More fundamentalist christian dishonesty

     I see that Dan is following Sye’s tactic of asking “do you concede that an omnicient, omnipotent being could reveal something to us in such a way that we could be certain?”  The answer, of course, is “no.”  Now, I would like to clarify.  Some people think that omnipotence requires the ability to do logically contradictory things like creating a square circle.  Such a being is logically impossible and cannot exist.  I will, therefore, only deal with the consideration of omnipotence as be the ability to do anything that is logically possible.

     An omnipotent being could “reveal” a lie to someone and manipulate his mind so that he considered himself certain that the lie was true.  He could further cast illusions that would make the lie seem true on any attempt at independent investigation.  There would be no way to distinguish a true revelation from a false one.  Therefore, there would be no actual certainty.  Genuine certainly in the face of an omnipotent being is logically impossible.  Even the omnipotent being cannot grant it.

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “More fundamentalist christian dishonesty

  1. >> “do you concede that an omnicient, omnipotent being could reveal something to us in such a way that we could be certain?” The answer, of course, is “no.”

    It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain. So thanks for revealing that evidence to us that you are that.

    >> Genuine certainly in the face of an omnipotent being is logically impossible. Even the omnipotent being cannot grant it.

    Are you absolutely certain of this? If so, HOW?

  2. It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain

    So would pretending that we’d know whether our knowledge was true or not (unless we’d been made omniscient).

    Stop hiding from the logical consequences of your script, Dan.

  3. Dan:

         The intellectual dishonesty does not come from me. Perhaps you would like to engage in my argument as a whole, rather than identifying the conclusions, saying they require “intellectual dishonesty” and ignoring how I reached them. Then again, maybe not; fundamentalist christians gotta lie.

  4. >>An omnipotent being could “reveal” a lie to someone and manipulate his mind so that he considered himself certain that the lie was true.

    This “scenario” is impossible for God. As my “script” states:

    Besides, you and I seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’. Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.

    God cannot contradict His own character, as then he would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnipotent and not omnipotent as well (which is absurd, of course).

    It’s also important to note that the ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition.

    So was this the “logical conclusion” you were talking about Wem?

  5. Dan:

         “Besides, you and I seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’. Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible”
         You need to revise your script. In my argument, I specifically excluded the ability to do the logically impossible. And it is definitely a script. You used the same passage verbatim on Alex’s blog.
         “as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of [my god].”
         That part of your claim is in dispute. You need to prove it. Not just claim it.
         “[My god] cannot contradict [its] own character, as then [it] would be able to be both ‘[g]od’ and ‘not [g]od’ at the same time and in the same way, which means [it] could also be both omnipotent and not omnipotent as well (which is absurd, of course).”
         No entity can contradict its own character. Its character is defined by the actions that it takes. However, your god, if it exists, can have a deceptive character.
         You are actually stuck here. Even if your god is real, you have the impossible task of showing that it is not lying to you in its “revelations.” And you have to do better than to say it “revealed” that it is honest. An omnipotent liar could give you the same “revelation.”

  6. As I posted in my debate with Hezekiah, in order to understand anything from God, you’d have to presuppose your autonomous reasoning, so Sye’s attempt at getting around the problem, is simply handwaving.

    “It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain. So thanks for revealing that evidence to us that you are that.”

    As I said here: http://www.debate.org/debates/The-Presuppositional-worldview-cannot-justify-its-knowledge-claims/1/

    Issue 1: Any such experience would require us to make a determination about the experience. What this means is that we have to first presuppose that we are able to trust our reasoning with regards to any sort of experience. If we cannot trust our own ability to reason then how can we trust any conclusions about the experience? What it was, what it means, or whether it is true or not are all activities that we have to engage our reasoning facilities with.

    In a personal correspondence on Sye Ten Bruggencate Facebook wall Sye, a person that Hezekiah has expressed support for, says the following with to the question “How can you be epistemically certain that God has revealed himself to you?”:

    “Because He Has revealed Himself in such a way that we are certain of it”(9)

    Aside from the explanation of how the presuppositionalist can be certain that it was God who gave him this revelation OR what this revelation actually is, the problem remains, whatever revelation that Sye (or Hezekiah) has experienced will have to be interpreted by his cognitive facilities.

    ———-

    Further, you are saying that God has done this with you, yes DAN? If so, then please tell us about this revelation, what exactly is it that makes you certain? How is it different then the revelation that Schlosser had?

  7. >> This he will never do.

    Are you certain of that?

    What part of Natural and Special revelatioof do you not understand?

    Natural (nature, math, space, planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) and Special revelations (Jesus, His resurrection, Scriptures, miracles, etc.)

    So, when you ask “please tell us about this revelation” you’re being nonsensical. But we’re used to it by now.

  8. DAN, you realize that Sye is not referencing either of those “revelations” (hint: both require trusting autonomous reasoning). You aren’t even getting Sye’s argument correct!

  9. So, when you ask “please tell us about this revelation” you’re being nonsensical.

    Ah! A revelation that is fundamentally nonsensical. First honest thing you’ve written in months, Dan. Bravo.

    PS. God could not reveal something you could be absolutely certain of without making you omniscient. To claim otherwise is to reject the very logic you claim to presuppose.

  10. >> God could not reveal something you could be absolutely certain of without making you omniscient.

    Yea, you keep making that claim WITHOUT running through the argument. Make your case or your refusal will be pretty glaring. How do you know this? How do you know, with absolute certainty BTW, that you MUST have omniscience to have a revelation of certainty? Enlighten us.

  11. Dan:

         I have already made the case. An omnipotent being would be able to reveal a lie such that you would think yourself certain. As there is no way to distinguish a true revelation from a false one, certainty is impossible.
         Consider this a warning. I will delete the “how do you know with absolue certainty?” comments in the future. They are dishonest.

  12. DAN, how do you get around consciousness WRT your “revelations”? In order or your (Sye’s) rebuttal to work you need to figure that out. Of course you could take Sye’s intellectually dishonest route and ignore the problem. Your choice.

  13. Dan glurbbled: How do you know this?

    The definition of “certain” your argument depends on.

    Stop running from the logical consequences of your script

  14. Hi All,

    The topic of this thread prompts me to re-post something which I previously addressed to Dan over on Alex’s blog:

    http://anatheistviewpoint.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/dan-accidentally-hoists-himself-on-his-own-petard/#comment-5363

    “Hi again, Dan:

    First, thank you for replying to my post over on your blog. I hope to respond to it at some point in the future.

    Second, you wrote above: “Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God,’ and ”It’s also important to note that the ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition.”

    Given what you’ve written, does this mean you also preclude **learning** and **belief** from the scope of omnipotence (or omniscience)? If you do, do you use the same standard, i.e., that **learning** and **believing** are “logically impossible” and that the “ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition”? Would yo say that learning and believing are contradictions, hence weaknesses?

    Also, would say that your god needs or could have **faith**? Please explain. And what about Satan?

    Also, could you tell me whether or not your god, an omniscient, omnipotent being, would have its knowledge in the form of concepts?

    Also, given your standard above, why wouldn’t **choosing, **planning** and **goals** also be precluded from the scope of omnipotence? Or maybe you do preclude these? Please explain.

    Thanks.

    Ydemoc

    P.S. I was going to open my comment with some small talk about the game you said you had to run off and watch the other evening, but maybe I’ll hold off on doing so until a future post.

    Ydemoc”

    And then on the heels of that, I added:

    “Dan,

    Correction: I see that I may have been mistaken in attributing your above quoted material to something *you* wrote rather than what Sye may have written or said. If so, my bad.

    An attempted answer to my questions would be appreciated, although if you prefer not to, given that the words above may not be yours, I understand.

    Ydemoc”

    ————————————-

    I post this again just in case Dan forgot about what I asked and wants to take a stab at it.

    Additionally, I would like to ask Dan: Does he admit that the concepts “omnipotence” and “omniscience” are extremely troublesome for Christians given the other attributes and actions they assign to their god? If so, how does he get around this difficulty? If he doesn’t consider these concepts troublesome, why not?

    I would like to also like to ask: Dan, would you concede that the notion of god (including the one you worship) is incoherent if it can be shown that the concepts “omnipotence” and “omniscience” have no basis in reality? If you insist that these concepts **do** in fact have a basis in reality and are not merely nonsense terms with no ties whatsoever to reality, on what *rational* understanding of knowledge do you base your claim?

    Thanks.

    Ydemoc

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s