Battle Talk ~ BR IX

[Chilli]

You've got the patience of a saint, Chilli.

Personally, I think he's not coming back, just as he bailed out of my conversation with him.

Well, it was a long post, so I assume it will take him a little longer to answer... Hilston has assured me in a PM that he has been working on a response, so I'm pretty sure he'll pop in at least once more.

Watch this space...

 

[Chilli]

I've seen this with TAGers before as well. It seems to be a tactic used so they can come back and regurgitate the exact same assertion that were already debunked. That or get a last word in on an argument when your opponent is no longer around. A cheap victory if one can even call it that...

Hilston is certainly a complex person... I don't think it's as simple as you say though.

My impression is that at a certain point Hilston genuinely believes that the argument is no longer worth having, because the person he is debating is irredeemably recalcitrant. In other words, he believes that they don't really[/] want to know the truth, or that they are being deliberately obtuse.

Obviously, it is a little bit suspicious that he reaches this conlcusion when he cannot come up with a substantial answer though.

C'mon Hilston, take the bait...

 

[Spenser 2]

It is also a bit suspicious that even the majority of Christians don't take to the argument...

 

[Chilli]

It is also a bit suspicious that even the majority of Christians don't take to the argument...

Well, not really, when you consider that Hilston's presuppositionalist approach is only held by a very small minority of Christians. Mind you, so is the average TOL christian's open view of God...

 

[Chilli]

And it took all of a couple hours for him (his arguments) to get beat up so bad he's disappeared... :chuckle:

Spenser... I see you have already been banned. Not an uncommon occurrence for atheists on this forum... wlecome to TOL!

I just wanted to point out though, that the arguments delivered by those who disagreed with Hilston on that website are really not much different from those posed by might_duck, aharvey, SUTG and other atheists and agnostics in this thread... obviously, though, the members of that other forum are a lot more familiar with the TAGers reasoning, and so the lengthy and baffling process that took place in this forum was mercifully cut short.

As much as I'd like to think that those comments have caused Hilston to rethink his position, going by his track record in this thread, I seriously doubt he has been dissuaded in any way.

 

[Spenser 2]

I doubt he has been dissuaded either. TAGers love to spring the TAG upon an opponent in open debate. What is the last thing a proponent of evolution would expect to have thrown his way, an attack on his epistemology??? This battle royal had nothing to do with science and evolution from Hilston's corner, it was a trap from the outset. The people at 'the other forum' have seen and dealt with presups many times over and are open to any argument but don't let any of the BS the TAG asserts slip by.

It is a debate in which the presup insists you play by his rules and if you do your wrong and if you don't your wrong. It works well to advocate it in a forum like this where it will get little resistance since it already assumes what most here believe to be true. Hilston will probably eventually return here but I doubt to see him else where.

It is nice to see you take up the fight though

 

[Hilston]

Spenser has written here and elsewhere:

[Re: IIDB:]The philosophers there will eat you up ...

I was really hoping to encounter some thinkers with whom I would not have to start from square one in explaining the basics of transcendental argumentation. I was sadly disappointed. The philosphers at IIDB were in no position to eat me up; the philosophers there have no teeth. That much was evident when I realized that those who chose to participate and answer my questions knew little more than a few terms and catch phrases that they must've learned at a community college summer course on "how to sound like you know what you're talking about when debating a presuppositionalist." Despite tossing around terms like TAG and IoC and speciously asserting that TAS and TAA as equally valid arguments, it is plain to anyone worth his intellectual salt that the participants at IIDB, at least the ones who chimed in when I visited, are poseurs. I'm sure there are exceptions; I just didn't encounter any.

Jim had plenty of good rebuttals he ignored ...

The fact that Spenser called those "rebuttals" "good" says more about Spenser's calibre of understanding and argumentation than anything I've read of him thus far. It's one thing to be a weak philosopher who doesn't understand the arguments. It's quite another to be a weak philosopher who goes around lauding the bad and empty arguments of other weak philosophers.

... and its obvious that if he can't even debate with the top minds in atheism at IIDB then his argument never stands to gain much, considering it is all about engaging atheism as you say ...

In my opinion, SUTG, aharvey, mighty_duck, ThePhy and others here on TOL are superior thinkers to what I encountered at IIDB. As to what my argument stands to gain, it's irrelevant since it's not MY argument. It is the argument of the Bible and it will continue to be irrefragable and singularly rational even if I never speak another word about it.

What I've found among anti-Theists who really understand the Biblical argument (there aren't many) is nominal agreement that their worldview cannot justify the laws of logic or account for the uniformity of nature. Where they have trouble is acknowledging the necessity of having to justify and account for them in order to do legitimate science. They also have trouble in acknowledging that God's existence and attributes are the justification and accounting for all of creation, but that's as much a moral/spiritual issue as it is a logical one. Anti-Theists like Spenser become a huge time-sink, because unlike anti-theists who understand the argument, recognize the coherence of it, but just refuse to accept it, Spenser THINKS he understands the argument, THINKS it has coherence problems, and THINKS he has a better argument. When one explores the arguments that anti-Theists like Spenser offer, they are found sadly wanting, and not even understanding the position they're arguing against, let alone the full ramifications of their own view.

For example ...

Even asking for logic to be valid is rather strange since validity is a function of logic. Your question presupposes the validity of logic.

Anyone who has thoughtfully followed this discussion or the BRIX should be able to predict the Biblical rebuttal of this statement.

Are you kidding, that is why TAG fails... parodies!!! Muslims TAG vs Christian TAG. Obviously there is a possibility of the contrary ...

Can anyone tell me what is wrong with this statement? If you've followed this thread, you should already know what my response would be.

Sure, by making up a God that supposedly validates it for you. That is nothing more than an assertion. The validation fairy is an argument that carries the same weight.

Anyone who has read the BRIX debate or my exchanges on this thread should be able to tell right away where the flaw lies in Spenser's "validation fairy" dig.

... it does not follow that if logic is rational then there is a rational God.

Spenser has committed a fatal error with this statement. Can anyone tell me what it is?

... Further, a TAG argument for the God of Deism asserts another possibility therefore debunking your IoC. When you bite on this one I'll go further ...

More evidence that Spenser is either very new to Biblical argumentation, or he's just not a very careful thinker.

It is also a bit suspicious that even the majority of Christians don't take to the argument ...

The majority of Christians don't read their Bibles. This is the typical ad populum fallacy that anti-theists use with aplomb.

I doubt he has been dissuaded either. TAGers love to spring the TAG upon an opponent in open debate. What is the last thing a proponent of evolution would expect to have thrown his way, an attack on his epistemology???

Ridiculous. Notice that the debate was about what is science, i.e. knowledge. Upon what is one's knowledge based? That is a valid question. That is epistemology. If Spenser is correct, that "the last thing a proponent of evolution would expect to have thrown his way [is] an attack on his epistemology," then it only goes to prove that anti-Theist scientists are irrational at the very foundation of what they claim to do.

This battle royal had nothing to do with science and evolution from Hilston's corner, it was a trap from the outset.

Spenser obviously has not read the debate, or he did not read it very carefully.

The people at 'the other forum' have seen and dealt with presups many times over and are open to any argument but don't let any of the BS the TAG asserts slip by.

They don't even get it. And what they get of it, they misapply. It's really quite pathetic. What's worse is how self-impressed they are, not to mention all the self-congratulation, back-patting and internal kudos they all give each other.

It is a debate in which the presup insists you play by his rules and if you do your wrong and if you don't your wrong.

They're not "our" rules. They're God's rules. And yes, it is a rigged game. If you play, you have no choice on which rules to follow. The rules are set and non-negotiable. If you don't play, you can try to ignore the rules, but you do so at the expense of rationality.

It works well to advocate it in a forum like this where it will get little resistance since it already assumes what most here believe to be true. Hilston will probably eventually return here but I doubt to see him else where.

The only reason I'm here is for Chilli. Spenser mistakenly assumes that I enjoy some sort of protection or insulation here at TOL. Just a cursory perusal of my interactions on this website will demonstrate abundantly how widely hated, loathed, ridiculed, mocked and despised I am here. Also, arguing for the Creationist view on a Christian forum is entirely new for me. I was invited here to debate this subject, or else I never would have done it. All of my past debates occurred at Freethinkers and Atheist forums, which is where I met some of my best Atheist friends.

You've got the patience of a saint, Chilli.

No, Chilli is just a cocky bastard, just like I am. And just like me, I suspect that Chilli also has a life outside of TOL. Sadly, it would appear the same can't be said for those whose total posts outnumber the number of days they've been members of this forum.

Personally, I think he's not coming back, just as he bailed out of my conversation with him.

Did he just call that a "conversation"? What Balder calls "bail[ing] out" of a "conversation" I call freeing myself from an endless quagmire of hopeless confusion and veiled contradiction.

Jim
(Hear the latest rockin' tune by James Hilston, Angry Rockstar)

 

[Hilston]

Hi Chilli,

This has taken quite a while to cobble together. I don't have the energy right now to read through it all. If I detect any errors or typos later, I'll send a follow-up.

I am fully aware of what constitutes a normative hermeneutic, in fact I have taught a course on the subject myself. What I am trying to say is that a normative hermeneutic will typically lead to a literalistic interpretation of the first chapter in Genesis (usually not the second chapter though, interestingly), ...

You have to explain what you mean by "literalistic." It is a badly abused word. No one takes the entire Bible literally, and the Bible is clear regarding figurative narratives versus non-figurative ones. The normative hermeneutic leads to the same kind of interpretation in Genesis 2 as Genesis 1 and the rest of the Biblical corpus.

... which when coupled with the non-negotiable view that Scripture is inerrant in all that it affirms, often leads one to interpret scientific evidence in such a way that it fits with what one already believes.

This is true of all belief systems, including Evolutionism and Methodological Naturalism. In that statement, you've made the very same point I was trying to convey in the Battle Royale IX. If indeed people are led by their beliefs to interpret scientific evidence in such a way that fits with what one already believes, then of what use is a discussion of evidence? That was the point I emphasized in my last post of BRIX.

Is “using the tools of science properly” as simple as interpreting the evidence to fit with a six day creation and a 6000 year old earth?

No, using the tools of science properly means to think God's thoughts after Him, to acknowledge Christ Jesus, the Logos, as the foundation of all true knowledge ~ the very reason why logic and science work ~ to recognize that all of existence, all of nature, are orderly and uniform because Christ is holding it all together. By including those key ingredients in one's thinking and approach to science, the Young-Earth model emerges and all the claims of scripture are corroborated. By leaving those key points out of one's science, one becomes irrational in their pursuit of science and blindly invokes unjustified assumptions. Nonetheless, God's design of man is so robust, combined with the fact that man is created in God's image (i.e. rational, creative), that even God-less scientists can make technological progress in spite of those omissions, and not because of them.

Regardless of whether or not this is what you mean by your claim that “using the tools of science properly would lead everyone to take the young-earth view,” you apparently advocate interpreting the scientific evidence to fit a literalistic reading of the first chapter of Genesis.

This is too narrow. All evidence comes pre-interpreted from God, either by explicit claims or by inference from Scripture, ~ ALL of scripture ~ not just Genesis 1. Our obligation and responsibility, as God's pinnacle creation, created in His image, is to discover God's interpretation of the evidence, and not to presume to function autonomously, as if God can be rationally ignored.

Of course, your proposal is that scientists who believe in evolution simply interpret the evidence to fit with their worldview as well, in this case an evolutionary paradigm, and that in fact everybody interprets evidence in a way that fits with their presuppositions, with the result that there are no “brute facts,” but this is problematic for several, somewhat interrelated, reasons:

1. If you are claiming that everyone simply interprets the evidence to fit their presuppositions or preconceptions, there really is no rational basis for a ‘normative hermeneutic.’

The rational basis for the normative hermeneutic lies in the fact that the writers of scripture, under inerrant and infallible divine guidance, wrote using certain rules of grammar and language that are known and comprehensible.

In fact, such a view comports much more accurately with a postmodern literary approach. What I mean is that such an approach undermines the idea that we are to interpret the writings of Scripture in their grammatico-historical context, because we are actually interpreting them in line with our presuppositions. This is nothing if not arbitrary.

I'm not sure where you get this idea, because the normative hermeneutic and the grammatico-historical hermeneutic are one and the same.

2. If it is disingenuous of a godless scientist to interpret scientific evidence to fit their worldview, why is it alright for a Christian scientist to do so?

What do you mean by "alright"? Anyone can interpret evidence however they want. But only the person with the correct worldview has sufficient warrant to interpret evidence in light of it and then to call it 'science'. The person with the false worldview has no warrant to do so.

If you say it is because the Christian believes in the God of the Bible, then this also seems like an arbitrary approach.

How is it arbitrary? One worldview is true; all others are false. There is nothing arbitrary there. Fallible finite humans cannot autonomously decide which worldview is correct with consistency or coherence. All worldviews are irrational, with the sole exception of the Biblical one.

Furthermore, such an approach undermines any kind of scientific method, seeing as it is driven not by evidence but by sheer bias.

EVERYTHING is driven by bias, David. The question is: What is the correct bias? It certainly cannot be the atheistic/Evolutionism view, which is irrational at its base.

I am aware that there are a number of prominent anti-theistic scientists who take such an approach, but surely you agree that this should not be normative? Can you see that the logical outcome of such a belief entails doing away with science altogether?

It's not possible. Humans have been designed by God to be curious, inventive and logical. Humans, by their design, cannot help but pursue science, and this is what makes the rejection of The Designer/Creator so offensive and egregious.

3. I’m not sure if when you say there are no uninterpreted, plain facts, you are including all scientific data. If this is what you are claiming, would you please explain how you would consider scientific facts such as the strata in which various fossils are discovered, or the time it takes for light to travel from one point to another to be tainted by interpretation or bias?

Those who hold the preconceived notion that the earth is billions of years old will look at fossils and assume they are eons old and that the strata can correctly indicate how old the fossils are. This is all based on the unproven assumption that the strata were deposited over long ages of time. Those who believe that the earth is young look at the same fossil evidence assume they are young based on the testimony of scripture. Both sides have bias. Both interpretations are affected by the respective biases. The latter view has the correct bias and is in a superior position to draw correct conclusions from the evidence.

4. Furthermore, can you see that your claim that all facts are interpreted in a way that comports with a person’s presuppositions is again more in line with a postmodern epistemology, and undermines your claim that you can prove your own worldview and disprove all others? The logical outcome of such a belief will be that truth is relative and subjective, and cannot be transmitted, or that if there is objective truth, it is unknowable. If you know of another option, please tell me.

None of what you've stated aligns with my view, with the exception of the first part of your first sentence. Do you disagree that all facts are interpreted in a way that comports with a person's presuppositions? If so, give me a fact that you've interpreted apart from your presuppositions. I'd like to see one.

5. As stated above, I admit that theories about evolution may come about as a result of anti-theistic sentiments on the part of those who hold to them, and I suppose that given your ardent espousal of Van Til’s claim that there are no “brute facts,” you will find the following hypothetical situation difficult to imagine. I have also noticed that you tend to avoid arguing hypothetical situations, but please try to humor me. Please do not imagine that I really believe this, it is simply a hypothetical situation I am using to illustrate a point. Imagine that God created someone instantaneously as an adult with full reasoning capabilities but no prior conditioning, and was presented with all the wonders of creation as well as all the scientific data we have regarding it. They were not given a Bible or any other religious text, and they were not given revelation by any higher being. Now imagine that this person was asked to estimate the age of the earth using the information they had been given. I tend to think that such a person would arrive at the conclusion that a creator was a basic requirement as an explanation of the beauty and intricate design in everything they saw, but don’t you think that when they looked at the scientific data, they might also reasonably infer that the earth is much older than 6,000 years, and that various species were not all created at once?

Not at all! What would lead a person to believe that? Tell me why you, David, would look at the layers of strata and assume long eons of deposition? Why would such a person as you describe look at the rapid deposition of Mt. St. Helens or some similar cataclysmic phenomena, and not conclude that strata were similarly deposited in a rapid, cataclysmic fashion?

If God is not trying to trick us, and intends for us to believe in a 6,000 year old earth, with all species instantaneously created at the inception of this time period, why doesn’t he make the evidence more incontrovertible? For instance, why do all YEC explanations for the age of the earth as estimated by the time it takes for the light from distant stars to reach us necessitate some kind of deceptive “appearance of age” theory?

No deception is intended by God in how He put together the constellations. God wanted there to be stars. He wanted them to be far away, and He also wanted their light to shine upon the earth. I don't call that deception. I call it purposeful and effective. It is only perceived by Evolutionists to be a deception because they erroneously assume that the lights in the sky can be used to ascertain the age of the earth. There is no warrant for that assumption.

6. Scientists who believe in evolution are not a homogenous group, and generally do not fit the caricatured view of rabid antitheists espoused by creationists, and in fact many of them trust in Christ for salvation. ...

The Bible says that there is no neutrality. Either someone aligns with the God of Scripture or is against Him. Those who claim to be neutral are lying to us or themselves or both. Those who claim to trust Christ for salvation but disregard the claims of scripture are either misguided or self-deluded about their faith. These are not my ideas, but that which is taught in scripture.

Scientists hold many different worldviews and presuppositions, and even if you say that they have the commonality that they are all against the God of the Bible on some kind of fundamental subconscious level, how do explain Christian scientists who believe in evolution?

I believe in evolution (lower-case "e"); living things certainly change and adapt. I don't believe in spontaneous generation. I believe God created the earth teeming with life. Professing Christians who believe in spontaneous generation are opposing the God they claim to believe in.

Furthermore, many people who have a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture and YEC are convinced of evolution on the basis of the evidence.

When I meet those people, I show them that the Biblical text does not allow that view. I try to show them that they have to choose, because they can't have both without contradicting scripture. If they stick to their spontaneous generation guns and continue to claim to believe in biblical inerrancy, then they're espousing a false view and they will be held accountable by God for it.

How do you explain this, or do you have to explain it away by putting on your Judgment Day hat and pronouncing that these people are not real Christians?

It's not my judgment, David. It's not my view I'm defending. It's the teaching of scripture. You can complain all you want about what it says, but that doesn't change what it says.

How do you reconcile these things with the view that it is an opposition to the God of the Bible that causes people to interpret scientific evidence in such a way that leads them to believe evolution is true?

I don't need to reconcile them. Biblically speaking, there is no conflict. The Bible predicted and addresses all these things you've raised.

The Bible is the sole guide for what fits and what doesn't. I don't "make" things fit. It's not "my" view, per se, but that of the Bible. The Bible provides the sole grounds for truth and rationality, so it follows that all truth claims will necessarily fit the testimony of scripture. Anything that doesn't fit the testimony of scripture is not true.

Actually, it is your interpretation of the Bible, and is therefore your view, unless you are claiming that when God regenerated you he also somehow faxed a 100% accurate interpretation of Scripture into your brain.

If I never existed, you would still be held accountable by Christ to submit to a normative interpretation of the Bible. It's not my view; I didn't make this stuff up. It is the view of the Bible, understood according to the same rules of grammar, semantics and syntax that were used and understood by the original writer/audience. You are commanded to submit to that, not by me, not by anyone's interpretation, but by that which the scriptures affirm according to the rules of language in which they were written.

I'm very careful (mostly) to state that it is not the Hilstonian view that I'm defending, but the Biblical view according to my understanding of it. That is to say: I know I've got things wrong about what the Bible teaches. I know I've got things wrong about how the Bible applies. And when I find them, I'll correct them. But in the meantime, I will defend the teachings and applications of that Book, as I understand it, the best I can.

If you don’t like to think of this as “making the evidence fit your view,” we can say instead that you are “accepting or rejecting evidence on the basis of whether or not it fits with your interpretation of Scripture.” Is this a fairly accurate description of your method for interpreting scientific evidence? If you do not agree with it, please tell me specifically which part or parts are incorrect.

Man is to accept or reject evidence on the basis of whether or not that evidence fits the normative interpretation of Scripture. Period. Whether or not I ever lived or tried to defend it is irrelevant.

I would like to clarify my point by saying that when I wondered whether you were capable of understanding perspectives other than your own, I meant more that I wondered if you were willing to admit the rationality of an opposing perspective if you did understand it.

According to a normative interpretation of the Bible, all other worldviews are ultimately irrational. For me to be WILLING to admit the rationality of an opposing perspective would be to oppose the message taught by the Word of God.

I apologize, because reading back over what I wrote, I can see that I didn’t word it very clearly at all. As I’ve said elsewhere, I do think you are capable of understanding opposing viewpoints, in fact, I said this in response to your own claim to not be able to understand the arguments made against you on this thread by m_d, SUTG and aharvey.

If I recall correctly, their particular arguments were incomprehensible, not their perspectives or worldviews, which I understand just fine. Specific arguments they were making were incoherent and desperate. That's what I was referring to.

The reason I think you may be being disingenuous when you say you can’t understand these people is that other people whose intelligence you easily match, including other Christians, can understand them.

Then i would claim that their "understanding" is based on hasty assumptions and uncritical thinking. Lots of things seem to make sense until you think carefully about what is being claimed.

Is it not just a little too convenient that the only people who cannot make "heads or tails" of these arguments are those who have a presupposition that no beliefs other than their own can make sense? Can you see why people are having trouble accepting your claims that you do not understand these arguments, and instead believe that you are just trying to save face while you bail out of the argument?

Go ahead and think whatever you want David. I don't give a rip about what you people assume to be my motive. If you want to say that I had no counterargument and that I quit in order to save face, go right ahead. Call me a coward; call me stupid if you want. It's all irrelevant. I'm not here to get people to "accept my argument." That has never been my goal.

Can’t you see that by believing what the Bible says about itself, you are assuming its truthfulness?

Those who are regenerated do not merely assume the verity of scripture. They know with unwavering and unshakeable certainty. Those who are not regenerated must still face the fact that all the scriptures affirm comports with their experience and provide the singular rational basis for all their experience. They are without excuse. God has made Himself, His attributes, judgment and power known to all men, and yet the vast majority suppress the truth about Him in their unrighteousness.

Even if you investigated every claim that Scripture makes, how would you find out that it was true, seeing as you believe that all epistemology that is not based on a belief in the God of the Bible leads to wrong conclusions?

I have NOT investigated every claim the Bible makes. Nor am I expected to do in order to find out that it is true. Fallible finite humans do not decide that the Bible is true. It is true regardless of any human assessment of it.

What I am saying is that in your view, wouldn’t you need to have the right assumptions about God before you set off to investigate the claims of Scripture, because otherwise you would interpret the evidence to fit in with your presuppositions?

The regenerated person does not operate on assumptions. He knows with certitude.

In order to have the correct view of God, you would had to have it shown to you by Scripture or some other means of special revelation, and you would be assuming that source to be true and inerrant.

Mt. 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

If there is some other evidence that will lead to a correct view of God, then how could someone interpret it correctly unless they already had the right presuppositions?

God has shown Himself to all men and given them sufficient information from which to begin their study and understanding of His Word. There is no excuse.

I would really appreciate it if you could clear this up for me, as I consider it one of the central issues in the points made against your argument elsewhere on this thread.

Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

I suppose it all hinges on the condition that you have given: “if God is real and the Bible is His Word.”

That's not merely a condition I have given, but a necessary precondition to all rational thought, which is attested by scripture. No other self-described authority makes that claim in any kind of defensible or sustainable way. All other claims to self-attestation and authority are shown to be indefensible, unsustainable and false.

Until recently, you have been arguing that believing the Bible was not a precondition, but a conclusion of correct presuppositions, whereas here you seem to be leaning more towards the idea that the truthfulness of Scripture must be assumed before one can have correct views about the world.

My position and argument has not changed. I would be interested in seeing where you got the idea that believing the Bible is a conclusion and not a prerequisite. I have not changed on my claim that if you reject the Bible you reject rationality. Believing the Bible is prerequisite to correct and coherent science.

I have no idea what your motives are, and would not presume to ascertain them. But belief in the inerrancy of Scripture does not come by investigating every single claim of the Bible and deciding on one's own authority whether or not that claim is true. If that's your aim, then it is sadly misguided, futile, and never-ending. There are many areas of the Bible that I've not studied, but when I do study it, it's not to see if it's true, but rather to understand what the living God wants me know and went as far as documenting in order for me to know it. The Bible claims to be God's inerrant and infallible Word, and it answers every philosophical question that can brought to bear on human existence and experience, without contradiction. No other book makes that claim and can do that.

You certainly presumed to know the motives of poor old JackTheSeeker though, didn’t you? I had written that statement just after reading that thread where you attempted to expose his true motives after he had asked a couple of questions about Christianity. I was expecting more of the same brutal treatment, but I have noticed that if someone anticipates what you will do next you seem to take a perverse delight in doing the opposite.

I'm trying to recall who JackTheSeeker is. If I recall correctly, he was affecting neutrality and asking people convince him of which view to believe. The Bible calls this hypocrisy. When someone comes around and pretends to stand equipoised between two views, the Bible says their liars. It's not my presumption or exposure of his true motives, but that of the Bible. I don't normally treat people that way, mainly because most people don't pretend to be "seeking." The Bible says that those who do make this pretense are to be exposed.

How do reconcile your statement that the veracity of Scripture “is the Bible's self-attesting claim. When one investigates those claims, one finds that they are not only true, but that they provide the foundation of all reasoning whatsoever” with your statement that “belief in the inerrancy of Scripture does not come by investigating every single claim of the Bible and deciding on one's own authority whether or not that claim is true”?

"What one finds" and "belief in the inerrancy of Scripture" are not in conflict. There is no reconciliation of the statements necessary. Flesh and blood (investigation) does not convince a person of verity of God's Word. Regeneration does that.

How can you say that you “don't assume the truthfulness and inerrancy of Scripture. It's what the Bible itself claims” if you cannot investigate these claims to see whether or not they are true?

No one says you can't investigate the claims. You just can't do so from a position of hostility toward God's Word without question-begging.

When you say that if one investigates the claims of Scripture, “one finds that they are not only true, but that they provide the foundation of all reasoning whatsoever”, are you talking only about people who already believe in the truthfulness of Scripture?

I'm talking about all people without exception. The problem is that many people would carry out their investigation with hostile motives, which amounts to question-begging, since the very act of investigation tacitly affirms the all-encompassing and necessary truth of scripture: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of true science.

Why is this not assuming the truthfulness of Scripture?

It IS the assumption of the verity of Scripture, and a correct one at that. Even the opponent of Scripture unwittingly supports this assumption, all the while he decries it. That is what makes the rejection of God such an affront to Him. They use HIS logic, HIS creation and HIS scientific method in their every effort to disprove HIS existence, relevance, and righteous demand upon their lives.

How does someone come to believe in the veracity of Scripture if they do not assume it is true beforehand, and cannot investigate its claims to see if they are true until they believe in it? Please, please clear this up for me, because it sounds like sheer absurdity to me.

Do you recognize that you keep shifting between two different subjects? One is the proof of the verity of the Bible, the other is the means by which one comes to believe in its verity. One's belief does not come from examining the proof ("flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee"). The verity of scripture has been proven to many people who still reject it. The Holy Spirit, via regeneration, brings about the confidence and unwavering certitude concerning God's Word. But that doesn't get the unbeliever off the hook for rejecting it, as the Bible's self-attesting claim is irrefragable and exclusively rational.

Contrary to what you might think, people are often uncertain of what they believe, or do not deliberately affirm most of what constitutes their worldview.

I agree with you fully.

So you fully agree that people are often uncertain of what they believe?

Yes, I would say this is universally true. Myself included. There are subjects I've not tackled yet. I frankly haven't given them enough thought to tell you what I believe about them. Take hypnosis, for example. I used to think I understood hypnosis. It turns out that I didn't. So I'm currently reading about it to see if I can understand this phenomenon in light of what Scripture teaches.

I am a pro at making snap judgments, and like you I come across as arrogant and harsh, hyper-critical and opinionated; maybe its the residual effects of the churches I have been a part of, maybe I’m just a cocky bastard.

I think we cocky bastards have a lot to offer the world. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Sometimes I think its because I’m passionate about knowing what is true, and I’m intolerant of irrational self-serving arguments that obscure truth. Actually, no... the cocky bastard idea may have been closer.

Perhaps it takes one to know one.

I did not mean it as a personal insult when I said those things about you in a previous thread, I just think that your complaints that you don’t fit in here and that you are hated by most people on TOL are a gross exaggeration. Put it this way: you are not hated any more than anyone else that disagrees with the prevalent view on this thread that Open Theism is a Biblical idea.

That's very nice of you to say. But if you venture outside the creation/evolution debate arena into the theological areas, you will find hatred of me that supplants the cause of Christ. In other words, there are those who would rather see me lose a debate than to see the gospel advanced.

As far as the “psychic skills” thing goes, again I wrote this after that disturbing JackTheSeeker thread, and you seemed to be starting to make similar judgments about me when you said that my belief in YEC must not have been based on anything solid to begin with.

I can only go by your own words and the words of Scripture. The Scriptures say that belief in its claims are not secured by "flesh and blood" effort, but rather on the solid basis of the Spirit's conviction. So if your faith in God's word was so easily shaken, it must have been based on something other than the Spirit's conviction. It's not an attack against you personally, but rather the conclusion of a logical inference based on your own claims.

As I’ve stated, it was based quite solidly on God’s word, and I’m sure if you had known me personally at the time, you would have been hard-pressed to disagree.

I only make the judgment when the available information warrants it. If I had known you before, and if you had told me that you were questioning the Bible's claim of YEC, I would earnestly show you how the language of Scripture makes it a non-negotiable issue. The earth is young, and no one can claim otherwise and remain consistent with Scripture. If you were to insist on being uncertain about this, I would begin to question the rationality of your belief in other areas as well.

What I am beginning to realize is that your statements about the true condition of other people’s hearts and minds is perhaps not driven so much by conceit as it is by the Biblical proposal that the heart of man is deceitful and desperately sick.

No, you're right. It's my conceit.

I kid.

You are correct that it is indeed the Bible's claim that the heart of man is deceitful and sick, and that ~ with a dash of my own arrogance and conceitedness ~ is what drives my statements about the true condition of not only other people's hearts and minds, but my own heart and mind as well (hence, the arrogance and conceitedness).

If this is the case, I do not agree with the way you interpret or apply scriptures such as these to mean that you can judge the hidden things in people’s hearts, especially in light of Scriptures such as 1 Corinthians 4:5, which says “judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts”.

Again, it's not MY judgment, but that of Scripture. We are told to make righteous and logical judgments about people, in particular, when what is in their hearts are exposed and evident for all to see. Based solely on your statements, I was making a judgment according to what you yourself exposed. If there is other information that contributed to the problem, then my judgment was not fully informed. Again, I can only go on what I know.

Just for the record, I have not made up my mind about many of the issues discussed in this thread. I came here in the vague hope of finding some persuasive arguments in favor of a literal interpretation of Genesis, because I believe that the reliability of Scripture rests largely on issues such as this.

I agree with you, but the language of Genesis is not ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations. If we are understand the text according to a normative interpretation, the days of creation are 24-hour periods. God decided that a day would last 24 hours, comprising an evening and morning. The first day is described in Genesis as Day One (not literally "the first day", according to the meaning of 'echad). Whenever "day" is used with the phrase "evening and morning" it refers to a 24-hour day.

I think it is difficult to claim to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and interpret it with a consistent hermeneutic while at the same time believing the first chapter of Genesis is not to be taken literally.

You're absolutely right.

I do not believe I have an axe to grind; it just seems as if some crucial parts of your argument are inconsistent with other parts.

I'm happy to have the opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings you may have of my argument. I believe that your perception of inconsistency will be resolved once things are made more clear.

However, I can't see how this attitude squares with your belief that people simply interpret evidence to fit their worldview, because it seems to me that if you take the latter approach, you are excluded from genuinely thinking that you may be wrong as you are impervious to evidence.

Hilston wrote: It's not that simple. There is a whole network of beliefs that are brought to bear upon evidence. If a person is a methodological naturalist, they not only summarily dismiss any notion of extra-logical considerations, but there is an entire worldview that underpins that assumption. I've done work for the creationist movement for years. I understand the evidence. I understand the arguments on both sides. I understand how one worldview thinks a certain view of the evidence is compelling and how another worldview thinks a different view of the evidence is compelling. The difference is not in the evidence, but in the worldview. Do you see that?

I do see what you are saying, and I think I fully understand your argument on this point. I agree that worldviews and presuppositions and the limitations of human reason need to be taken into consideration when interpreting evidence and that it is naïve to think that we can assess anything with true objectivity, although I think it is an unwarranted generalization to say that everyone interprets evidence to fit their worldview, seeing as it logically excludes the possibility of all rational discourse and argument.

But it doesn't. First of all, you're suggesting that someone would/could interpret evidence in a way that does not fit their worldview. Can you give an example? Worldviews don't change as the result of rational discourse and argument. When I debate those of opposing worldviews, my goal is not to change them, but to expose their error whilst demonstrating the singular and exclusive rationality of the Biblical view.

Indeed, if you really believed this, I doubt you would bother presenting any of the evidence for your worldview that you have so far.

I really do believe it. And there is no conflict with what I'm doing.

You have not really responded to what I am saying here at all, you have just restated your claim that people interpret evidence to fit their worldviews, something which was included as a premise in what I said. The question implied in my above statement is how do you reconcile the view that people interpret evidence in keeping with their presuppositions with your claim that you allow for the fact that you may be wrong, and you are open to correction?

There is nothing that needs to be reconciled. A person can have a correct worldview and still come to wrong conclusions, either via sloppy thinking and/or erroneous application of the facts (I've been guilty of both). A person can also have a incorrect worldview and come to correct conclusions, albeit irrationally, in spite of it.

Because if you are impervious to evidence that contradicts your worldview, you cannot genuinely think that you may be wrong, ...

If a person has a correct worldview, there will be no evidence to contradict it. Falsely interpreted evidence may appear to contradict it, but once the evidence is correctly understood, apparent contradictions disappear.

... and you have no method for being convinced that you are wrong, ...

I cannot be wrong about the Biblical worldview. But I can still be wrong about a lot of things. Anyone who would try to convince me that the Biblical worldview is wrong would have to account for the very tools with which they attempt to argue (laws of logic, etc.). No one has been able to do that, and the Biblical worldview succeeds on all counts.

... seeing as you will consider any evidence presented against you as a result of your opponents worldview. Could you please answer this question?

If I were to present to you evidence that contradicted your worldview, you would tell me that I've misinterpreted the evidence. I would do the same thing if to you. So where does that get us? We're back to discussing the coherence of worldviews, not the evidence.

Furthermore, when you say that “one worldview thinks a certain view of the evidence is compelling and how another worldview thinks a different view of the evidence is compelling. The difference is not in the evidence, but in the worldview”, I would be interested to know how you interpret a situation in which a person with a particular worldview is convinced by evidence to modify or even totally change their worldview. For example, what about an atheist who converts to Christ on the basis of the historical evidence for the reliability of the Scriptures and the resurrection of Christ?

Excellent example. That would be a case of coming to a correct worldview on the basis of false premises. The false premise is the assumption that history and textual criticism can be a reliable basis of proving the verity of the Bible and the historicity of Christ. The Bible claims to be the ultimate expression of God's mind to man. Therefore, nothing can rationally sit in judgment over it, including historical evidence, lest history be made a more reliable authority than the Bible itself.

Conversely, consider a Christian missionary Bible translator who believes the Bible to be God’s inerrant Word but eventually leaves Christianity because of inconsistencies and discrepancies that he sees in Scripture, not being able to reconcile them with a truthful and consistent God.

Another excellent example. I've seen this happen. In which case, such a person's basis for belief in the Bible must have been something other than the self-attesting testimony of Scripture and the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Or, to make it more personal, please consider my own struggle to understand issues such as the age of the universe in light of the information presented in Genesis. I come from a background of ardent belief that the Bible is God’s Word, and that it is inerrant. I tend to agree with the argument that if the first Chapter of Genesis is arbitrarily allegorized, we might as well allegorize the rest of Genesis, which provides the historical and theological background for the most crucial (pun intended) events in Scripture, and that our confidence in Scripture and ultimately in Christ’s redeeming work is therefore seriously undermined. I am presented with evidence such as the time it takes for the light from the most distant star to reach us, and I find it compelling, but confusing because it contradicts my view that the Earth is 6,000 years old. At this point I can decide that it mustn’t be true because it contradicts my worldview, or I can try to be honest with God and with myself, and consider that perhaps there are elements of my own worldview that need adjusting.

I appreciate your candor, David. Since my starting point is the testimony of Scripture, my immediate reaction is that there are unwarranted assumptions being invoked by those presenting the evidence. God stated His purposes for putting the constellations in the sky. Those purposes did not include using them to ascertain the age of the earth or the universe. I imagine someone standing before God, saying, "I claimed that didn't believe in you because I couldn't reconcile the claims of the Bible with what the scientists were telling me about the speed of light and the size of the universe regarding all the stars in the sky." I imagine God saying in response something like: "I put those stars there and brought their light to earth for the purposes I stated in my Word, not for the scientists to make all those assumptions about where the light came from and how long it took to get there." I imagine the unbeliever replying: "Oh."

How do these considerations square with your belief that people are not convinced to change their worldviews by evidence?

It has to be more than just evidence, because evidence is interpreted in accordance with one's worldview. The very foundation of their thinking must change. The methodological naturalist summarily excludes anything extranatural from consideration in his evaluation of evidence. He has unequivocally dismissed out-of-hand the very notion of anything extranatural being relevant in his science. The very foundation of his thinking must change. Something has to happen that shakes him out of that assumption, and nothing "natural" is going to do it. Consider yourself, for an example. What would convince you to change your worldview?

Also, even though it is against your raison d’etre, I would really appreciate discussing the scientific evidence for the age of the Earth with you, perhaps in another thread, particularly because you have said that you have studied these things for some years. Would you consider this? I am not a scientist, so I should make easy pickings.

Sure, I would consider it. But you may be disappointed by the calibre of discussion you'd get from me regarding the evidence. I'm curious as to specifically why you're interested in this in particular?

In other words, when you say "when I find [my incorrect beliefs about what the Bible teaches,] I'll correct them," how exactly will you find them? How will you become convinced you are wrong? Would you mind more precisely explaining your views in this area?

Hilston replied: Yes. I used to think that the Bible's description of believers identified as "The Body of Christ" was the same "New Covenant Israel." I used to believe that the Body of Christ was the fulfillment of Old Covenant Israel, hence name, New Covenant Israel. I had someone suggest to me otherwise. So I checked it out. I re-evaluated the assumptions I brought to the biblical evidence and found that I was in serious error. Another example concerns the role of angels. I once thought that angels were ministering to believers invisibly, and even though it bothered me deep down that I never saw the kind of angelic activity or presence described in the Bible, I decided that I would believe it because the Bible seemed to teach that this was the case. Someone suggested to me that I was mistaken, that the angels do not have an active ministry to believers today, and that the reason we do not see or experience their presence is because they no longer have a role in the lives of believers. So I re-evaluated the assumption that I brought to the biblical evidence and discovered, in fact, that I was wrong. The Bible teaches that the angels are not ministering invisibly or otherwise today.

The examples you give of times you have been corrected are both regarding issues of Biblical interpretation, and presumably involve someone in your fellowship whom you respect and admire.

Why the red herring, David? This has nothing to do with people I respect or admire. In fact it was suggested to me by someone I didn't even know at the time. It has to do with what the scriptures affirm, information that is accessible to anyone who cares to study it.

They are derived from your worldview, but could hardly be said to constitute your worldview as you define it.

I didn't say it was.

It would be similar to an evolutionist changing their views from phyletic gradualism to that of puntctual equilibrium; the change is essentially superficial and the basic worldview of evolution remains the same.

So what? I answered your question, which was about how I find out that I hold incorrect beliefs. If you want to know how I went about a worldview change, then the answer lies in my regeneration and subsequent conversion.

What is really relevant to the topic at hand is whether you think it possible that there are elements of your basic worldview that may be wrong. Do you think you might be wrong about anything other than particular interpretations of Scripture, ...

Like what? Maybe I'm wrong about the verity of logic? Or Maybe I'm wrong about the use of language to communicate? What possible "element of my basic worldview" could be wrong? I can't hypothesize a single one. Can you?

... and can anyone other than Christians who share your general worldview present you with evidence you may find compelling?

Who, other than Christians, shares my general worldview? How is that possible? Are you suggesting that some non-Christian who shares my general worldview might present evidence to me that would compel me to change my worldview?

How would you tell if you were wrong about evidence that contradicts your basic worldview?

The biblical worldview is required to even look at, let alone analyze, evidence. No other worldview can coherently make such a claim. There is no evidence that contradicts the Biblical worldview. That's not my own assertion, but rather the claim of scripture.

... but your stubbornness and your attitude that you are right prevents you from being able to accept it, and so when the arguments have been made in a way that you can no longer evade them or throw up smokescreens or muddy the waters, you revert to juvenile taunts and crass insults.

Hilston replied: I'm sure it appeared that way. I assure you -- and you can go back and see for yourself -- that all arguments have been met coherently and soundly by what the Bible says about them. My taunts and crass insults are designed to expose the futility and inanity of anti-Biblical worldviews. Jesus did it. Paul did it. We are to follow biblical examples and that's what I've tried my best to do. My insults were crass, yes; but juvenile? Hardly.

Ironically, though, your statement here that “there comes a point where there argument has been made and understood, and the opponent starts grasping for other alternatives, trying other angles” could be just as easily be levelled against you by mighty_duck and Co., with the difference that the only other angle you have at your disposal seems to be crass insults.

Let them make the charge. It is irrelevant because they cannot justify even their use of sentences, let alone accounting for any kind of value judgment they might bring to bear upon anything whatsoever concerning my behavior.

On that topic, let me also point out that Jesus and Paul were of a somewhat different order than James Hilston. Jesus may have done it, and Paul may have done it, but that does not mean you can do it.

We are commanded to follow their examples. If God did not intend for us to use the same apologetic methods as Biblical personalities, then He would not have given the exhortation to study and apply those examples.

The Bible says Jesus is the Son of God, and although he may have insulted his opponents, he warned that anyone who says “you fool!” will be in danger of the fire of hell.

This is irrelevant to this discussion. Do you even know what Jesus meant by this? Do you realize that Paul himself calls his readers "fools" in 1Co 15:36? Do you believe Paul was in danger of the fire of hell for writing this? If you want to discuss the teachings of Scripture on behavioral issues, you really should start another in the "Christian Living" forum or something.

If Jesus jumped off a ten story bridge, would you do it too?

The Bible says that Jesus would not do such a thing. It's fascinating that you chose such an example. Lucifer attempted to taunt Jesus to do this very thing, and He refused. Lu 4: 9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence: 10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: 11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. 12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

The Bible says Paul is an Apostle of God who penned most of the New Testament, in which he has certainly bandied around a few crass insults, but he says that “the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone… those who oppose him he must gently instruct” ...

And that same man confronted Peter in public (Gal 2), to his face, and was not gentle at all. Again, if you want to discuss behavioral concerns, this is not the place. I could be the most evil person to walk the face of the earth (some here on TOL think so), and that still does not get you off the hook for rejecting God's written testimony.

... and “in your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us”. Do as I say, not as I do? Maybe. When you claim you are following the Biblical model by crassly insulting those with whom you don’t agree, you again sound like you fit right in on TOL, as most of the base insults lobbed by Christians in these forums usually end up with some kind of disgusting self-righteous gloss smeared over them.

You clearly don't understand the scriptures you are quoting; nor do you understand the difference between substantive insult and ad hominem fallacies. The kind of insults you read by the typical TOL zealot are neither substantive nor purposeful. They amount to petty name-calling and pathetic whining. My insults have both substance and purpose and are carefully measured. And again, you're off-topic.

Do you really want to argue that crassly insulting those who don’t believe you is the Biblical idea of the Christian life, or would you rather relegate this behavior to the human foibles of James Hilston?

It's irrelevant.

By the way, most people consider crass insults to be very juvenile.

The only opinion that matters is that expressed in Scripture. If Jesus and Paul used crass insults to instruct, that suffices to show that crass insults are not juvenile, but biblical when they are appropriate. Most TOLers don't know the difference.

Hilston, I don't know if you are really having trouble understanding or not. I am leaning towards the view that you could understand if you let yourself entertain the idea that you might be wrong.

Hilston asked: OK, what are you suggesting I could be wrong about?

Your entire worldview.

It's not possible for the Biblical worldview to be false. Many here have suggested otherwise, and not one of them has been able to coherently sustain such a claim.

Sooner or later though, you will need to either give up your attempt to neatly wrap up the mysteries of God and the paradox of human experience in a tidy little bundle, or leave them as they actually are: mystery and paradox.

Hilston asked: Please give me an example of a mystery or paradox I should be willing to accept.

Okay, how about the mystery of the Triune God? Care to explain how someone can exist as three persons in one and one person in three?

As a finite being, I can't comprehend, let alone explain, the Infinite. Moses wrote to Israel (in De 29:29) "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." The same principle applies here. What God has kept secret is not available to or accessible by us. But that which He has revealed is comprehensible and logical and capable of being put into tidy little bundles.

How about Jesus being simultaneously 100% God and 100% human? How does he do that? How about the mystery of eternality? Can you make that a bit less mysterious for me? How about the union between Christ and his Bride? How about the tension between predestination and human responsibility? How about the idea of an impartial God who chooses a special people for salvation and condemns all others, even though all are equally deserving of punishment? Perhaps you’ve got this one all figured out. How about the huge gap between our own concept of justice (which is apparently derived from God’s nature) and God’s idea of justice as eternal punishment? You believe the only way of salvation is through Christ don’t you? What about all the unsaved who have never heard of Jesus? What happens to babies who die in the womb without having heard of Jesus? As far as I can tell, in your own view most of these are things Christians should be willing to accept, and I would be very impressed if you can show how they are not mysterious and paradoxical. If you’ve got the answers, don’t keep them to yourself! Perhaps you could post them on your ministry’s website, or teach a course on them. Please be specific, and trite answers need not apply.

I have biblical answers for all of these. But how is any of this relevant to this discussion? Do you really want to know the answers? Where the Bible gives answers, we are commanded and obligated to rationally process and comprehend those answers. Where the answers are kept secret, we are to trust that God is working all things together for good for those who are the called. The source of logic and knowledge, the uniformity of nature, and God's meticulous control of all creation are answers that are revealed for us to know. There is no excuse or warrant for believing in an old earth cosmogony.

That doesn’t make your attitude right though.

My attitude is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not you will yield your thinking to God's Word.

It’s pretty easy to get a bunch of categories for people based on what you believe and then force everybody into the category you think they belong in, but it’s also pretty arrogant and cruel.

You're again confusing some notion of MY view with what the Bible teaches. It is the Bible that categorizes people and describes where they belong. You can read it for yourself. You can leave me out of it altogether.

You are not God, you do not judge the hearts and minds, you are in no position to make such statements, and one day you might feel pretty embarrassed for having done so.

This is all irrelevant. I don't know your heart or mind. All I have are your words. Your words give evidence to what you believe and the basis for those beliefs. If I make an error in judgment, it isn't because I presumed to read your mind or heart, but because I misinterpreted your words, or you misspoke. How is any of this relevant to this discussion?

I am not willing to sacrifice rationality, but I have never been a friend of rationalism. You believe in meta-arguments, do you believe in meta-rationale? For the record, let me say that I am willing to sacrifice what seems rational to me in order to know the Truth.

The purpose of meta-arguments and meta-anything is to avoid question-begging. Do you believe there is such a thing as "the Truth"?

Hilston wrote: Are you following the One-On-One between SUTG and me? The subject is not dead, and if you think SUTG raised points that I have not answered, I'm sure that they'll come up again in that debate. Or perhaps you can remind him.

I saved your discussion with SUTG to my hard drive, but have not gotten around to reading it yet. Perhaps I will read it when I get home from holidays.

Have you now read my One_on_One with SUTG?

Jim
(Hear the latest rockin' tune by James Hilston, Angry Rockstar)

 

[Balder]

Did he just call that a "conversation"? What Balder calls "bail[ing] out" of a "conversation" I call freeing myself from an endless quagmire of hopeless confusion and veiled contradiction.

Well, not everyone has the difficulties with comprehension that you appeared to have with regard to my posts. Mighty_duck didn't agree with me on a number of issues, for instance, but he didn't appear to get so lost or confused.

You set up and attacked a number of straw men in our debate. You also have made several references to contradictions, but have never been able to point any out. :think: You should back up your criticisms with facts, or stop making them.

 

[koban]

Chilli - might I suggest you save yourself some time and go directly to :mock:Hilston ? :think:

 

[fool]

Wow, that Hilston can sure make a long post.
I think that last one could be a book.

 

[koban]

Wow, that Hilston can sure make a long post.
I think that last one could be a book.

And think of the time he could have saved if he'd just condensed it:

I'm right. You're wrong. :nananana:

At least he left off the gay little "stylish" tag lines at the end. :BRAVO:

 

[Chilli]

Chilli - might I suggest you save yourself some time and go directly to :mock:Hilston ? :think:

Nah, I still like Hilston... I like your mockings too!

 

[Chilli]

Wow, that Hilston can sure make a long post.
I think that last one could be a book.

Yeah, but give him a break... half his post is quotes from my previous post.

It gives me something to do tonight anyway...

 

[Yorzhik]

A bit off the current topic, but a person that I haven't been able to get to think about his position took a look at BRIX; finally started reading it at my request And now he walks around with a furrow in his brow. When I ask him about it he just gives me this, "I'm thinking about it, I'll let you know when I'm done." It definitely didn't fit the mold of the normal biblical/philosophical discussion.

 

[Spenser]

They don't even get it. And what they get of it, they misapply. It's really quite pathetic. What's worse is how self-impressed they are, not to mention all the self-congratulation, back-patting and internal kudos they all give each other.

Where the hell do they do that? Don't answer, I am not allowed to discuss other sites anymore, been banned a few times now. But do realize you are stating this on a site that has reputation and medals.

They're not "our" rules. They're God's rules. And yes, it is a rigged game. If you play, you have no choice on which rules to follow. The rules are set and non-negotiable. If you don't play, you can try to ignore the rules, but you do so at the expense of rationality.

Everyone read this quote carefully, he is admitting the argument is rigged. It is a semantic game in which the assertion God can be used as the unexplained explanation for everything.

Other than an incredibly wordy reply filled with hollow rhetoric and the typical assertion that no one understands the TAG, think about this for a second. If the TAG is indeed false, imagine how silly all that crap you just said about it does actually look. Now, that said, I wish to ask if you have a post here or a website or something in which you present your version of the TAG argument in whole? I'd love to read it carefully and perhaps, to your wishes, better understand it...

 

[Spenser]

I'd like to note that the TAG heavily bases itself on the Impossibility of the Contrary (IoC). I brought up an argument with Clete and watched him beat down a strawman twice. So James, can you prove that Solipsism is not possible? If you can't, TAG fails.

Solipsism is logically coherent, but not falsifiable, so it is not testable by current modes of the scientific method.

emphasis mine

 

[noguru]

Well, not everyone has the difficulties with comprehension that you appeared to have with regard to my posts. Mighty_duck didn't agree with me on a number of issues, for instance, but he didn't appear to get so lost or confused.

You set up and attacked a number of straw men in our debate. You also have made several references to contradictions, but have never been able to point any out. :think: You should back up your criticisms with facts, or stop making them.

I gave up reading Hilston's post after this debate with Stratnerd. Hilston is very good at using a lot of words with a seemingly erudite style to say little or nothing. In other words he builds up the tension with by creating the hope that he has something very enlightening to offer. You wade through all his superfluous text. Only to find that there is no pot of gold at the end of his rainbow. Hilston is either deusional or downright rude to make such posts. You know the saying;

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with :cow: ureX:."

 

[noguru]

I gave up reading Hilston's post after this debate with Stratnerd. Hilston is very good at using a lot of words with a seemingly erudite style to say little or nothing. In other words he builds up the tension by creating the hope that he has something very enlightening to offer. You wade through all his superfluous text. Only to find that there is no pot of gold at the end of his rainbow. Hilston is either delusional or downright rude to make such posts. You know the saying;

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with :cow: ureX:."

 

[noguru]

My edit function is gone.