Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Apparently Theo is an atheist
He said -"The world right now is not 100% good, but it is not the world God created. "
Wait what? God didn't create this world? What the fuck does that mean Theo? This world was created by Allah? Something else created this world? It was brought about by natural selection and random processes? Give me a fucking break, you just keep making it more and more entertaining to troll you, I can never expect what sort of ridicules things you will say next.
On a side note, I was completely incorrect in my previous blog when I said that Plantinga and Craig are theistic evolutionists, apparently Plantinga is weak a supporter of ID, and Craig claims to be agnostic on the issue. My reasoning for thinking this is that Plantinga and Craig have both presented arguments that evolution is not compatible with naturalism, and that theism is. I misunderstood their position. Craig in particular has frequently said that nothing about his philosophy contradicts mainstream science as you can see in the video above, so I made the bold, and poorly placed, assumption that he was a theistic evolutionist. My bad.
See I can admit my mistakes :D
Wait what? God didn't create this world? What the fuck does that mean Theo? This world was created by Allah? Something else created this world? It was brought about by natural selection and random processes? Give me a fucking break, you just keep making it more and more entertaining to troll you, I can never expect what sort of ridicules things you will say next.
On a side note, I was completely incorrect in my previous blog when I said that Plantinga and Craig are theistic evolutionists, apparently Plantinga is weak a supporter of ID, and Craig claims to be agnostic on the issue. My reasoning for thinking this is that Plantinga and Craig have both presented arguments that evolution is not compatible with naturalism, and that theism is. I misunderstood their position. Craig in particular has frequently said that nothing about his philosophy contradicts mainstream science as you can see in the video above, so I made the bold, and poorly placed, assumption that he was a theistic evolutionist. My bad.
See I can admit my mistakes :D
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
I am an incompetent atheist.
Finishing up my little back and for with Theo and the Truth In Fisting Blog, I figure I have little left to say at this point. Theo has constantly accused me of all sorts of intellectual foolishness, yet he's not done a great deal to prove his point.
Theo has however, expressed that he is a creationist. Something, that while I could of guessed it, should of guessed, I was not willing to sling that mud with out first having the knowledge that I was correct. Well I was correct. Creationism, in any form - I.D. - young earth creationism, is an intellectually dishonest tactic.
This is evidenced by the fact that virtually no major apologist endorses it, in fact the vast majority of Christians do not endorse it either. Creationism, while certainly a loud mouth as of late, is about as prevalent among Christians as a whole, as Holocaust denial is among Germans. Well perhaps creationism is slightly more prevalent than Holocaust denial, but there is virtually no major Christian philosophers who hold the position, just morons like Ray Confort and Kent Hovind, that many Christians despise.
Creationism stands at extreme odds with everything else we know about the world and the universe, and is a position that may only be held by the ignorant and the deceitful.
It's with this defense via creationism that Theo expresses his lack of contemporary Christian philosophy. There is a very real movement of Christian philosophers out there, people like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga. These philosophers are on the cutting edge of what Christian philosophy has to say about it's self, and while I don't agree with them, I don't think of them as dishonest or anti-intellectual. I cannot say the same about either Theo or his positions.
If Theo had bothered to study what contemporary Christian philosophy had to say about the problem of evil, he may be able to formulate some interesting arguments; but he hasn't and so he cannot.
Theo says that a world with the possibility of evil is not the same as a world with the actuality of evil. While this statement may be true if the creator of such a world was not the greatest possible being, the creator he argues for is the greatest possible being. Theo seems to be arguing for some bumbling idoit of a God, one who simply could not foresee the possible consequences of his creations. But this being has maximal possible knowledge, so even if he didn't know exactly what the future would be like, something theisticly add odds with dozens of bible versus, he would still be able to know what the probabilistic future of the world would be. He would know that placing a tree of good and evil, and a talking snake, in his so called paradise would lead to the fall with absolute certainty, most specially if the creatures he placed there had no knowledge of good and evil, and thus could not possibly know they had sinned. If God creates a world with the possiblity of evil, God has created a world knowing that evil exist in this world.
This is why, as I have said in previous blog posts addressed to the much more intellectually challenging and thoughtful Steven, that if Christianity is true, than supralapsarianism is most likely true. I doubt that Theo even knows what this word means, or for that matter what it entails. But the fact remains that this is by far the most honest interpretation, at least in my own opinion, of Christian theology.
God created the world. The world has evil in it. God created the world with evil in it, even it was instantly present, it was inherit and absolute in accordance with the creation of the system. Had god made a world that evil wasn't possible, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Theo makes the silly claim that we have free will in heaven and there is no sin there. Theo, why then did Lucifer conduct himself in the most sinful of ways in heaven, thus resulting in his explusion? This is a non-sense explanation that you cannot further elaborate on, because you know reading this that you misspoke.
Theo accuses me of "quote mining" though he is misusing the fallacy here. I think he means that I am making a straw man of his argument, which while basically the same thing, is not in the way that he is using it. You cannot quote mine some one you are debating if the quote you use is in context and about the topic you are debating, and from the same debate. When I used Theo's example, I used it with the near exact wording and in the exact same context that he did. I didn't change the meaning of put it out of context. He claims that all analogies break down, what does this mean? He admits the failure of this analogy, yet he continues to use it for the rest of the post? The analogy was a poor one, a good analogy won't break down. Your failure to defend your analogy, your admission that it does work, it only an admission that your own viewpoint doesn't work.
Theo further more demonstrated that he actually did not understand my logical poe argument, at all. Syllogistically stated it goes like this:
1. God is the greatest possible good.
2. If God is the greatest possible good and he does not create, then there will only be the greatest possible good.
3. If God creates, then there would not be the greatest possible good.
4. Either God creates or God does not create.
5. Therefore, either there is the greatest possible good or there is not the greatest possible good.
6. If God exists, then he would choose the greatest possible good.
7. There is not the greatest possible good.
8. Therefore, God does not exist.
Theo cannot tell me which premise is wrong with this argument, hell he cannot even re-state this argument in a meanful way.
Watch his two videos to me, and please feel free to let both of us know what you think about them:
Theo, it's been fun, but you're a long ways a way from being an interesting apologist.
Theo has however, expressed that he is a creationist. Something, that while I could of guessed it, should of guessed, I was not willing to sling that mud with out first having the knowledge that I was correct. Well I was correct. Creationism, in any form - I.D. - young earth creationism, is an intellectually dishonest tactic.
This is evidenced by the fact that virtually no major apologist endorses it, in fact the vast majority of Christians do not endorse it either. Creationism, while certainly a loud mouth as of late, is about as prevalent among Christians as a whole, as Holocaust denial is among Germans. Well perhaps creationism is slightly more prevalent than Holocaust denial, but there is virtually no major Christian philosophers who hold the position, just morons like Ray Confort and Kent Hovind, that many Christians despise.
Creationism stands at extreme odds with everything else we know about the world and the universe, and is a position that may only be held by the ignorant and the deceitful.
It's with this defense via creationism that Theo expresses his lack of contemporary Christian philosophy. There is a very real movement of Christian philosophers out there, people like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga. These philosophers are on the cutting edge of what Christian philosophy has to say about it's self, and while I don't agree with them, I don't think of them as dishonest or anti-intellectual. I cannot say the same about either Theo or his positions.
If Theo had bothered to study what contemporary Christian philosophy had to say about the problem of evil, he may be able to formulate some interesting arguments; but he hasn't and so he cannot.
Theo says that a world with the possibility of evil is not the same as a world with the actuality of evil. While this statement may be true if the creator of such a world was not the greatest possible being, the creator he argues for is the greatest possible being. Theo seems to be arguing for some bumbling idoit of a God, one who simply could not foresee the possible consequences of his creations. But this being has maximal possible knowledge, so even if he didn't know exactly what the future would be like, something theisticly add odds with dozens of bible versus, he would still be able to know what the probabilistic future of the world would be. He would know that placing a tree of good and evil, and a talking snake, in his so called paradise would lead to the fall with absolute certainty, most specially if the creatures he placed there had no knowledge of good and evil, and thus could not possibly know they had sinned. If God creates a world with the possiblity of evil, God has created a world knowing that evil exist in this world.
This is why, as I have said in previous blog posts addressed to the much more intellectually challenging and thoughtful Steven, that if Christianity is true, than supralapsarianism is most likely true. I doubt that Theo even knows what this word means, or for that matter what it entails. But the fact remains that this is by far the most honest interpretation, at least in my own opinion, of Christian theology.
God created the world. The world has evil in it. God created the world with evil in it, even it was instantly present, it was inherit and absolute in accordance with the creation of the system. Had god made a world that evil wasn't possible, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Theo makes the silly claim that we have free will in heaven and there is no sin there. Theo, why then did Lucifer conduct himself in the most sinful of ways in heaven, thus resulting in his explusion? This is a non-sense explanation that you cannot further elaborate on, because you know reading this that you misspoke.
Theo accuses me of "quote mining" though he is misusing the fallacy here. I think he means that I am making a straw man of his argument, which while basically the same thing, is not in the way that he is using it. You cannot quote mine some one you are debating if the quote you use is in context and about the topic you are debating, and from the same debate. When I used Theo's example, I used it with the near exact wording and in the exact same context that he did. I didn't change the meaning of put it out of context. He claims that all analogies break down, what does this mean? He admits the failure of this analogy, yet he continues to use it for the rest of the post? The analogy was a poor one, a good analogy won't break down. Your failure to defend your analogy, your admission that it does work, it only an admission that your own viewpoint doesn't work.
Theo further more demonstrated that he actually did not understand my logical poe argument, at all. Syllogistically stated it goes like this:
1. God is the greatest possible good.
2. If God is the greatest possible good and he does not create, then there will only be the greatest possible good.
3. If God creates, then there would not be the greatest possible good.
4. Either God creates or God does not create.
5. Therefore, either there is the greatest possible good or there is not the greatest possible good.
6. If God exists, then he would choose the greatest possible good.
7. There is not the greatest possible good.
8. Therefore, God does not exist.
Theo cannot tell me which premise is wrong with this argument, hell he cannot even re-state this argument in a meanful way.
Watch his two videos to me, and please feel free to let both of us know what you think about them:
Theo, it's been fun, but you're a long ways a way from being an interesting apologist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
