Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

willhud9 vs Byron. Formal debate comment thread

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#141  Postby Mick » Oct 04, 2013 11:20 pm

Moses de la Montagne wrote::this:

Excellent post.

Rumraket wrote:Rarefied? Try archaic, primordial, protoplanetary.


Right. I don't know precisely what the word is for it, but it reads like complete gibberish to the uninitiated.



Right, to the uninitiated. That is the same in linguistics, physics, and virtually any other discipline. That is kind of a "well, duh."
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#142  Postby Rumraket » Oct 04, 2013 11:21 pm

Mick wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Rarefied? Try archaic, primordial, protoplanetary.

It says a lot about the case for god belief that the only way to construct a rational defense of it is for years on end to study archaic philosophical gibberish of no use or value for anything else*. And this is generously assuming for the sake of argument that the defense of god belief offered by the likes of Mick is a rational one.

* And I have tried asking Mick multiple times now, about some of his more obscure philosophical notions surrounding things such as "forms"(and what he can do with it and what it can teach us, if anything at all), "immaterial efficient causes", "essentially ordered" and "intermediate causes" and so on, apparently in vain.

From the outside it all smells like the deliberate cherrypicking of a collection of philosophical notions with the specific goal of constructing a philosophical system for apologetic purposes alone. There's nothing that lends any credence to taking on the foundational premises of Mick's philosophy, it was all constructed with the explicit goal of providing a means to do christian apologetics.
Teams of theologicans and apologists have been scouring the philosophy books of history looking for barely compatible notions and definitions with the explicit goal of constructing some obscure case for the christian god. And still, the best they could come up with was some ludicrous horsehit about "pure actuality" preventing the entirety of existence from suddenly disappearing.

How utterly, utterly laughable and transparent.

To anyone who isn't already deeply psychologically and emotionally convinced that their pet mythology is true, it is laughably ineffective and unconvincing. People see right through it. No, you can't argue god into existence with archaic philosophical definitions.

Blah blah. Debate me. Quit your inflated baloney and debate me.

We're having a debate right now in the other thread, why do you have such a hard time answering questions?

By the way, I have already suggested debate topics, but you're afraid to shoulder your burden of proof.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#143  Postby Rumraket » Oct 04, 2013 11:22 pm

Mick wrote:
Moses de la Montagne wrote::this:

Excellent post.

Rumraket wrote:Rarefied? Try archaic, primordial, protoplanetary.


Right. I don't know precisely what the word is for it, but it reads like complete gibberish to the uninitiated.



Right, to the uninitiated. That is the same in linguistics, physics, and virtually any other discipline. That is kind of a "well, duh."

You spend so much time answering posts like these, and so little answering substantive questions that actually probe your philosophy and it's foundations. Why is that, Mick?
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#144  Postby Mick » Oct 04, 2013 11:30 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Mick wrote:
Moses de la Montagne wrote::this:

Excellent post.

Rumraket wrote:Rarefied? Try archaic, primordial, protoplanetary.


Right. I don't know precisely what the word is for it, but it reads like complete gibberish to the uninitiated.



Right, to the uninitiated. That is the same in linguistics, physics, and virtually any other discipline. That is kind of a "well, duh."

You spend so much time answering posts like these, and so little answering substantive questions that actually probe your philosophy and it's foundations. Why is that, Mick?



Because I type on my phone.

I dedicated myself to a whole debate for that. Your team ran away. You can take his place.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#145  Postby Mick » Oct 04, 2013 11:31 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Mick wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Rarefied? Try archaic, primordial, protoplanetary.

It says a lot about the case for god belief that the only way to construct a rational defense of it is for years on end to study archaic philosophical gibberish of no use or value for anything else*. And this is generously assuming for the sake of argument that the defense of god belief offered by the likes of Mick is a rational one.

* And I have tried asking Mick multiple times now, about some of his more obscure philosophical notions surrounding things such as "forms"(and what he can do with it and what it can teach us, if anything at all), "immaterial efficient causes", "essentially ordered" and "intermediate causes" and so on, apparently in vain.

From the outside it all smells like the deliberate cherrypicking of a collection of philosophical notions with the specific goal of constructing a philosophical system for apologetic purposes alone. There's nothing that lends any credence to taking on the foundational premises of Mick's philosophy, it was all constructed with the explicit goal of providing a means to do christian apologetics.
Teams of theologicans and apologists have been scouring the philosophy books of history looking for barely compatible notions and definitions with the explicit goal of constructing some obscure case for the christian god. And still, the best they could come up with was some ludicrous horsehit about "pure actuality" preventing the entirety of existence from suddenly disappearing.

How utterly, utterly laughable and transparent.

To anyone who isn't already deeply psychologically and emotionally convinced that their pet mythology is true, it is laughably ineffective and unconvincing. People see right through it. No, you can't argue god into existence with archaic philosophical definitions.

Blah blah. Debate me. Quit your inflated baloney and debate me.

We're having a debate right now in the other thread, why do you have such a hard time answering questions?

By the way, I have already suggested debate topics, but you're afraid to shoulder your burden of proof.



No, the issue there is that youre reluctant to share any burden of proof.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#146  Postby Rumraket » Oct 04, 2013 11:33 pm

That's because I don't have any, I'm not the one making claims, I'm the one who needs to be convinced. That's just how reason works.

Really, that excuse of your's is just piss fucking poor.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#147  Postby Mick » Oct 04, 2013 11:42 pm

Rumraket wrote:That's because I don't have any, I'm not the one making claims, I'm the one who needs to be convinced. That's just how reason works.

Really, that excuse of your's is just piss fucking poor.


What you wanna do is sit back and poke holes. That is absurdly easy. It is harder to defend Something. You don't win chess by not making a move.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#148  Postby Mick » Oct 04, 2013 11:44 pm

Rumraket wrote:That's because I don't have any, I'm not the one making claims, I'm the one who needs to be convinced. That's just how reason works.

Really, that excuse of your's is just piss fucking poor.



When you want to debate something substantial, and actually take a stand on an issue, let me know.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#149  Postby Rumraket » Oct 04, 2013 11:47 pm

Mick wrote:
Rumraket wrote:That's because I don't have any, I'm not the one making claims, I'm the one who needs to be convinced. That's just how reason works.

Really, that excuse of your's is just piss fucking poor.


What you wanna do is sit back and poke holes. That is absurdly easy. It is harder to defend Something. You don't win chess by not making a move.

Of course, since we're not playing chess but trying to determine what human beings should believe about their own nature and the observational reality that surrounds them, I don't give a shit about that analogy.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#150  Postby Moses de la Montagne » Oct 04, 2013 11:51 pm

Mick wrote:
Moses de la Montagne wrote:I don't know precisely what the word is for it, but it reads like complete gibberish to the uninitiated.



Right, to the uninitiated. That is the same in linguistics, physics, and virtually any other discipline. That is kind of a "well, duh."


Yes, of course, "duh." But the Church is not a gnostic sect for philosophy nerds. What is Feser trying to prove? That Aristotle believed in an unmoved mover and Thomas Aquinas did, too? One ought not need to accept Aristotle in order to accept Christ.

Tertullian wrote:Unhappy Aristotle! who invented for these men dialectics, the art of building up and pulling down; an art so evasive in its propositions, so far-fetched in its conjectures, so harsh, in its arguments, so productive of contentions—embarrassing even to itself, retracting everything, and really treating of nothing! Whence spring those “fables and endless genealogies,” and “unprofitable questions,” and “words which spread like a cancer?” From all these, when the apostle would restrain us, he expressly names philosophy as that which he would have us be on our guard against. Writing to the Colossians, he says, “See that no one beguile you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and contrary to the wisdom of the Holy Ghost.” He had been at Athens, and had in his interviews (with its philosophers) become acquainted with that human wisdom which pretends to know the truth, whilst it only corrupts it, and is itself divided into its own manifold heresies, by the variety of its mutually repugnant sects. What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from “the porch of Solomon,” who had himself taught that “the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart.” Away with all attempts to produce a mottled Christianity of Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic composition! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. For this is our primary faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.


I have learned that Feser, in his book, doesn't scruple to try to prove the Christian god. Why not? Why stop at Aristotle? I can certainly guess why. So I'll wait for volume two. He may be arguing against "the new atheists," but he isn't arguing against Hitchens. "I'm willing to grant all that."
"The vanity of teaching often tempts a man to forget that he is a blockhead." —Lord Halifax
User avatar
Moses de la Montagne
 
Posts: 286
Male

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#151  Postby Rumraket » Oct 04, 2013 11:51 pm

Mick wrote:
Rumraket wrote:That's because I don't have any, I'm not the one making claims, I'm the one who needs to be convinced. That's just how reason works.

Really, that excuse of your's is just piss fucking poor.

When you want to debate something substantial, and actually take a stand on an issue, let me know.

Something substantial? That's good mate.

That forms stuff you were on about a few weeks ago. I remember asking you something about this fella:
561402_666774150010266_1764482830_n.jpg
561402_666774150010266_1764482830_n.jpg (52.77 KiB) Viewed 2650 times


Tell me something substantive about this organism, using your philosophy.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#152  Postby Mick » Oct 05, 2013 12:12 am

It is kinda gross!

Well, presuming that it is a real thing, it is a composite of form and matter. I can't say much about finality, since i haven't made any observations about its behavior. My analysis would be just like yours except more robust and not limited to mechanics. My philosophy would aim to explain how it is that it has any properties, why it sustains its properties Rather than not, etc.. I can't say much, since I have not got a clue what it is.
Christ said, "I am the Truth"; he did not say "I am the custom." -- St. Toribio
User avatar
Mick
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 7027

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#153  Postby Rumraket » Oct 05, 2013 12:20 am

Mick wrote:It is kinda gross!

I've heard it said it's kinda cute! :lol:

Mick wrote:Well, presuming that it is a real thing, it is a composite of form and matter. I can't say much about finality, since i haven't made any observations about its behavior.

If you require observations to inform your understanding of this organism, aren't you really just doing empirical science?

How does the concept of finality fit in with evolution?

Mick wrote:My analysis would be just like yours except more robust and not limited to mechanics. My philosophy would aim to explain how it is that it has any properties, why it sustains its properties Rather than not, etc..

Why haven't this approach won over in the sciences if it's supposedly more robust? (whatever that means).

Mick wrote:I can't say much, since I have not got a clue what it is.

It's a Scotoplane, or Sea Pig.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13212
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#154  Postby Scar » Oct 05, 2013 11:10 am

Mick wrote:
Rumraket wrote:That's because I don't have any, I'm not the one making claims, I'm the one who needs to be convinced. That's just how reason works.

Really, that excuse of your's is just piss fucking poor.



When you want to debate something substantial, and actually take a stand on an issue, let me know.



Oh look, more apologist troll tactics. Want some of Craig's cake? :lol:
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 34
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#155  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 05, 2013 11:12 am

Mick wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Mick wrote:
Scar wrote:

History tells us that no, you can't.


Well I won one debate.

Such a great achievement also, since lobawad apparently couldn't stay around to finish it. :roll:


Yes, well we can differ on the reasons why he didn't stick around.

No we cannot.
Unless you can provide a personal statement from lobawad that he quit because he couldn't win.
Otherwise you're just disengenuously insinuating, though that would be par for the course.

Mick wrote:He had the opportunity to respond to my opening statement in his last post, but yet he didn't. He also had the chance to defend himself in his last post against my most biting criticisms, but he did not.When did he -or you- think he should actually address what I said? He lost that debate. You know it.

Except that he didn't. He couldn't finish it.
Also, as a supposed philsopher, you should know that winning a debate =/= being right/correct about your position.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30942
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#156  Postby Scar » Oct 05, 2013 12:59 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Mick wrote:
Rumraket wrote:
Mick wrote:

Well I won one debate.

Such a great achievement also, since lobawad apparently couldn't stay around to finish it. :roll:


Yes, well we can differ on the reasons why he didn't stick around.

No we cannot.
Unless you can provide a personal statement from lobawad that he quit because he couldn't win.
Otherwise you're just disengenuously insinuating, though that would be par for the course.

Mick wrote:He had the opportunity to respond to my opening statement in his last post, but yet he didn't. He also had the chance to defend himself in his last post against my most biting criticisms, but he did not.When did he -or you- think he should actually address what I said? He lost that debate. You know it.

Except that he didn't. He couldn't finish it.
Also, as a supposed philsopher, you should know that winning a debate =/= being right/correct about your position.


He's no philosopher, he's an apologist.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 34
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#157  Postby THWOTH » Oct 06, 2013 5:05 pm

"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37112
Age: 55

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#158  Postby THWOTH » Oct 08, 2013 10:25 pm

"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37112
Age: 55

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#159  Postby LoneWolfEburg » Oct 10, 2013 8:17 am

Byron demonstrates the full extent of his debating mastery.
LoneWolfEburg
 
Posts: 95

Russia (ru)
Print view this post

Re: Peanut Gallery: Can Christianity Be Rationally Defended?

#160  Postby Moses de la Montagne » Oct 15, 2013 6:28 pm

Will has cost himself in his latest post, by misrepresenting the Eastern Orthodox understanding of hell.

We can see by evaluating Greek and Russian orthodox theologies that not everyone assumed the literalness of these passages.


Generally, Eastern Christians do not share, with Will, the belief that hell is "a separation from God." They posit the exact opposite: that hell is the very presence of God (for those who hate him, that is). Retaining a fair bit of Greek monism, Eastern Christians believe that all things will ultimately return to their source, and that source is God, who is Light. The light of God, for the believer, will be experienced as a blissful illumination, a Beatific Vision. For the unbeliever, who hates God, God's light will be felt as the fires of hell. Whether or not Gehenna is literal is of no consequence to the Greeks and the Russians. The important thing is this: it's eternal torture, and you can choose whichever metaphor you want. There are Eastern icons which aren't too far a cry from Bosch or Dante; Orthodoxy didn't discourage conceptions of hell that Will and NT Wright would disparage as "medieval." Liberal Christians have a tendency mischaracterize the Byzantine view as frequently as they denigrate the Western.

I'm looking forward to Byron's response to Will's bit on predestination. The doctrine of predestination inevitably ends with humans as automatons. You need "prevenient grace" in the first place, in order to accept grace. Then what do you need to accept prevenient grace? Pre-prevenient grace? Fun stuff.
"The vanity of teaching often tempts a man to forget that he is a blockhead." —Lord Halifax
User avatar
Moses de la Montagne
 
Posts: 286
Male

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest