* dios_mio (fake@ has joined
[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
[@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@ Quit (The day that you stop running is the day that you arrive)