Some people act like they want me to believe that their particular god is real. So, it may be useful for them to ponder the question of what would convince me. Well, one thing that would convince me is if it actually showed up. This seems to confuse a lot of people. I’m not sure why. If it showed up and demonstrated that it has the various abilities you claim for it. I would be quite convinced. There is a caution, though. I have to see it myself. A storybook saying it showed up for someone else 300 years ago isn’t going to cut it.
Another possibility that I would find rather convincing is if the stars were changed to read out “<Name of your god> is real.” Now, for this, I mean for the stars to act like the blobs of ink in newsprint. It must be the pattern of light and dark that allows me to read it. I will not be impressed by games of “connect the dots.”
I can’t think of any other possibilities at the moment. But, if you could display something that would reqire a being like your god to happen, I would be impressed. I am not talking about you saying your god is necessary for something. I must agree in advance that it would require such interference. Don’t bother telling me that your god is a necessary precondition for me thinking.
As can be expected, I have anti-virus software on my computer. For the most part, I like it. It helps keep my computer happy and running. But… I had to override the default settings. It wants to “auto-sandbox” any program file for which the “file prevalence/reputation is low.” Essentially, it wants to “wall off” any program that doesn’t already have a lot of users. As one thing I like to do is write my own software, this poses a bit of a problem. So I had to turn off that particular feature.
Apparently, most people don’t write their own software. It comes as rather a surprise to me, too. As a result, not only were the programs that I was trying to write getting flagged as “suspicious,” the development software that I use was as well.
I also have something of a dream of someday being able to sell licenses to some of the software I write. I realize that that is probably a long-shot anyway. But I don’t need the added hurdle of software spuriously calling it a virus.
I used to treat them under the assumption that they were honest, really believed what they were saying, and genuinely thought they had a good argument. That was a mistake. None of those hold true. For example, the incessant repeating of “how do you know that?” is obvious nonsense. If someone actually failed to see that and was using it in earnest, using the line back at him would enable him to see it. But, as it is inherently dishonest, such users have a meaningless stock phrase that they can use as an answer. They say “because [deception] has revealed it in such a way that we can be certain.” They are, of course, completely non-specific on the nature of this “revelation,” because it is entirely fictitious. They have no revelation. It’s all just one big lie.
Another clue that they are lying is that they will ask you to “account” for reasoning. Such a request is not reasonable as one must use reasoning to account for anything. Reasoning must simply be assumed as a premise. But the deceivers are quite aware that they can cause great frustration in anyone who takes them as genuine.
My loyal readers (crickets chirping) may have noticed Norman’s recent blog post in which he directed some rather nasty insults at an “unnamed” Englishman. Come on, Norman. We all know that you have no sense of decency. You would never have withheld a name if you thought that there was anybody who didn’t know exactly whom you were insulting. Alex just compared Norman’s lies against reality. Norman’s lies didn’t hold up very well.
Well, it seems Norman was not satisfied with the reaction he got. So he says “someone reported” to him that Alex took exception to his post. The reality? Norman scouted Alex’s blog to see if he got the reaction he wanted. He didn’t. So he antagonized a little more saying “this is the intellectual elite? Not bloody likely.” It may surprise Norman to find out that having been insulted by a known pathological iiar like himself is not as damaging to one’s reputation as he might hope.
What can we learn from this? Well, we already know that Norman accuses others of things that are true about himself. So, we find that he begs people for a place to recharge his computer and access to the internet. I find this rather strange because most people can use the computers at the library. He must have been banned. I’m somewhat curious as to what he did to accomplish that. Nobody can stand him for more than a few hours (even his fundamentalist christian “friends.”) Okay, that one is not much of a surprise. He lives in his car. I would have guessed that he was still a youngster and that his parents couldn’t kick him out yet. He is prone to fits of rage (yeah, guessed that from his previous comments, too.) And this has made him unemployable. Admittedly, the economy isn’t helping much either.
He never has. And he never will. Presuppositional Baloney is inherently dishonest. Dishonesty is a requirement for practicing it. Honest people do not advocate practices that they know to be dishonest.
When the facts don’t fit your preconceptions, make stuff up.
Find other angry haters who suspend their thought processes enough to believe you; emotion trumps reason.
Get angrier and louder, hating and ridiculing anyone who dares to actually think enough to disagree with you.
Now, to a large degree, Norman has to rely on the voices in his head for that second one. Still, anyone who has seen enough of Norman is familiar with his use of all three.
Hezekiah Ahaz has decreed that Reynold is “not qualified” to quote the bible. As near as I can determine, the sole basis for this decree is the fact that Reynold quoted passages that Hezekiah doesn’t like.