn’t writing a paper 😀
[@RazorsKiss] So yeah, it’s gonna be short and to the point
[@RazorsKiss] heh
[@RazorsKiss] brb
[dios_mio] “It is a pointless battle, which science cannot lose on its own ground, and where any gains for the attackers will only be discreditable reflections of political power. Meanwhile, both sides seem to overlook the fact that the exercise is irrelevant. The march of science in fact encounters unbreachable limits, already clearly perceived and defined by Kant.”
[dios_mio] http://www.friesian.com/god.htm
[@RazorsKiss] the fact is, I would again argue, that those limits are the limits of any system which is self-defeating.
[dios_mio] actually check this page, it is written especially about evolution versus creationism: http://www.friesian.com/design.htm
[@RazorsKiss] It cannot explain, account, or argue any of it’s conclusions sucessfully to a meaningful, knowable foundation.
[@RazorsKiss] You can only reduce it to a supposed “paradox” in every case – which is just a way of saying “I can’t answer that” 😀
[@RazorsKiss] but really, brb 😀
[dios_mio] ok
[dios_mio] “We then must ask, “Is science ‘naturalistic’?” The answer to that is “yes,” because naturalism, properly undertood, is a method, an empirical method, which is the very essence of modern science ever since Galileo. The Intelligent Design theorists want to claim an empirical justification themselves, but the assumptions that they introduce into their method are inconsistent with the very logic of scientific method.”
[BK_] ” I dont think there is a God, but just that truth is meant to be contradictory and irrational”
[BK_] do you mean this, dios_mio?
[dios_mio] well yes, truth from the point of view science destroys our human world and takes away all its value and meaning
[BK_] so truth from the point of view of science it meant to be contradictory?
[BK_] or truth in general?
[dios_mio] this philosopher I am quoting accepts evolution, but in philosophy he is not a naturalist, he believes in meaning and value.. he is actually a Platonist
[dios_mio] but I dont understand he can believe both in evolution and meaning
[dios_mio] well I mean the greater truth about our existence… the truth is that we are just chemical accidents that were not intended to be
[BK_] so that wasn’t your point of view – it was a quote?
[dios_mio] no it is my point of view.. that philosopher has different views
[dios_mio] he believes in value and meaning
[@RazorsKiss] We can go back and forth with quotes, dios – but I don’t think it has any merit in the long run. Under naturalism, none of those words has any objective meaning, and can mean practically anything at all.
[BK_] well, do you not see a problem claiming truth is supposed to be contradictory, and then saying “the truth is that we are just chemical accidents”?
[dios_mio] but I dont understand how he can reconcile it with evolution
[@RazorsKiss] He doesn’t. he holds contradictory views – it’s ultimately self-defeating.
[BK_] perhaps I don’t understand what you mean when you say truth is “meant to be contradictory”
[@RazorsKiss] Platonists cannot hold the views they do, for that matter – not consistently.
[dios_mio] BK_, the implications of that truth causes a lot of problems for us, because it takes away all value and meaning from the world
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, that guy I am quoting is a very intelligent philosopher, trust me he would put Van Til inhis place
[@RazorsKiss] But you just said there is no meaning – truth is meaningless, so you can’t be holding to anything meaningful, by that statement.
[BK_] no, the implications of “truth is meant to be contradictory” is much more problematic than just taking away meaning and value
[BK_] it *means* your very statement has no meaning
[@RazorsKiss] It is not truth – it is mere subjective opinion, with no worth, because worth has no meaning either.
[dios_mio] BK_, well yeah probably… but what can we do?
[BK_] it *means* that what you say means the opposite of what you say
[@RazorsKiss] We can reject a self-refuting system, is what we can do.
[BK_] it *means* that when you say you don’t believe in God, you actually believe in God
[dios_mio] can we deny the evidence of evolution and years of scientific work just because it destroys our worldview and undermine the meaning of our existence and cause us paradoxes?
[BK_] if one’s worldview undermines logic and truth, then that worldview cannot logically be true
[BK_] if your worldview is true, you cannot trust the evidence of evolution and years of scientific work in the first place
[dios_mio] the thing is, you cannot reject a whole chunk of science simply with a reductio ad absurdum
[@RazorsKiss] there’s no evidence, under that system there is nothing to deny OR hold, and whether you hodl it or not has nothing to say in either direction.
[@RazorsKiss] It is complete and total anarchism, with no possible meaning to anything whatsoever – including itself.
[BK_] in other words, your worldview refutes itself
[dios_mio] here we have a clash between empirical evidence and traditional foundations for any knowledge
[@RazorsKiss] So why bother trying to hold it? It’s nothing.
[@RazorsKiss] There is no foundation for it – it undercuts it’s own foundation.
[BK_] you cannot trust that empirical evidence, dios_mio
[@RazorsKiss] Empiricism destroys itself, because it results in meaninglessness, and says that what you “know” – you do not know.
[dios_mio] the thing is, science started out from humanly foundations that none of us can object.. it is just where it led in the end that makes us realize that we have a problem
[@RazorsKiss] Science is only as good as it’s starting assumptions
[BK_] where did it lead?
[dios_mio] BK_, evolution
[BK_] how do you know that?
[dios_mio] BK_, well, because evolution is taught in all biology departments?
[BK_] because if your staring assumptions are true, it couldn’t lead anywhere
[BK_] that’s an appeal to authority
[BK_] there mere teaching of something in biology departments doesn’t mean it is true
[@RazorsKiss] (which has no authority, since it results in meaninglessness, by your own admission)
[BK_] after all, people have taught all sorts of things that we now consider incorrect, in biology departments
[dios_mio] creationist objections to evolution are worthless… like that quote from friesian.com “It is a pointless battle, which science cannot lose on its own ground”
[@RazorsKiss] an authority without meaning is no authority.
[BK_] let’s not switch gears here, dios_mio
[BK_] you have made an assertion that science leads to evolution (a belief that it is true)
[BK_] I am saying your conclusion (that truth is contradictory) means science does *not* lead to that at all
[dios_mio] BK_, evolution by natural selection is being confirmed everyday.. its never been falsified in the past 150 years
[BK_] and what is assumed during that “confirmation” process?
[BK_] that truth is *not* contradictory, of course
[dios_mio] BK_, I meant truth in a greater scale, as in putting the implications of evolution regarding our cosmic meaning
[dios_mio] putting its implications in context I mean
[BK_] then I don’t follow what you mean
[BK_] what is the nature of truth, dios_mio?
[dios_mio] nature of truth?
[BK_] yes
[BK_] how does one know when something is true?
[dios_mio] well obviously truth is correspondence to reality
[BK_] how do you identify something as “true”?
[BK_] obviously?
[dios_mio] if you don’t count the coherence theorists
[BK_] there is more than one school of thought on that …
[dios_mio] yeah
[BK_] hehe
[BK_] well …
[BK_] that begs the question
[BK_] how does one know when something corresponds to reality?
[dios_mio] you not a correspondist?
[BK_] I am a Christian
[dios_mio] I thought it was the atheist nihilists like Rorty who were accepting a coherence theory
[BK_] how does one know when something corresponds to reality?
[@RazorsKiss] he’s asking you – he hasn’t made a positive assertion yet on the subject 😀
[dios_mio] well you gotta look and see for yourself
[BK_] well, what if two people see something different?
[BK_] which they quite often do
[dios_mio] then ask a third
[BK_] and then what?
[dios_mio] well go with the majority
[BK_] why?
[BK_] why not go with the one dissenter?
[dios_mio] because visual defects, hallucinations are rare in population
[BK_] how do you know that?
[dios_mio] from experience
[BK_] and what do you rely upon to evaluate experience?
[dios_mio] ultimately my own judgement
[BK_] do you see the circle yet?
[BK_] your senses
[dios_mio] well what can we do about it?
[BK_] and yes, your own reasoning
[dios_mio] thats the limit of whole capability in this issue
[BK_] so you should accept an arbitrary worldview because you can’t think of anything better?
[@RazorsKiss] reject a self-refuting system which grants no meaning, that’s what we should do.
[BK_] you are providing justification for your premise buy assuming your premise
[BK_] by*
[BK_] your line of reasoning is not reasonable, dios_mio
[dios_mio] well the alternative is skepticism
[dios_mio] not the bible obviously
[BK_] that’s one alternative
[@RazorsKiss] that’s one – but not the only one.
[BK_] and what’s the problem with that alternative?
[BK_] absolute skepticism?
[BK_] the problem is that it refutes itself
[dios_mio] why should the bible be an alternative? it is after somethign we see with our senses too.. and its authors relied on their senses
[BK_] therefore, it cannot *logically* be true
[dios_mio] after all*
[BK_] the problem here is the worldview in question
[BK_] you are approaching the Bible from a defective worldview
[BK_] thus the Bible appears just as worthless as anything else
[@RazorsKiss] which has no grounds for any truth, whatsoever.
[dios_mio] I approach the bible from all I have, my own judgement and reason and senses
[BK_] you will never find a satisfactory *answer* as long as you approach the world from this worldview
[@RazorsKiss] Thus, anything approached from that perspective will have no truth to be found in it.
[BK_] yes, and as long as you approach it from all that *you* have, that is where you will end up
[BK_] skepticism
[dios_mio] there is no other point of view for us humans, obviously
[@RazorsKiss] The problem is your own assumptions, not the Bible.
[BK_] obviously?
[dios_mio] can we transcend our subjective realm?
[BK_] no, we cannot
[BK_] but God does
[@RazorsKiss] Thankfully, we have a God who is transcendent, and communicates truth to us.
[dios_mio] yeah, and we are not God, we are always humans, always limited in our subjective point of view
[BK_] dios_mio: remember, we are comparing *worldviews*
[@RazorsKiss] well, keep relying on that point of view, and it will always fail you.
[BK_] theories of reality and knowledge
[@RazorsKiss] That’s what humans do – fail.
[BK_] you see that, right?
[dios_mio] unless he communicates *directly* with you it is still subject to doubt.. even the direct communication could be doubted for hallucination
[BK_] what if he does communicate directly with you?
[@RazorsKiss] because it’s all about you, assumed from the outset – once again.
[BK_] would that make the difference?
[dios_mio] well he could
[BK_] what if he did?
[BK_] would that make the difference?
[dios_mio] well, it would certainly be very powerful evidence that I could not deny
[dios_mio] and I would go by it
[BK_] don’t appeal to evidence without considering your worldview first
[dios_mio] and as you see, still it is my judgment that guides me
[BK_] remember, you are still operating from a worldview that assumes the autonomy of man in reasoning
[dios_mio] yes
[dios_mio] and there is no other way
[BK_] well *that* is the problem
[BK_] how do you know there is no other way?
[dios_mio] I am always behind my own control terminal
[@RazorsKiss] because you exclude all other ways a priori.
[BK_] you are?
[dios_mio] yes
[BK_] how do you know that?
[dios_mio] because of my experience
[BK_] you *can’t* know that
[BK_] your experience is in doubt, remember?
[dios_mio] I only doubt the external world, not my own experience
[dios_mio] err, not that I am *having* an experience
[dios_mio] or that *I am*
[dios_mio] as in Descartes
[BK_] you should doubt “I am”
[BK_] you can’t even prove that
[dios_mio] well certainly I don’t experience my own self, so yeah, you are right
[@RazorsKiss] Descartes didn’t say a blessed thing with his “I think, therefore I am”
[BK_] Descartes made a huge assumption with that statement
[@RazorsKiss] He might as well have said “I stink, therefore I am” – there’s no direct correlation between the two statements.
[BK_] that logic has metaphysical applicability
[BK_] dios_mio, the problem is with your worldview
[BK_] the problem isn’t with evidence
[dios_mio] but you see, if God communicates me, or I read the Bible, I still can doubt if it is an hallucination or a Deceiving Demon playing with my mind
[BK_] if you continue to evaluate scripture from *your* worldview, yes
[dios_mio] there is no way out of human subjective perspective
[BK_] what I am telling you is that your worldview is wrong
[BK_] how do you know that?
[BK_] you can’t know anything, remember?
[BK_] skepticism
[@RazorsKiss] You doubt that you can doubt, even.
[dios_mio] well go ahead and show me how I can transcend my subjective perspective
[@RazorsKiss] If properly applied.
[@RazorsKiss] You can’t – God can.
[BK_] do you first agree that your worldview doesn’t allow you to do it?
[BK_] would you agree that any worldview that starts with man as the ultimate is doomed?
[dios_mio] Descartes proved God with a weak ontological argument… how do you prove him? oh right, you don’t.. you just say “lets simply accept him, because otherwise we cannot solve our philosophical problems”… not very convincing
[@RazorsKiss] The only way to properly understand anything is if you are changed by God, and have all of your thinking, your life, and your soul changed and renewed by God.
[BK_] Descartes didn’t prove a thing
[dios_mio] BK_, he had an ontological argument for God
[@RazorsKiss] Descartes proved he wasn’t a very deep thinker 😀
[BK_] the fact that he had an argument doesn’t mean it was a sound argument
[BK_] would you agree that any worldview that starts with man as the ultimate is doomed?
[@RazorsKiss] but not under dios’ worldview – he’s unable to prove, or to accept anything.
[dios_mio] BK_, so tell me how we start the worldview with God?
[BK_] would you agree that any worldview that starts with man as the ultimate is doomed?
* BK_ is persistent
[dios_mio] BK_, if you call skepticism “doomed” yeah
[BK_] you don’t? 🙂
[BK_] absolute skepticism is the direct result of a worldview that begins with the subjective
[dios_mio] sop where do you start your worldview?
[BK_] absolute skepticism refutes itself
[BK_] therefore, any worldview starting with the subjective *cannot be true*
[BK_] with God
[@RazorsKiss] God, and His perfect revelation – where it should start, and the only place it CAN start.
[BK_] consider the Biblical worldview *for the sake of argument*, dios_mio
[BK_] for our discussion
[BK_] we have considered yours
[BK_] now consider ours
[dios_mio] if we doubt the external world, and the bible is part of the external world, how can I start from the theology as in the Bible?
[dios_mio] ok go ahead
[@RazorsKiss] that’s the thing – a Christian worldview does not hold to that perspective.
[BK_] if the Bible is true *as we read it*, then God is absolute
[@RazorsKiss] and BK will tell you why 😀
[BK_] if the Bible is true, then God has revealed himself to us
[dios_mio] ok
[BK_] if the Bible is true, we are sinners
[BK_] if the Bible is true, that sin interferes with our ability to reason
[BK_] if the Bible is true, that sin interferes with our ability to be “objective”
[BK_] if the Bible is true, there is one and only one way to know anything at all
[BK_] ~nas prov 1:7
[@Gutenberg^] 12Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction. (NASB)
[BK_] if the Bible is true, what is the first thing we would have to do?
[BK_] fear God
[BK_] ~nas col 2:8
[@Gutenberg^] 12Col. 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (NASB)
[BK_] if the Bible is true, how many “philosophies” are there?
[BK_] just two
[BK_] one that follows Christ, and one that does not
[BK_] if the Bible is true, we must *begin* with God as our ultimate authority
[BK_] because otherwise we can never know anything at all
[BK_] in essence, if we deny God and his revelation to us, we are “fools”
[BK_] that’s the Christian worldview
[dios_mio] right
[BK_] if the Christian worldview is true, there is hope
[BK_] if the non-Christian worldview if true, there is no hope
[BK_] no knowledge
[BK_] no … anything
[dios_mio] agreed
[BK_] ~nas rom 19
[@Gutenberg^] 12Romans 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. (NASB)
[BK_] if the Bible is true, God has already revealed himself to us
[BK_] ~nas rom 10:9
[@Gutenberg^] 12Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; (NASB)
[BK_] if the BIble is true, dios_mio, you must confess your sins
[BK_] you must believe in what Christ did on the cross
[BK_] you must confess that Jesus is the Christ – the savior
[BK_] then and only then do you have a worldview that can make sense out of anything at all … even your unbelief
* BK_ prays that God will open your heart to this, diso_mio
[dios_mio] thanks
[@RazorsKiss] ~nas proverbs 21
[@Gutenberg^] 12Proverbs 21 Every man’s way is right in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the hearts. (NASB)
[dios_mio] christianity is ancient wisdom, it is not hard to deny it for sure
[BK_] it is more than wisdom
[BK_] it is truth
[BK_] it has to be
[@RazorsKiss] ~nas proverbs 21
[@Gutenberg^] 12Proverbs 21 The king’s heart is [like] channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes. (NASB)
[BK_] anytime it is denied, we become “fools”
[dios_mio] even if it was made up, it was made up by men and must contain projections from human nature, and it makes it hard to deny
[BK_] what if it wasn’t made up?
[BK_] what if it has always been?
* BK_ notes that you are now reverting to your worldview
[dios_mio] dude, there is a whole science of higher criticism and documentary hypothesis and such things…
[BK_] the Biblical worldview is that God inspired men to write this truth down
[@RazorsKiss] If it is the only way to any sort of meaning and hope in all the world, and has always been the only way, planned for from the very beginning of creation.
[BK_] dude, that whole science means nothing if you can’t *know* things
[BK_] again, two worldviews
[@RazorsKiss] You cannot know ANYTHING unless this is true.
[@RazorsKiss] Nada.
[BK_] one makes knowledge possible
[BK_] one destroys it
[BK_] there is only one logical choice here
[@RazorsKiss] That’s the problem all men have. Without this, there is no knowledge, no higher criticism, and no hypotheses that make any sense, let alone have any truth.
[dios_mio] I see your point
[@RazorsKiss] It is impossible to believe anything else, and have any meaning or hope.
[dios_mio] and I accept it that christianity makes knowledge and meaning possible, and the alternative point of view makes it impossible
[@RazorsKiss] Nothing else works.
[BK_] the difficulty is that you (and all of us) tend to “slip” back into that self-centered worldview
[@RazorsKiss] the alternative point of view makes *everything* impossible.
[BK_] well, that is saying a lot, dios_mio
[BK_] what you have just “accepted”
[BK_] but there is more that you have to do
[BK_] because it is one thing to accept that Christians are “right”
[BK_] it is another to accept the very source of truth
[BK_] that’s what you must do
[BK_] ~nas john 3
[@Gutenberg^] 12John 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (NASB)
[@RazorsKiss] There is nothing possible, nothing that makes sense, and nothing that has any truth under any other conception of reality. Nothing at all. Christianity is true because everything else is impossible to even hold the concept of “true” as a part of it.
[@RazorsKiss] You cannot even say “this is true” in any other system of thought.
[BK_] in fact, even for your denial of Christianity to make sense, you must accept that Christianity is true
[dios_mio] I dont say you are right.. just that christianity has meaning and hope, and atheism and science ends up in nihilism… thats for sure… but just because we are compelled to accept christianity for such concerns dont make it true.. because it is after all a matter of historical truth…
[@RazorsKiss] Not unless you steal from it to do so – and you are thereby inconsistent.
[BK_] that’s basically what you have done above
[@RazorsKiss] there is no historical truth in any other system.
[BK_] well consider what you have just said
[@RazorsKiss] there is no truth at all.
[BK_] Christianity has meaning and hope
[BK_] atheism and science end up in nihilism
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, there is much doubt about whether patriarchs and prophets existed at all.. including Jesus himself
[@RazorsKiss] “historical truth” has no meaning, unless you believe as a Christian does.
[BK_] dios_mio: what is the conclusion based on?
[BK_] your conclusion of doubt?
[@RazorsKiss] There is much doubt about everything at all, unless Christianity is true.
[BK_] exactly
[BK_] the doubt is based on your *worldview*
[dios_mio] you cannot change what happened in history simply by pondering on epistemological issues… and remember evolution itself is a historical issue
[@RazorsKiss] There is complete and total doubt about every single fact in the entire scope of reality – there is doubt in reality itself.
[@RazorsKiss] You cannot ponder *anything* apart from Christianity’s truth.
[BK_] you cannot say anything about history without a cogent epistemology
[@RazorsKiss] Christianity, as you said, is the only way for “history” to have any meaning.
[dios_mio] ok then we borrow christian epistemology and look at the world, and we see that christianity is false… this is the paradox we are facing
[@RazorsKiss] because it’s the only way to have meaning at all.
[BK_] no you don’t
[BK_] you cannot borrow from Christianity and see that it is false
[dios_mio] of course you can
[BK_] because if it is false, then it won’t provide what is necessary to see it is false
[BK_] of course you can’t
[dios_mio] higher criticism, history of christianity and judaism, and evolution
[BK_] if Christianity is the *necessary* precondition
[@RazorsKiss] you cannot borrow anything from christianity that is true, and truly see it as false.
[@RazorsKiss] You can falsely see all sorts of thing,s if it is corrupted by your own influence.
[BK_] but none of those make sense unless Christianity is true
[BK_] you cannot rely upon a worldview and then logically conclude that worldview is true
[@RazorsKiss] But Christianity is the only way to have anything mean *anything* at all.
[BK_] because then your conclusion that it is true is based on a faulty starting point
[BK_] if Christianity is necessary as a worldview to make sense out of anything, then it is truly NECESSARY
[@RazorsKiss] you can’t pick and choose what you take – or your hybrid system collapses on the points of your own faulty assumptions grafted onto it.
[dios_mio] you cannot prove christianity true simply by some epistemological considerations… thats an insult to human reason… shall we not discuss the secular analysis of history of bible? and of course there is evolution.. you cannot refute it with epistemology, it is an empirical science with loads of evidence
[@RazorsKiss] the things you left, when you chose the things you liked – are what make the rest truly coherent.
[BK_] what is the secular analysis of the Bible assume, dios_mio?
[dios_mio] BK_, I have in mind the documentary hypothesis and higher criticism
[@RazorsKiss] no, we can’t go back there. there’s no meaning to any of it.
[BK_] it assumes we can *know* things, does it not?
[@RazorsKiss] not within the system it assumes.
[dios_mio] BK_, consider it apart from its assumptions..
[BK_] do you *know* that secular analysis of the history of the Bible is true?
[BK_] impossible
[BK_] we are subjective, remember?
[@RazorsKiss] it *steals* from Christianity – but not the *necessary* aspects – which include ALL of Christianity.
[BK_] we must assume *something* at the start
[BK_] we cannot be neutral
[@RazorsKiss] You cannot separate parts of Christianity, and still get truth.
[@RazorsKiss] You simply steal warrant that doesn’t belong to you.
[BK_] you cannot claim to know that the documentary hypothesis is even meaningful unless Christianity is true
[@RazorsKiss] That doesn’t make anything that is formed from that stolen warrant true – the problem lies in what you steal it TO.
[dios_mio] even if the critic of the bible starts from christian assumptions, and they have, they may and did end up in the results that prove christianity a man made religion like any other
[@RazorsKiss] no, they did NOT start from Christian assumptions.
[BK_] no, that is a logically impossible conclusion
[BK_] due to the nature of the claims made by Christianity
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, I thought the German bible criticism of the 18th and 19th century started as a Christian science
[@RazorsKiss] textual criticism is not higher criticism.
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, they laid out the way for higher criticism
[@RazorsKiss] textual criticism is a valid examination of the text.
[BK_] dios_mio: at this point, all such critiques are meaningless without a worldview that makes knowledge possible
[@RazorsKiss] higher criticism is the attempt to judge the text by an arbitrary higher standard.
[BK_] if Christianity is the only worldview that makes knowledge possible, then it must be true
[BK_] end of story
[@RazorsKiss] But yes, all of that has NO POINT if you do not accept ALL of Christianity.
[@RazorsKiss] because NONE OF IT can be true, if it says Christianity is false.
[BK_] look, here it is as a syllogism
[BK_] a) In order to know that A is true, Christianity must be true
[BK_] b) A is true
[BK_] c) Therefore, Christianity is true
[BK_] you already gave us “a)” above earlier in this discussion
[dios_mio] yeah, how do we know a) is true without knowing Christianity is true? your argument is circular
[BK_] “dios_mio: and I accept it that christianity makes knowledge and meaning possible, and the alternative point of view makes it impossible”
[@RazorsKiss] No, it’s axiomatic.
[BK_] because of the impossibility of the contrary
[@RazorsKiss] You cannot have true knowledge apart from Christianity.
[BK_] because anytime you deny it, you destroy knowledge and meaning
[@RazorsKiss] The Christianity revealed in Scripture, by God.
[BK_] you recognized this above … “dios_mio: and I accept it that christianity makes knowledge and meaning possible, and the alternative point of view makes it impossible”
[dios_mio] maybe thats a paradox we are doomed to be have
[BK_] there is no paradox
[dios_mio] well sure
[@RazorsKiss] there is simply truth.
[BK_] if you deny Christianity, you cannot make anything meaningful
[dios_mio] no doubt
[@RazorsKiss] the truth is: we require God, who is truth, to have a contingent knowledge of truth
[BK_] are you saying that, right here and now, you choose to deny Christianity?
[@RazorsKiss] our knowledge of truth is contingent upon God, who is intrinsically “truth”.
[BK_] even considering the fact that the result is that you cannot make anything meaningful or know anything at all??
[@RazorsKiss] There is no truth to be known apart from God, and no other way to know truth, except by the revelation of God.
[BK_] the choice is in front of you, dios_mio
[dios_mio] you are asking me to ignore the whole science of biology and secular history of christianity
[@RazorsKiss] ~nas john 14:6
[@Gutenberg^] 12John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (NASB)
[BK_] what meaning does it have?
[@RazorsKiss] We are asking you to give up meaninglessness, death, and ignorance for the only truth that can, or will ever, exist.
[dios_mio] BK_, that is the paradox we are facing
[BK_] why are you clinging to science and biology?
[@RazorsKiss] Truth only has one source.
[BK_] not we, you
[@RazorsKiss] God.
[BK_] why do you cling to science and biology, dios_mio?
[BK_] they are meaningless
[dios_mio] BK_, we are clinging to it because it is based in study and experience… it is not just speculation or myth
[@RazorsKiss] There is no paradox. You are clinging to meaninglessness, and that is the only problem.
[BK_] but that study is meaningless, dios_mio
[@RazorsKiss] All based on what, dios?
[BK_] your experience is in doubt
[@RazorsKiss] Meaninglessness.
[BK_] it is, in fact, speculation
[BK_] and myth
[BK_] “dios_mio: and I accept it that christianity makes knowledge and meaning possible, and the alternative point of view makes it impossible”
[dios_mio] the study becomes meaningless after considering the implications of its findings
[@RazorsKiss] They have no valid, truth-bearing experience.
[BK_] thereby rendering the study meaningless
[@RazorsKiss] Let me make a point that might help.
[BK_] the conclusion refutes the process used to reach the conclusion
[BK_] I have to leave in a few minutes
[@RazorsKiss] The choice you’re facing is simple.
[dios_mio] well yeah.. this is the paradoxical nature of our existence..
[BK_] go ahead, RK
[@RazorsKiss] Do you trust people you’ve already told us have no meaning, and no way to explain why what they say is true, what they say is true, and how they can claim it is true
[@RazorsKiss] ie: scientists
[@RazorsKiss] Or, do you trust the only possible source of truth, meaning, hope, and salvation?
[dios_mio] RazorsKiss, their findings are based on sound evidence and study of many years
[@RazorsKiss] It’s very simple.
[@RazorsKiss] All of which HAS NO MEANING, by your OWN admission.
[dios_mio] true
[@RazorsKiss] Nothing.
[@RazorsKiss] It is POINTLESS.
[@RazorsKiss] They can say whatever they want – you are trusting blindly in blind guides
[dios_mio] I have to ponder about this subject more… but now I have to leave, its been a great discussion thanks both of you
[@RazorsKiss] they are blind, they lead the blind, and they will both fall into a pit of nihilism, with no way to even find a way out, even if they could recognize it.
[dios_mio] we continue another time ok?
[BK_] thank you dios_mio for listening
[BK_] yes, definitely
[dios_mio] thank you
[BK_] we are praying for you
[BK_] 🙂
[@RazorsKiss] Sure – but remember – there is only One truth, and one way to truth.
[dios_mio] ok thanks
[@RazorsKiss] We’ll be praying – and remember dios
[dios_mio] yeah
[@RazorsKiss] I told I’d be praying for you over a year ago
[@RazorsKiss] I have been 😀
[dios_mio] heh yeah
[dios_mio] thanks man
[@RazorsKiss] There are no accidents in God’s world.
[dios_mio] 🙂
[@RazorsKiss] Only His truth 😀
[@RazorsKiss] Come back.
[dios_mio] yes maybe
[dios_mio] ok ttyl
* dios_mio (test@88.243.102.125) Quit

I’m a bit disappointed, I confess, because the person we talked to in this post has since come back and is debating along the same lines again. I’ll post that conversation next, but I’d like to post this to remind him where he was, and what he’s forgotten. I’m still praying for him – and I hope you will do.

[RazorsKiss] jsrz3away: still want to debate?
* jsrz3away is now known as jsrz3
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I am now — What’s up?
[RazorsKiss] Howdy.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Howdy — Are we gonna fight now?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) If we are, what are those “rules” again?
[RazorsKiss] How would you like to do this? I was thinking something a bit more structured, instead of “toss objections”, as I was saying previously.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I don’t think we need no stinkin’ rules though — Just be honest and you and I will both be fine
[RazorsKiss] Well, here was what I was thinking – I would _prefer_ a debate with a moderator – but barring that, how about we trade off questions, and get a max of 5 posts apiece to answer, and 2 to respond to the other’s answer.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) No rules — If we are going to have a discussion (or, a “debate,” if you prefer to call it that), then let’s do it by being cordial to one another and responding to the question asked and not seeking opportunities to evade the questions asked — Ok?
[RazorsKiss] ie: you ask a questions – I have 5 lines to answer – you get two to respond – and vice versa.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) That sounds like one of these rules for which I don’t feel any need — Let the people here moderate, but it’s you and me — Let’s do this!
[RazorsKiss] I’m perfectly willing to answer anything 😀
[RazorsKiss] Whether you like the answer is another thing 😀
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) That would be another one of those things called “rules” that I believe I just told you I’m not in any mood to have in place when all we are doing here is having a Bible discussion
[RazorsKiss] So – how does the 1-post question, 5-line answer, 2 line response sound?
[RazorsKiss] Because I’d like us to have equal say, and because you take a long time to answer.
[RazorsKiss] I will beat you in volume. I type faster.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I cannot imagine Jesus being asked by anyone to agree to rules before he launched one of his preaching campaigns or engaged anyone in a serious Bible-related discussion, despite the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and all
[RazorsKiss] Ok, I tried.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: proposition to follow
[RazorsKiss] “Is Christ the eternal Creator God, 2nd person of the Trinity?” Yes, or no.
[jsrz3] (Raz_Away) No, let’s start with the first one: Provide the book, chapter and verse in Scripture where it says that the Lord Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Trinity?
[jsrz3] (Raz_Away) No, he isn’t
[jsrz3] (Raz_Away) Next question, please
[jsrz3] (Raz_Away) I’ll wait
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: answer – There is no single book, chapter, or verse that explicitly defines the doctrine of the Trinity.
[RazorsKiss] rephrase: no single verse that does so. John an several other books can give a cohesive account be themselves.
[RazorsKiss] *by
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: My question for you – Who is Jesus Christ?
[jsrz3] (Raz_Away) Thanks for saying this — So you have decided from reading the Holy Bible, or certain verses in the Holy Bible, that Jesus is the second Person of the Holy Trinity? Is this what you are saying here?
[RazorsKiss] my question, I answered yours – I’ll answer that next, thanks.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Sorry about using your other nick — Who is Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God’s firstborn son, God’s only begotten Son, the man who died on Calvary for the sins of redeemable mankind and was crowned by God with glory and honor and immortality and incorruptibility and who became our Lord and Christ

[RazorsKiss] Doxa isn’t my other nick.
[RazorsKiss] thank you for your answer.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Christ is revealed as the second person of the Trinity by multiple Scripture verses, correct.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: my next question – Do you agree with the Jehovah’s Witnesses teaching that Christ is (or was) the Archangel Michael?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Yeah, Jesus Christ probably was the Archangel Michael in his prehuman existence before God transferred his life to the womb of His human mother, Mary, and He came to be born and He came to be called “Jesus”
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Next question
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Thank you for your answer.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: your turn.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Sure, np
[RazorsKiss] 😀
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Ok, my question is based on what the apostle John writes about Jesus Christ at Revelation 3:14
[jsrz3] ?kjv rev 3 14
[@pete-] Rev3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; (KJV)
[RazorsKiss] Yes?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) According to what we read at Revelation 3:14, did Jesus Christ have a beginning? (Please don’t look at John 1:1, for that would be cheating)
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) According to what we read at Revelation 3:14, did Jesus Christ have a creator? Yes or no? (Please don’t peek at Proverbs 8:22, for that, too, would be cheating)
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Scripture is capable of being interpreted by other Scripture, of course, and I reserve my right to interpret by it at any time. Howev,er the answer is simple: the word used for “beginning” in the translation you cited is “arche” in the Koine. This word is defined as “that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause”. No, Christ did not have a beginning.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: In fact, the verse is explicitly stating that Christ is the creator of all things.
[RazorsKiss] My question.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Who is the Word in John 1:1?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) According to what we read at Revelation 3:14, when does it say that Jesus Christ was created? (Please don’t peek at Micah 5:2, which would be cheating)
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: my question.
[RazorsKiss] I will answer yours next though, thank you.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Let’s review: Question #1 — According to what we read at Revelation 3:14, did Jesus Christ have a beginning? — Your answer is that Jesus didn’t have a beginning — Ok
[RazorsKiss] Actually, my answer was that the verse actually states that He was the Creator.
[RazorsKiss] You have a question waiting for you.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Who is the Word in John 1:1?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Question #2 — According to what we read at Revelation 3:14, did Jesus Christ have a creator? Yes or no? — You decided to skip this question and not answer it
[RazorsKiss] I will get to your follow up in a moment.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: because you didn’t answer mine in turn.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Question #3 — According to what we read at Revelation 3:14, when does it say that Jesus Christ was created? — This, too, is a question you decided to skip and elected not to answer — ok
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: that’s two asked, with no answer – I’ll get to them in turn, thank you.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) So wait: You get to ask me more questions and you only have to answer one of the three questions I asked you about Revelation 3:14? That seems a bit unfair, but ok
[RazorsKiss] I’d like you to answer my question before I answer any more, please.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: it’s my turn to ask.
[RazorsKiss] or would you like me to ask two more to make it even?
[PatrickSD] it is razors turn
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Sure, you’re right — My bad — It is your turn to ask me more questions — Got it — Go!
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Who is the Word in John 1:1?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) The Word in John 1:1 is the Lord Jesus Christ
[RazorsKiss] Thank you for your answer 😀
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: according to revelation 3:14, Christ was not created – He is the Creator.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Does this mean you are going to answer at least one of the two questions of mine I asked you related to Revelation 3:14 that you elected to skip and not answer now?
[PatrickSD] ^
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: that is in response to #2
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Christ did not have a creator.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Yes, it is and I have so noted — What about Question #3?
[RazorsKiss] ready for another, jsr? I’ll get to your #3 next.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I’m ready — yes
[RazorsKiss] Okay.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: next question – In John 3, it is said of this Word, who we previously defined in verse 1; “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” – Would this not mean that Christ is, in fact, the Creator?
[RazorsKiss] *John 1:3 – correction
[RazorsKiss] *John 1:3 – correction
[RazorsKiss] ?kjv john 1:3
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) No, this would mean that the Word Jesus (Jesus Christ) was involved in the creation of everything visible and invisible, but not that He alone created all things independent of his Father since it is God that is in possession of all of the power
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: thank you for your answer.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) It is God’s holy spirit that creates, which spirit originates with God and not Jesus
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) What is your answer to my Question #3?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: to answer your #3 question: Revelation 3:14 says nothign about when Christ was created, it does not say that He was created at all, least of all “when”. The greek, as I said, is “arche” – which means “origin of, or cause of”.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: it is easily misinterepreted as “beginning”, not “cause” and the kjv has it as such, rendered in English.
[RazorsKiss] My question, it seems.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: next question – did I say that the Word created anything independent of the Father?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) So that’s your answer? That when John wrote about Jesus being “the beginning of the creation of God” that John was referring to something /other than/ the fact that Jesus is a “creation,” someone that had a “beginning” and that “God” created him? Your answer is that Revelation 3:14 “does not say that Jesus was created at all”? That’s it?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: my question, but I will answer in a moment, thank you 😀
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: thank you for giving me the extra time to prepare the answers, though 😀
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: next question – did I say that the Word created anything independent of the Father?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) No, you didn’t say that the Word created anything independent of the Father — I believe it was /I/ who made this statement — Is there a problem?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: thank you for your answer.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Is there a problem?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) If not, here’s my next question:
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: yes, my answer is that the word mistranslated as “beginning” in the KJV actually means “origin of, or cause of”. That is a sufficient answer, and easily verifiable by a consultation with a greek concordance/lexicon.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: it’s my turn.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) This question is based on what the apostle Paul wrote at Colossians 1:15 about Jesus Christ
[jsrz3] ?kjv col 1 15
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Question #4 — According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, was Jesus Christ born? Yes or no?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Question #5 — According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, of whom does Paul say that Jesus Christ was “the firstborn”?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: my answer, since you insist on jumping your turn, is that it depends on what is meant by “born”.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Question #6 — According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, if Jesus is “the firstborn of every creature,” is it not fair to conclude that Jesus was created by someone? Yes or no?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: for the next one you insist on skipping ahead for, the answer is that the firstborn is God made flesh, thus born – and first by athority, not temporality.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) No, I don’t insist on jumping my “turn” — I just want to get this discussion moving and I don’t think it’s moving fast enough
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) No, no — Wait — “God made flesh”? Where in John 1:1 or John 1:3 or Colossians 1:15 or Revelation 3:14 did we read “God made flesh”?
[PatrickSD] out of turn
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: for the third you you insist on skipping ahead for, the answer relies on your preconception of the nature of Christ, in it’s entirety. Seen in a concistent manner, Christ is the eternal God, amde flesh, and the first born in authority.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Do you deny that verse is in Scripture?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Are we having a scriptural discussion where we use book, chapter and verse to prove that what we are saying is supported by Scripture or some free-for-all?
[RazorsKiss] As I said in an earlier answer, I reserve the ability to use any scripture, in any answer.
[RazorsKiss] If you weren’t reading what I said, you should have brought it up then.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: in that case, please offer me book, chapter, verse for your contention that Christ is the archangel Michael.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Have you used “any scripture” at all in any of your answers /besides/ the two scriptures I mentioned, namely, John 1:1 and John 1:3? Did I perhaps miss any others?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: I didn’t need to, as they all relied on simpel misinterpretations of simple terms.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: are you interested in a discussion, or in a monologue?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: As i said, if it’s a speed battle, I’m a much faster typist, and you don’t read very quickly.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: thus, it would be in your best interest to preserve the format we’ve been using.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: further, you owe me three answers.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: anythign else you’d like to bring up, while you’re trying to ride the objection-fgo-round, or would you like to stop and go back to the original format?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: it was working just fine, until you got upset.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: since it’s been a few minutes since you last typed, I’ll assuem you need a break.
06* RazorsKiss will take a 5 minute recess himself.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: be back in a minute.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: please peruse my earlier questions.
[PatrickSD] he owes you 3 right?
[RazorsKiss] let’s say two.
[PatrickSD] i was counting
[fjmatt] curlyq, your ability to judge others is quite impressive… now please shut up.
[PatrickSD] u sure?
[PatrickSD] i could have sworn i saw 3
06* RazorsKiss shrugs. I’m off for a bit, anyway.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) At Daniel 10:13, it is Michael, described as “one of the chief princes,” that comes to the aid of Daniel, and at Daniel 12:1, it is Michael, “the great prince,” that will “stand up” for God’s people, and at Jude 1:9, it is Michael, who is described by Jude as “the archangel” that contends with the devil in disputing over Moses’ body, who tells the devil, that the Lord God rebuke him
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: thank you for your answer. I’ll be back momentarily.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) When did I ever get upset? I can assure you my blood pressure is just as calm and steady as it was when we began
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) As to the time it takes for me to answer any of the questions you might ask, it takes time to find the scriptural citations since I know the book, and maybe even the chapter, where to find them, but not necessarily the specific verse
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) What “earlier questions”? I’ve moved on
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: my next question – Wasn’t your objection earlier that a single verse should be used to support a doctrinal stance?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) How do you get to go now? Do you not intend to answer my questions?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: you’ve asked 3 consecutive, which i answered.
[RazorsKiss] I, in fact said that I wouldn’t hold you to more than two.
[RazorsKiss] so, that was the second.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I asked you this one — Question #4 — According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, was Jesus Christ born? Yes or no? Your answer was “that it depends on what is meant by “born'”
[RazorsKiss] yes, that was my answer.
[RazorsKiss] which would imply that I intend to ask you that later on.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: I answered all of your questions in quick succession, as a cohesive whole.
[PatrickSD] yes he did^
[RazorsKiss] and the answers for them all, as the questions were obviously intended, were meant to hang together, not separately.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) What does your answer to my Question #4 supposed to mean? You were “born,” which means at one point you didn’t exist — My question to you was this: “According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, was Jesus Christ /born/? Yes or no? Try again
[RazorsKiss] I don’t answer complex questions with a simple answer.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Well, I didn’t understand your answer to Question #4 and I need to go back and see how to responded to my Questions #5 and #6
[RazorsKiss] that’s a cheap debating trick, and I ignore it when it occurs.
[RazorsKiss] be my guest 😀
[RazorsKiss] when you return, my second, compared to your three, is waiting 😀
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) What does your answer to my Question #4 mean? Are you telling me that you do not know what the English word “born” means? Are you serious?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: is that another question?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: it seems to me you want to ask all the questions, whenever you can.
[PatrickSD] You should stick to the format JSRZ3
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: further, any english word has multipel meanings and definitins, depending on context.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) It’s a “cheap debating trick” that you use to evade and avoid answering someone’s question that you do not wish or choose to answer, so you say things like “that depends upon what the meaning of a particular word is”? Is this the “trick” that you often employ under such circumstances?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: demanding simple answers to complex questions is a cheap debating trick.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: for instance:
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) No, I want you to answer Question #4 so that a five-year-old would be able to understand your answer — I have numbered my questions that I might reference them when need be — What is your answer to my Question #4? Is it Yes or No?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: 5-year olds don’t typically debate the trinity.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, was Jesus Christ /born/? Yes or no?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: what bearing does the answer to your other two questiosn have on the concept of “born”?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Please answer the question: According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, was Jesus Christ /born/? Yes or no?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: define “born”, as used in colossians 1:15
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: here is a clarification of your question that might make this relevant to you.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: Does colossians 1:15 state that Christ was the first human ever physically born?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: to take the word “firstborn” as you seem to want to take it would necessitate this understanding of colossians 1:15
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: that Christ was the first huamn being ever born on this planet.
[RazorsKiss] *human
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) No, Colossians 1:15 doesn’t speak to humans at all, but what about my Question #4? Yes or no?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: then what is the defintion of “firstborn”, as used in Col 1:15?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: given your definition of Christ you gave earlier, your defintion of “firstborn” is going to have bearing on my answer, in your eyes.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: thus, i want to now what you are defining “firstborn” as.
[RazorsKiss] *know
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) So according to what we read at Colossians 1:15, you are saying that if the word “firstborn” means what we know the word “firstborn” means in the English language, that Jesus Christ was born? Is this what you are saying?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: 1) It wasn’t written in English. 2) the meaning you’re assigning to it is unclear and 3) you asked that with a purpose in mind of which I’m very aware.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: 4) firstborn has a specific meaning in scripture.
[RazorsKiss] (apart from the physical meaning)
[RazorsKiss] so, once again – Christ is is, indeed, the “firstborn” of all creation. What do you define that as, before I say “yes/no” to what you are defining.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) See how the word “firstborn” is used in the Bible at Exodus 12:29 with reference to humans man and animals, to Pharaoh’s “firstborn” and the “firstborn” of cattle, and this is what I mean when I ask you what according to what we read at Colossians 1:15, if Jesus Christ was “born” — Was Jesus Christ born?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) See how the word “firstborn” is used in the Bible at Exodus 12:29 with reference to humans man and animals, to Pharaoh’s “firstborn” and the “firstborn” of cattle, and this is what I mean when I ask you what according to what we read at Colossians 1:15, if Jesus Christ was “born” — Was Jesus Christ born? Yes or no?
[jsrz3] ?kjv exo 12 29
[@pete-] Exo12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. (KJV)
[Nomos] Ricco, good point. :]
[RazorsKiss] Yes, in that sense, Christ was “born” – however, that is not the sense used in Col 1:15.
[RazorsKiss] Now, I’d like to ask a question, since you’ve been so kind as to ask them all recently?
[RazorsKiss] and I’ve actually answered the ones you’ve asked?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: my next question – Wasn’t your objection earlier that a single verse should be used to support a doctrinal stance?
[RazorsKiss] ie: for the trinity?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I think I’m going to wait until you answer my Question #4, k?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: you do know that you’ve asked like 8-9 questiosn without answering one yourself?
[RazorsKiss] and I’ve answeerd them all?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) Yes, I’m sure you were good with math when you were in school — I’ve asked you only six questions and numbered each of them
[RazorsKiss] I’ve disagreed with practically every answer you’ve given me, as well – but I’m not kicking my heels every time one of them disagrees with me.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: maybe you’re used to doing all the objections?
[RazorsKiss] how about you just admit I answered your #4.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) This isn’t about you agreeing or disagreeing with my answers — It’s about responding to the questions asked, which you have failed to do, for you would rather ask me other questions instead of answer the ones put to you by me
[RazorsKiss] Question #4 — According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, was Jesus Christ born? Yes or no?
[RazorsKiss] Question #5 — According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, of whom does Paul say that Jesus Christ was “the firstborn”?
[RazorsKiss] Question #6 — According to what we read at Colossians 1:15, if Jesus is “the firstborn of every creature,” is it not fair to conclude that Jesus was created by someone? Yes or no?
[RazorsKiss] A4 – jsrz3: my answer, since you insist on jumping your turn, is that it depends on what is meant by “born”.
[RazorsKiss] A5 – the answer is that the firstborn is God made flesh, thus born – and first by authority, not temporality.
[RazorsKiss] A6 – the answer relies on your preconception of the nature of Christ, in it’s entirety. Seen in a consistent manner, Christ is the eternal God, made flesh, and the first born in authority.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) It doesn’t matter to me whether you agree or disagree with what I believe, because you may not believe what I believe, especially if you believe, as you have already told me, that Jesus Christ is the second Person of the Holy Trinity, but cannot provide a /single/ scriptural citation — book, chapter and verse — that supports your statement of belief
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: you haven’t asked me for any.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: the only thing you asked me was for a single verse that taught the Trinity.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: I answered – and followups would be much more profitable, instead of insisting I answer how you want me to answer.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) I think we’re done if you are going to play games about the meaning of words, like you did when we were referring to Hebrews 9:27 and you were then adding the word “all” to “men” and coming up with “all men” in this verse when the word “all” isn’t used in this verse, so “born” and “firstborn” mean what they mean in the English language
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: I believe it’s quite obvious that you aren’t interested in answering questions, just asking them, if that’s what you mean.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: can you give me a single verse, as I asked earlier, that says Michael is Christ?
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: you gave me _3_, at once, none of which contained an indentification of Christ with Michael – yet screamed bloody murder when I used a single reference from John 1 in a reply earlier.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: let me ask you – is that consistent?
[Nomos] jsrz3, is Jesus a god like the judges are referred to as gods (baals), or is he god in a different way?
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) As a matter of fact, yes, I /do/ believe in multiple gods, since Scripture teaches that Jesus did exist “in the form of God” and was in the likeness of God before he was changed and came to exist “in the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2:5-7)
* PipeTobacco (~pipe@adsl-75-21-169-37.dsl.sgnwmi.sbcglobal.net) has joined #scripture
[PipeTobacco] yyyyo
[WendyKat] tom cruise says he can save wreck victems better than an emt
[jsrz3] ?kjv phl 2 5 7
[@pete-] Phi2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: (KJV)
[@pete-] Phi2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (KJV)
[@pete-] Phi2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (KJV)
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) This means that in His prehuman existence, Jesus was a God just like all of the angels of God are themselves gods, but when Jesus came to earth, He wasn’t an incarnate man, like the many angels that materialized on earth with human bodies like the three that visited Abraham before Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, but, as Philippians 2:7 states, was a “in fashion as a man”
[jsrz3] ?kjv phl 2 7
[@pete-] Phi2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: (KJV)
[jsrz3] ?kjv phl 2 8
[@pete-] Phi2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (KJV)
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: that’s not a single verse.
[jsrz3] (RazorsKiss) This means that in His prehuman existence, Jesus was a God just like all of the angels of God are themselves gods, but when Jesus came to earth, He wasn’t an incarnate man, like the many angels that materialized on earth with human bodies like the three that visited Abraham before Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, but, as **Philippians 2:8** states, was a “in fashion as a man”
[RazorsKiss] you’re pulling verses in from all over 😀
[RazorsKiss] isn’t that what you were annoyed at me about earlier?
[RazorsKiss] referencing verses elsewhere?
[RazorsKiss] can’t you prove your case from one verse, as you demanded i do?
[RazorsKiss] I’ve seen multiple verses, from a wide variety of contexts.
[RazorsKiss] It really was in your best interest to stick to the format.
[RazorsKiss] Doing it this way, I can ask/answer 3x as many questions as you can in the same amount of time – which was why I was using it.
[RazorsKiss] jsrz3: for _your_ benefit.
[RazorsKiss] NOT mine.
[RazorsKiss] further, I was attempting to keep you from going off on unrelated tangents – as you proceeded to do.
[RazorsKiss] as well as contradict yourself – which you did.
[RazorsKiss] anyway, I’m sorry it ended up this way – but that was why I wanted to stick to a format.
[RazorsKiss] because if you don’t – one party gets out-typed.
[RazorsKiss] have a good night – sorry about the ending.
[RazorsKiss] hope that was instructive or helpful to someone in here 😀

The following discussion was from earlier this afternoon, and I believe clearly shows the common bankruptcy found in Islamic apologists – they can’t defend their own text, and they won’t answer questions. I invite you to examine the conversation and see for yourself.

[RazorsKiss] Surah 53:36 Nay, is he not acquainted with what is in the Books of Moses- (YUS)
[RazorsKiss] Surah 53:37 And of Abraham who fulfilled his engagements?- (YUS)
[RazorsKiss] Surah 53:38 Namely, that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another; (YUS)
[RazorsKiss] .kjv gal 6:2
[Bible] Galatians 6:2 Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. (King James Version)
[RazorsKiss] So, beyinsiz – why is your Qu’ran contradicting Scripture?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss it doesn’t. It corrects the contradictions. That’s it.
[RazorsKiss] Surah 3:84 Say: “We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between on e and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam).”
[RazorsKiss] The Books?
[RazorsKiss] Seems to me that’s one of the Books spoken on in the Qu’Ran.
[RazorsKiss] *of in
[RazorsKiss] Why does your Qu’Ran contradict it?
[RazorsKiss] .kjv exo 6:6
[Bible] Exodus 6:6 Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgements: (King James Version)
[beyinsiz] aligning*
[RazorsKiss] Seems as if God himself does the same.
[Delano] Muslims and Christians who dispute one another’s holy books only “prove” that the other doesn’t apply the same critical thinking to their own scriptures as they do to their opponent’s
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss A contradiction only happens with something that has COHERENCE. It’s true that the content of the bible is of full errors, historical information.
[RazorsKiss] Delano: One says the other book is inspired, yet contradicts it.
[RazorsKiss] That’s telling, is it not?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss how many tellings in the bible are existing ?
[Delano] Oh, very much :o)
[RazorsKiss] Paul tells the Galatians to do something the Qu’Ran forbids.
[beyinsiz] if there are 60 bibles available, it’s likely that quran would treat them each as differently ?
[RazorsKiss] Look at the greek, and then look at your arabic.
[RazorsKiss] compare the two, see if they mean the same thing.
[Delano] Er,
[Delano] He couldn’t be able to anyway
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss why would something that Paul told would be a divine commandment. Paul cannot make any divine decision, He is not a prophet.
[RazorsKiss] Galatians 6:2 allhlwn ta barh bastazete kai outws anaplhrwsete ton nomon tou xristou (GRK)
[beyinsiz] He wasn’t even an apostle of Jesus
[Delano] The Qur’an is written in a classical form of Arabic that modern Arabs do not understand
[Delano] Just like modern English speakers do not understand Anglo-Saxon
[RazorsKiss] I know several Christians who read arabic just fine.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss Galatians is an epistle that he wrote up. It’s not the word of God, nor that of Jesus. Come up with something else
[RazorsKiss] As well as Koine.
[Delano] Modern, yes
[Delano] Classical Arabic is different :o)
[RazorsKiss] No, Quranic.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss yes I can read classical arabic, koine greek, latin , hebrew with diacriticals.
[Delano] Same with Greek… modern is different to Koine and Attic
[RazorsKiss] Expressly for the purpose of studying Quranic textual transmission.
[Delano] Although Attic was not used in the NT
[RazorsKiss] Quranic Arabic, and Koine.
[Delano] beyinsiz, impressive
[beyinsiz] what textual transmission ? there has only been 1 manuscript and the bible had like 300 according to the decree at the Nicea Council.
[Delano] beyinsiz, which Latin? Classic or Old Church?
[RazorsKiss] Not according to the Uthmanic revision, no there hasn’t.
[beyinsiz] Delano Clasical, the church doesn’t alter remarkably except the the pronounciation. the grammar is the same.
[Delano] beyinsiz, and more vocabularly
[Delano] Biblical-based vocabulary
[RazorsKiss] Ibn Masud’s version is the foundation for the modern-day Sunni-Shi’ite division.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss yes Uthman was a companion of Prophet unlike Paul wasn’t of Jesus
[RazorsKiss] Same generation, and was indeed an apostle – though one born late.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss that’s inaccurate and non sense to the extent of textual transmission claim. If you claim there is any other version of the quran, can you please show it ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss it still doesn’t make him an apostle
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TEUMkkSHek
[beyinsiz] the bible says they were 12 you say something else
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss I dont want a youtube video. show me a manuscript
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz – yes it does – and was recognized as one by the other apostles – the apostle to the gentiles, as we both are.
[beyinsiz] you make it up you find one !
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss by no means it doesn’t. There is no one verse that Paul is regarded as an apostle.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz – the video is one by Dr. James White.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss Why would I belive in him ? It’s you who claim that there is another shii quran and I am asking you to show it up !
[RazorsKiss] Concerning the Uthmanic revision, and Ibn Masud’s manuscript he refused to give up.
[RazorsKiss] and, by certain traditions, was beaten for until he died.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss It doesn’t make any sense when you just speculate about the duplication of a text once you dont provide any clear evidence and yet I can show you a dozen for the bible ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss where are the manuscripts you claim for transmissions ? where are they ?
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz – http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1713
[beyinsiz] I see no manuscript differentiation on this page.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss either you show me a manuscript that DIFFERS from the one we have today
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz – no manuscript variations exist in scripture that affect any major dotrine.
[Bonz] http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4048586,00.html QURAN NOT GIVEN TO MUHAMMED
[Bonz] But Dr Gerd R Puin, a renowned Islamicist at Saarland University, Germany, says it is not one single work that has survived unchanged through the centuries. It may include stories that were written before the prophet Mohammed began his ministry and which have subsequently been rewritten.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: sort of hard, since uthman burned them all, isn’t it?
[RazorsKiss] almost like islam had something to hide.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you even know that not on the basis of quran but some narrations ? Do you believe in the muslim narrations ? are you muslim yourself ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz Quran was changed several times
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss answer my question Do you believe in islamic narrations ?
[RazorsKiss] Not to mention the fact that the textual history of Islam is one of protection and central authoritative copying, past that date
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss answer my question Do you believe in islamic narrations ?
[RazorsKiss] and before that, all variatiosn were burned, so as to erase any variants.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You quoted an historical even on the basis of islamic narrations namely hadith. Do you believe in them to be true ?
[beyinsiz] event *
[beyinsiz] He cant answer the question
[RazorsKiss] Of course not, they contradict Scripture.
[RazorsKiss] I was finishing my own point, thanks 😀
[RazorsKiss] Care to respond to my last ones?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then how come you claimed that Uthman burned them from your point of view ???????????????????
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You first must justify the ground of your knowledge if you don’t believe what you claim, why should I take care to answer ?
[RazorsKiss] Why do you claim that Paul wasn’t an apostle, when your Quran commands you to consider Scripture as from Allah?
[RazorsKiss] Scripture says otherwise.
[beyinsiz] Inge then what part does he like to include and what others he likes to exclude ? what is the standart for that ? 🙂
[Bonz] beyinsiz He can use any standard he wants to.
[Inge] beyinsiz: *shrug* 🙂
[RazorsKiss] I don’t believe that they are spiritual truth – but I can see historical accounts.
[Bonz] beyinsiz And you have to defend against ANY standard
[Colin^] Bonz this is way over your head. I suggest you sit it out. :o)
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss There is no such verse that would make someone assume that Paul was an apostle. It’s the epistles he wrote which are not divinely revealed. There are many christian epistles in that time
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You couldn’t answer a simple question I asked. Yet you BASED YOUR CLAIM on that historical event. Your mask FELL DOWN
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] next question
[RazorsKiss] *being mentioned
[Bonz] beyinsiz You lose.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You based your opinion on the fact that you assumed the narration to be true and now you can’t answer. Did you lie there ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz The Quran is not inspired. Muhammed wasn’t a prophet of Jesu
[RazorsKiss] I don’t consider the Hadith to be a true reflection of spiritual things, no.
[beyinsiz] Did you lie when you were purposefully claimed that Uthman burned them and yet you didn’t take it a granted fact ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz He didn’t asume it to be true
[beyinsiz] This is what your faith could be like !
[RazorsKiss] I do consider them useful for an examination of the historical situation.
[beyinsiz] Bonz then why did he say he did burn it ?
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] he didn’t say he MAY HAVE burnt
[Inge] Bonz: are you arguing *for* a Christian?
* Inge takes Bonz’ temperature and calls 911
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss why would I answer your question and waste my time to discuss with you brother? You lied, why would I consider it worthwhile ?
[RazorsKiss] Uthman burnt every variant of the Quran, save Ibn Masud’s
[Delano] Inge, sometimes a man must choose the lesser of the two evils.
[beyinsiz] You have to explain to me something first. I will not just skip it.
[RazorsKiss] and Ibn Masud died for withholding it.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss Do you believe this to be true, and considering it a prophetical narration ?
[Bonz] Inge Nope, against a Muslim. beyinsiz wants to have his cake and eat it as well.
[beyinsiz] say yes or no
[beyinsiz] :DDDDD
[RazorsKiss] I don’t consider a proven false prophet to be true in any way, no.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then why did you claim that to be true ????????
[beyinsiz] then you lied !
[beyinsiz] you busted
[Delano] Inge, not if they support the bigger evil ;o)
[RazorsKiss] I do, however, think the Hadith literature is an interesting study in history.
[Colin^] beyinsiz is busted, he doesn’t obey the Quran
[Colin^] :o(
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you lost my friend. It’s your hatred, illogical faulty manner that gave you away.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[Bonz] beyinsiz It’s not HIS fault that your holy books are wrong
[Delano] Well, to his RazorsKiss, I don’t think RazorsKiss is a hateful fellow
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss sorry I don’t regard to discuss with some person who even lies in the name of his argument (?).
[Delano] Er
[Bonz] beyinsiz YOU are the illogical one
[Delano] Well, to his defense, I don’t think RazorsKiss is a hateful fellow
[Colin^] beyinsiz isn’t a Submitter…merely a beliver,shame face belong to him
[beyinsiz] everbody call in witness to what this man had done to himself.
[beyinsiz] Colin^ why ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz He won. You lost.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] Bonz if yo u say so.
[Delano] beyinsiz, in fact, RazorsKiss has been a lot more civil to you than a lot of other Christians here would have been :o)
[RazorsKiss] All you’re doing is spinning around like a top, sir.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss You first explain as to why you used a prophetical narration as to be historically true when you claimed the person is a false prophet and thus unreliable ??
[RazorsKiss] I consider Mohammed a false prophet, yes.
[beyinsiz] Because it is our first topic to be sort out and without first solving it , it is useless and pointless to skip the other. Why would I do that ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then why did you quote the historical event to be true ?
[RazorsKiss] I don’t even think the authors of the Hadith even consider a mention as such, at all.
[Bonz] beyinsiz Your holy books are wrong. He doesn’t have to believe in them to poiny point out thet they are wrong
[beyinsiz] did you lie ? or did you trust him in that particular time and event ?
[RazorsKiss] Because the uthmanic revision has nothing to do with the prophethood of Mohammed.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss how do you know that ?
[beyinsiz] ??????????????????????
[RazorsKiss] It has to do with the actions of Uthman, and why he did what he did.
[beyinsiz] ??????????????????????
[RazorsKiss] Why did Uthman burn every Quranic variant?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss how do you know that ? are you inspired or do you have other sources of epistemology ?
[beyinsiz] HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT ?
[beyinsiz] HOW
[RazorsKiss] It’s attested fact.
[RazorsKiss] http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1713
[beyinsiz] HOW
[RazorsKiss] read this.
[Colin^] beyinsiz Attested FACT!
[RazorsKiss] I gave my source.
[Bonz] beyinsiz And you have to make arguments against the epistles. You can’t just say you don’t think they were prophets
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss but our case is not what I read. It’s what YOU CLAIM AND HOW YOU ATTEST
[RazorsKiss] and, Dr. White talks about it further in the video above, concerning Ibn Masud.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss answer me
[RazorsKiss] *talks
[beyinsiz] Did uthman burn it ? true or false… see he CANT ANSWER IT 🙂
[beyinsiz] YES OR NO
[beyinsiz] ?
[Delano] Heh
[Delano] beyinsiz, relax
[RazorsKiss] True, Uthman burned every variant copy of the Quran.
[Colin^] beyinsiz has his knickers in a knot
[Delano] beyinsiz, you’re not gonna get any point across by getting upset and TYPING ALL IN CAPS
[Colin^] Delano will be after him. :o(
[beyinsiz] how shameful you are to hold such a stupid logical incoherence. and you were going to discuss me something in particular about quran
[RazorsKiss] Except for Ibn Masud’s, given several sources.
[Bonz] beyinsiz You’re only making yourself look stupid
[Delano] beyinsiz, relax please
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss do you that these sources are historically to be true because they are narrated by prophet muhammad ?
[Delano] beyinsiz, you are an intelligent fellow… there’s no need to get emotional
[Bonz] beyinsiz HIS logic is FINE. It is YOUR logic that is faulty
[RazorsKiss] and, Ibn Masud’s defiance, accordign to those same sources, is the source of the Sunni/Shi’ite split today.
[beyinsiz] Delano ok I will take your word
[RazorsKiss] 1) You claim that Paul is not an apostle
[RazorsKiss] 2) This goes against the word of the apostles you do claim to recognize
[RazorsKiss] 3) Your own Quran tells you to consider that book from God, per Surah 3:84, and several others.
[RazorsKiss] 4) You deny what your own Quran tells you – what is denial of the commands of the Quran called?
[beyinsiz] you FIRST claim something else and failed to prove it
[beyinsiz] and got yourself stuck in a VERY VERY BAD THEOLOGICAL DUBMNESS
[beyinsiz] You couldn’t even answer
[beyinsiz] and you couldn’t even back up what you had to swollow ! now what are you enumerating ????????
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you couldn’t build a ground for your theory You couldn’t believe what you said
[RazorsKiss] I’ll go through it again – if you’d quit typing for a minute, you could spare the time to read it.
[RazorsKiss] 1) You claim that Paul is not an apostle
[beyinsiz] You didn’t confirm the information which yourself has provided
[RazorsKiss] 2) This goes against the word of the apostles you do claim to recognize
[RazorsKiss] 3) Your own Quran tells you to consider that book from God, per Surah 3:84, and several others.
[RazorsKiss] 4) You deny what your own Quran tells you – what is denial of the commands of the Quran called?
[RazorsKiss] Do you have an answer that doesn’t involve two dozen exclamation points?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss but the topic is none of what you have enumerated ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss sure I do have a lot
[RazorsKiss] Actually, it was the original topic I bought up.
[beyinsiz] but I will not skip your turn.
[beyinsiz] no we were discussing about the manuscript transmission
[RazorsKiss] YOU skipped all over creation for all sorts of others topics.
[RazorsKiss] *other
[beyinsiz] it’s now your turn to answer my question. It’s my right to ask.
[RazorsKiss] You’ve been asking the whole time.
[beyinsiz] How do you know that Uthman burnt the manuscript ?
[RazorsKiss] I’ve been answering.
[beyinsiz] the other one ? Prove it
[beyinsiz] no you didn’t it
[beyinsiz] How do you know that ?
[RazorsKiss] Burnt which one?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss I don’t know. you claim that he did burn one didn’t yo u???????????????
[RazorsKiss] I gave you the source I had for Uthman’s burning of copies.
[RazorsKiss] You keep ignoring it.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss I didn’t ask for any reading source. My question was not that.
[beyinsiz] My question is simply relating to your confirmation that if this historical event is true , then do you believe the narrator, the prophet himself to be true ?
[RazorsKiss] the pertinent section: “‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, “A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur’an and I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reciting it.
[RazorsKiss] So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): ‘Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.’ ” (33.23)”
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss do you believe this to be true ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss do you believe this to be true ?
[beyinsiz] I don’t judge the validity of the text. I am only asking you whether you TAKE THIS TO BE TRUE TO PROPOSE IT AS AN EVIDENCE
[RazorsKiss] On what basis do I have to believe that if one historical narration is true, the whole Quran is true?
[beyinsiz] can you understand that ?
[RazorsKiss] The narrator was not Mohammed.
[RazorsKiss] Secondly.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then do you believe the narrator whatever ?
[RazorsKiss] Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.507, 509-510:
[RazorsKiss] Who is that, beyinsiz?
[beyinsiz] razor do you believe sahih al bukhari ?
[beyinsiz] it’s a muslim.
[beyinsiz] Do you believe a muslim reporter to be true ?
[beyinsiz] ?????????
[RazorsKiss] I believe he was telling the truth about that story, yes.
[beyinsiz] 🙂
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss why ?
[RazorsKiss] I don’t tend to disbelieve people simply because they’re muslim.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss then will you believe his other narrations as well ?
[RazorsKiss] Do you disbelieve Sahih Al-Bukhari?
[RazorsKiss] I hear tell he’s a pretty important source.
[RazorsKiss] in fact, one muslim apologist rejected Bukhari’s testimony over this one issue, in a debate with Dr. White.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss ok but here in this very particular event, you take him as an acceptable source regardless of his theological background
[RazorsKiss] Yes, for the third time.
[beyinsiz] Now will you regard his authencity when he narrates miracles of the prophet ?
[beyinsiz] as historical events ?
[beyinsiz] because he has lots of other historical narrations ?
[RazorsKiss] They may be.
[beyinsiz] please answer
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss nooo
[RazorsKiss] Scripture says many false prophets will come, doing signs and wonders.
[RazorsKiss] So Mohammed could easy have done signs and wonders.
[RazorsKiss] *easily
[beyinsiz] you didn’t give any probability to his very particular case. then you must consider the other with certainty on account of the narrator’s authencity
[RazorsKiss] However, he contradicted Scripture.
[RazorsKiss] Which makes him a false prophet in any case.
[RazorsKiss] Further, he was profoundly ignorant of texts he recommends.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss Did you not judge the event’s validity based on the narrator’s validity ? now how come it turned out to be “may” and with uthman you took it granted
[RazorsKiss] If you look through the NT, it’s authors are very knowledgeable of the OT.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you are not answering the question
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: that would have to depend on whether or not Uthman had a tested interest in proving Mohommaed as a prophet, wouldn’t it? 😀
[RazorsKiss] *vested
[beyinsiz] razor if you judge it on the narrator’s authencity as you did with uthman’s action to burn the text, then there are other narrations of him that testify his prophecy, the unity of God, and the blasphemy of christians as HISTORICAL EVENTS
[beyinsiz] will you accept them as well ?
[RazorsKiss] I don’t take every historian to be correct in every instance.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss ok then what made you to accept that and this not ?
[RazorsKiss] Especially not concerning an event central to further himself.
[RazorsKiss] Take Josephus, for example.
[beyinsiz] what is your criterian to consider an account of bukhari to be true and the other not ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss now we are talking about our case. let’s not get distracted
[RazorsKiss] On whether it had any self-interest involved.
[beyinsiz] what is your criterian to consider an account of bukhari to be true and the other not ?
[RazorsKiss] If you read the account, it’s very straight-forward.
[beyinsiz] answer the question please
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss according to what ?
[RazorsKiss] one more, and it’s my turn.
[beyinsiz] straight forward what ?
[RazorsKiss] It’s a very bare-bones, to the facts account.
[RazorsKiss] uthman wanted the texts, he got them, the rest were burned.
[beyinsiz] what is your criterian to judge a buhkhari narration to be straight forward to be true and in others parts that he failed ?
[RazorsKiss] all done.
[RazorsKiss] this is your last question – gimme a sec
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss ok but there are other narrations which are straight forwardly testifying the prophet’s validity and so others ?
[beyinsiz] noooooooooo
[beyinsiz] you didn’t answer it. You PROLONGED IT
* RazorsKiss rolls his eyes
[beyinsiz] still you remained a question unreplied because that’s the last station we may arrive !
[RazorsKiss] I judge the bukhari narration to be true in this instance, because there is no self-interest involved in the account.
[RazorsKiss] I do not care, concerning miracles of mohammed, because it’s a non-issue.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss what self interest could he seek with miracles ?
[RazorsKiss] Your turn, when I get back 😀
[beyinsiz] not it’s such a great issue to determine the scale of accepting a norm in analyzing the data
[RazorsKiss] I said last question, and I meant it.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss we will not skip it
[RazorsKiss] You’ve had a good 15 minutes of cross-ex.
[RazorsKiss] My turn – but I want a break for a minute.
[beyinsiz] no you didn’t answer the question you only made another suspicious answer :=)
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss no way man. you lied
[beyinsiz] you are not answering it
[RazorsKiss] then be suspicious all you want.
[RazorsKiss] I don’t care.
[Bonz] beyinsiz Quran was revised many times
[Bonz] http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4048586,00.html QURAN NOT GIVEN TO MUHAMMED
[Bonz] But Dr Gerd R Puin, a renowned Islamicist at Saarland University, Germany, says it is not one single work that has survived unchanged through the centuries. It may include stories that were written before the prophet Mohammed began his ministry and which have subsequently been rewritten.
[RazorsKiss] bbiam.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss it’s not a suspicion of skepticism. It’s your not FULLY responsing kind of manner and logic
[beyinsiz] you never answer the question fully. How do you know that bukhari was seeking self interest or not ? Is it your beliefs and not the facts ?
[beyinsiz] because you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz It is fact and his belief. All of them were liars or insane
[beyinsiz] Bonz and why the other is not a fact or belief since the judgement is based on the narrator’s id ?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you screwed up both in terms of your FAITH AND FACT KNOWING
[beyinsiz] you are in a worse trouble man than when you set out to prove
[beyinsiz] you never answer the question fully. How do you know that bukhari was seeking self interest or not ? Is it your beliefs and not the facts ?
[RazorsKiss] you had your say.
[RazorsKiss] My turn.
[beyinsiz] ecause you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[RazorsKiss] I started out with the topic of the Quran contradicting the Scriptures.
[beyinsiz] no answer this because you didn’T fully respond. this is childhish sophistry
[beyinsiz] ecause you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[RazorsKiss] You went off on the “one quranic text” rabbit trail.
[RazorsKiss] I refuted it – you grilled me in return.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss and what did you go off with ?
[beyinsiz] ecause you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[beyinsiz] Your ground of knowledge collapsed
[RazorsKiss] So, back to the original question.
[beyinsiz] the original question was How did you know that
[beyinsiz] and we came to this point and now you evade
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss No I am not skipping that until you finally answer my question
[RazorsKiss] Then you’ll be waiting a while.
[beyinsiz] how come your beliefs must be assumed as historical events objectively , please answer
[RazorsKiss] you asked, I answered.
[RazorsKiss] If you don’t like it, that’s not my problem.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss no you didn’t answer that. you said “I believe that” I say then how come your beliefs are just to be considered as historical events
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] ecause you claimed this to be a fact and not a belief, if it’s your beliefs why would I consider to be true objectively ?
[beyinsiz] I will not answer unless you give this a full response
[RazorsKiss] then I suppose you won’t answer.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you can only suppose that you failed to answer the first question I asked
[beyinsiz] I am only doing this to make you seem worse
[RazorsKiss] You may be in the habit of directing every single conversation you have, but I am not in the habit of letting someone else control entire conversations.
[beyinsiz] so that perhaps you will regard to re think what you have done. That will be a good lesson for you
* Delano chuckles
[Bonz] beyinsiz YOU are the one who is evading. Your pretend is not working
[Delano] So it’s a power struggle :op
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books were in mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss I never did that at all. each time I asked the question you altered the topic to something else.
* Colin^ giggles at the dualing egos
[beyinsiz] you consciously prolonged it and now you evade
[organicwrk] That does it. I’m pulling the car over.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books are mentioned in surah 3:84?
[Bonz] beyinsiz Why are you AFRAID to answer RazorsKiss ?
[beyinsiz] you say you claim that because you believe this thing to be true ? and I am asking why your beliefs must be regarded as historical facts ?
[RazorsKiss] It’s because he knows his prophet was ignorant of the NT.
[beyinsiz] what kind of faith and fact appreciation is that ?
[RazorsKiss] not to mention of the Hebrew OT.
[beyinsiz] because you say you claim that because you believe this thing to be true ? and I am asking why your beliefs must be regarded as historical facts ?
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books are mentioned in surah 3:84?
[beyinsiz] answer the question dont flee
[beyinsiz] you are fleeing from it
[beyinsiz] because you say you claim that because you believe this thing to be true ? and I am asking why your beliefs must be regarded as historical facts ?
[RazorsKiss] It’s not ego, by the by.
[RazorsKiss] This is called “scattershot apologetics”
[beyinsiz] razor then why do you consider your own person beliefs that they must be regarded as historical facts ? Must I believe the way you do to understand the truth ?
[RazorsKiss] Throw as many objections as humanly possible at your opponent, and try to find one, by volume or ignorance, he cannot answer.
[deja_vu] beyonisz is using ‘apologist techniques’ to beat back Razorskiss
[RazorsKiss] Actually, it’s just being rude.
[RazorsKiss] Unfortunately, some people consider that an apologetic.
[beyinsiz] If that’s the case then why do you find it worth to ask a question since it’s all up to beliefs ? not logic ?
[Bonz] beyinsiz HE DID NOT SAY IT IS TRUE.
[beyinsiz] yes he did say it true. Bonz
[beyinsiz] he said uthman burnt it
[beyinsiz] I said how
[beyinsiz] he said bukhari reported it
[beyinsiz] I said do you believe him
[beyinsiz] he kept not answering for like 5 minutes or something
[beyinsiz] then he said the prophet was a fake
[beyinsiz] I said then how come do you believe in his narrator
[Bonz] It doesn’t mater if him. All he has to do is QUOTE him
[beyinsiz] he then waited a bit and said this one is ok . then I said why not the other, the one on his validity etc ?
[RazorsKiss] Actually, you asked if I thought the prophet was true.
[Bonz] It does not matter if he believes him
[RazorsKiss] Which had nothing to do with Bukhari.
[beyinsiz] he said it may have that he could show miracles giving some account for that . then I questioned his probability comment on that he didn’t answer as to his double standart
[RazorsKiss] But, regardless, I’m getting off the objection-go-round until you answer a question.
[beyinsiz] and then I asked him how did he know that he said this to be true ? he said HE BELIEVES SO
[Bonz] beyinsiz So YOU avoided the issue. “then I said why not the other, the one on his validity etc ?”
[RazorsKiss] I went 15-20 minutes fielding objections.
[RazorsKiss] Yet, beyinsiz can’t seem to answer one. Very telling for the truth of Islam, isn’t it?
[beyinsiz] then I said how come his beliefs could be facts objectively to be taken true ? no you fielded nothing more complicated than what I summarized.
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz: what books are mentioned in surah 3:84?
[Bonz] beyinsiz YOU do not get to ask HIM questions. You have to ANSWER one
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss you couldn’t even answer one question. you try to get rid of it
[RazorsKiss] all he’s done is ask questions.
[RazorsKiss] All I’ve done is answer them.
[beyinsiz] no you couldn’t
[RazorsKiss] Well… I’ve tried to ask them 😀
[Bonz] beyinsiz You have CONSTANTLY asked questions, ad NEVER said anything
[RazorsKiss] But someone isn’t answering.
[RazorsKiss] Perhaps because they can’t, without self-refutation?
[beyinsiz] you tried well I am sorry but it didn’t work. Not my fault. You ended up saying your beliefs are the truths as historical facts
[beyinsiz] and now I am asking why then are you asking me ???????
[Bonz] beyinsiz He doesn’t HAVE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS
[beyinsiz] and now I am asking why then are you asking me ???????
[RazorsKiss] to show your truth claims for what they are – self-refuting.
[beyinsiz] you tried well I am sorry but it didn’t work. Not my fault. You ended up saying your beliefs are the truths as historical facts
[beyinsiz] and now I am asking why then are you asking me ???????
[RazorsKiss] sheer volume doesn’t show truthfulness.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss if that’s all up to the belief to prove some point as fact will you regard some claim that you are pumpkin because they believe ?
[RazorsKiss] Neither does the volume of objections.
[RazorsKiss] The failure to answer a question – from your own text – speaks volumes in itself.
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss according your own view of epistemology, if some other person believes that you are a bulky pumpkin he has all the right and it is as an historical fact. that’s where you end up
[RazorsKiss] Unless you’re prepared to answer?
* RazorsKiss will answer for beyinsiz, in that case.
[Bonz] beyinsiz You have nothing other than belief. Why is his standard higher?
[beyinsiz] RazorsKiss why would I answer ? you defined true knowledge on the basis of faith as it PROVES THE HISTORICAL FACT.
[beyinsiz] Why would you regard my questions as worthy when they are not YOUR BELIEFS ?
[beyinsiz] whyyyyyyyyyyyyy
[RazorsKiss] beyinsiz cannot escape the fact that Islam is grounded in ignorance.
[Bonz] beyinsiz All religions do that. Islam included
[beyinsiz] razor well you’re groundless to say that. that’s for sure
[beyinsiz] you are embarrassed.
[RazorsKiss] Islam points their followers toward the scriptures of Christians and the Jews – yet contradicts them throughout the Quran.
[beyinsiz] you made such a big mistake and you even know dont where exactly you stand
[RazorsKiss] Which shows, quite clearly, that Mohammed was not only not a prophet, but not even knowledgeable of what he spoke of.
[beyinsiz] because youur reliance on a historical fact as YOU ADMIT is not beyond a “belief”
[RazorsKiss] Further, it shows that Mohammed did not consider the Scriptures to be corrupted.
[RazorsKiss] Yet, modern islam claims the opposite.
[RazorsKiss] Mohammed pointed to the Scriptures as the words of God.
[RazorsKiss] Modern islam points to the scriptures, and says “corrupted”.
[RazorsKiss] This is demonstrably false, given that we have many, many, MANY manuscipt copies FAR predating Mohammed.
[RazorsKiss] that say exactly what we can read today.
[RazorsKiss] Thus, Mohammed was pointing to a book that was in the same form as we see it now – and calling it God’s.
[RazorsKiss] Yet, his followers contradict him, and us.
[RazorsKiss] That’s why beyinsiz won’t answer the question.
[RazorsKiss] He can’t.
[RazorsKiss] It shows the bankruptcy at the heart of Islam.
[RazorsKiss] The demonstrable lie that is Islam, and the demonstrable lie that Mohammed is a prophet of any sort – let alone a prophet of God.
* RazorsKiss gives beyinsiz the floor back. All yours, man. But remember – Christ can save, and save perfectly.
[RazorsKiss] God bless.

For further references:

Mohamed Did Not Believe that the Old Testament was Corrupt
Quran 101: The Uthmanic Revision
An Interesting Conversation
Ibn Masud’s Death and the text of the Quran