Well, no matter how much I try to deny it, I’m not perfect. Given that, then I have to admit that deep down there is a little pride left in me albeit mixed with a tad bit of righteous indignation.
I guess it’s that pride which makes it important for me that you know how ridiculous the events of last nights “debate” really were. Especially since I’m about to leave out of here for awhile.
Really, I need a break. A “fast”
I’d hate to leave though with a series of God-haters thinking they got the better of me (especially when they really didn’t). I suppose nothing short of me staying and endlessly declaring my position would stifle that sort of talk, but at least maybe I can be sure that SOMEONE knows what really happened.
My argument is simple enough when stated, though it’s taken me almost two and a half years now to grasp it with any depth.
A normal “argument” consists of premises, and a conclusion.
If A, and If B, then C.
IF Socrates is a man, and IF all men are mortal, then Socrates is a mortal.
The argument that I utilize, says essentially that it is impossible to make any valid conclusion, unless the Christian God is one of your premises.
When fully understood, this line of philosophy, allows me to tell the God-hater, that they cannot reason, think, use logic, science, or rationality of any kind, since they can only do so, if they utilize the Christian God as one of the premises of their statements.
The “hard part” of the argument, is being able to look at any given statement of fact that an unbeliever may make, (or any argument) and looking at the explicitly stated premises and ALL the implicit ones as well, and demonstrating that they cannot be true, without the truth of the Christian God.
Pointing this out to a rational, open minded person, is quite easy. Demonstrating it to a God-hater though, has proven a little more difficult, (although fun at times.)
If Socrates is a man, and IF all men are mortal….
Those are the EXPLICIT premises of the argument. But, there are MANY implicit ones, including the Christian God. You have to know what a man is, you have to know what a “Socrates” is. You have to know what “mortal” is, and you have to know that ALL (whatever that means) men are indeed mortal.
Looking at even just ONE of those implied premises, (ALL men are mortal for example) shows, that the person using this as one of his / her premises, must also have some premise that would allow for them to know that “all” men are mortal.
Looking at a particular man, and generalizing from him, that ALL men are mortal, is an inductive inference.
Well, if they want to use the validity of inductive inferences as one of their premises, then, we need to look at what implied premises must be true, in order for inductive inferences to be valid.
For inductive inferences to be valid, (or at best, “strong”) then, reality has to be consistent. If we are to know that, “ALL MEN ARE MORTAL” then, we need to know that our observations of ONE man will be consistent when applied to all other men.
The ONLY way for anyone to present the uniformity of nature as one of their premises, is by relying on their eternal creator and sustainer Jesus Christ, who keeps reality uniform. If they have no philosophical system, which can account for the uniformity of nature, then they cannot utilize it as a premise to support induction. If they cannot support induction, then they cannot support their explicit premise that ALL men are mortal. If they cannot support the premise that ALL men are mortal, then the argument is not valid.
This is just one example. You can dissect ANY of a persons foundational assumptions and show that they cannot account for them in any valid way, and so they cannot make valid conclusions based off of them.
I tried to condense that as much as possible, to save you from having to read a book worth of writing. You don’t have to agree with the above argument though, in order to see how ridiculous and ludicrous last nights “debate” really was.
I asserted that, it is impossible to make a valid argument, without utilizing the Christian God as one of your premises.
Jason, (the guy who was challenging his creator) not surprisingly, denied this claim. In an effort to prove my argument wrong, he attempted to pose a valid argument that did not utilize the Christian God as one of his premises.
Now, in an effort to avoid my attempts at dissecting his particular argument, (in order to examine his implied premises to show that the Christian God really WAS assumed by Jason to make his argument valid…) he stated his argument using a symbolic method of logical symbolism that is commonly taught in logic courses.
Now, for the purposes of logic, it’s great to know this symbolic method of writing arguments, however for my argument, it was irrelevant. He stated his argument in a language that he knew I would not be able to understand, so that he could have the double glee of avoiding my critique, and ridiculing me for not knowing this logical “language” at the same time.
It’s like…debating about the nation of France and your opponent starts speaking French to prove that France must be superior, since you are not able to understand the language.
For the purposes of my argument, it doesn’t matter how the God-hater states his argument. It could be in plain English or French, or logical symbolism, or whatever.
So, to claim that his argument was not utilizing the Christian God as one of its premises, and was still valid, solely on the basis that he stated it in a way that I could not critique it (or so he thought) is a blatant form of dishonest question begging.
Combine this dishonesty, with a few insults, and a quiz about random, unrelated logical terms, and an exhausted, stressed out Shotgun tends to get “pwnd.”
I am just happy knowing that, my argument wasn’t even approached; it was only sidestepped, and arbitrarily begged.
I could compare this entire exchange to a “Where’s Waldo” experience.
If I gave someone the book, and told them, that Waldo is in there somewhere, and they vehemently deny this fact, while demanding that I point Waldo out to them (all the while covering Waldo with their thumb) then, there isn’t much I can do, other than, keep harping on their own dishonesty.
Unfortunately, I didn’t have the patience last night to continue insisting on honesty.
Thanks for being a breath of fresh air, in this putrid trash heap of reason.
No matter how covered in the mud I get, your steadfastness in the service to our God is a constant source of inspiration to me, and I’ll not likely forget about it in the years to come (nor will I likely achieve it.)