Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Challenge to scmike2

Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2016 4:01:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Since scmike2 has recently decided to grace us with his daily presence (by hijacking one of my threads) I decided to give him his own thread.

Assertion: scmike2's worldview is self contradictory and thus incoherent.

This assertion will be proven by scmike2's attempts to answer the following questions:

1. HOW do you know that God has revealed himself to you?

2. HOW do you know that scripture is the word of God?

3. Is it possible for you to one day suffer brain damage that would result in you believing that you are living a life you are not actually living? If yes, HOW do you know that this is not the case right now?

Challenge to scmike2: Answer these questions and address relevant followups without attacking the person or the worldview of the person you are talking to (that's what it means to defend your worldview).
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 1:42:54 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 4:01:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 has recently decided to grace us with his daily presence (by hijacking one of my threads) I decided to give him his own thread.

Assertion: scmike2's worldview is self contradictory and thus incoherent.

This assertion will be proven by scmike2's attempts to answer the following questions:

1. HOW do you know that God has revealed himself to you?

2. HOW do you know that scripture is the word of God?

3. Is it possible for you to one day suffer brain damage that would result in you believing that you are living a life you are not actually living? If yes, HOW do you know that this is not the case right now?

Challenge to scmike2: Answer these questions and address relevant followups without attacking the person or the worldview of the person you are talking to (that's what it means to defend your worldview).

Thanks, Double_R! I pass, though, on the grounds that you are asking me to assume a neutral position here with regards to my ultimate authority and to grant that you have a rationally defensible one of your own from which to levy the questions and evaluate the answers at the outset---neither of which is logically possible (as has previously been demonstrated here:

http://www.debate.org...

here:

http://www.debate.org...

and here (for starters):

http://www.debate.org...

I see no logical reason to surrender my fundamental premise that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary--especially not the fact that you happen to really want me to. Can't blame you for trying, though. Priceless!
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 3:24:18 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 1:42:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:01:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 has recently decided to grace us with his daily presence (by hijacking one of my threads) I decided to give him his own thread.

Assertion: scmike2's worldview is self contradictory and thus incoherent.

This assertion will be proven by scmike2's attempts to answer the following questions:

1. HOW do you know that God has revealed himself to you?

2. HOW do you know that scripture is the word of God?

3. Is it possible for you to one day suffer brain damage that would result in you believing that you are living a life you are not actually living? If yes, HOW do you know that this is not the case right now?

Challenge to scmike2: Answer these questions and address relevant followups without attacking the person or the worldview of the person you are talking to (that's what it means to defend your worldview).

Thanks, Double_R! I pass, though, on the grounds that you are asking me to assume a neutral position here with regards to my ultimate authority and to grant that you have a rationally defensible one of your own from which to levy the questions and evaluate the answers at the outset---neither of which is logically possible (as has previously been demonstrated here:

http://www.debate.org...

here:

http://www.debate.org...

and here (for starters):

http://www.debate.org...

I see no logical reason to surrender my fundamental premise that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary--especially not the fact that you happen to really want me to. Can't blame you for trying, though. Priceless!

"One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?"

I have a question.

If something can't be explained, accounted for, etc etc, does that justify "God" as the necessary presupposition for that something ?
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 3:24:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 2:08:39 AM, Double_R wrote:
So you are not capable of defending your worldview. Noted.



No possible rational position to defend it against. Knew it! ; )

Easy, indeed! ><> ><>
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 3:24:18 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/17/2016 1:42:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:01:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 has recently decided to grace us with his daily presence (by hijacking one of my threads) I decided to give him his own thread.

Assertion: scmike2's worldview is self contradictory and thus incoherent.

This assertion will be proven by scmike2's attempts to answer the following questions:

1. HOW do you know that God has revealed himself to you?

2. HOW do you know that scripture is the word of God?

3. Is it possible for you to one day suffer brain damage that would result in you believing that you are living a life you are not actually living? If yes, HOW do you know that this is not the case right now?

Challenge to scmike2: Answer these questions and address relevant followups without attacking the person or the worldview of the person you are talking to (that's what it means to defend your worldview).

Thanks, Double_R! I pass, though, on the grounds that you are asking me to assume a neutral position here with regards to my ultimate authority and to grant that you have a rationally defensible one of your own from which to levy the questions and evaluate the answers at the outset---neither of which is logically possible (as has previously been demonstrated here:

http://www.debate.org...

here:

http://www.debate.org...

and here (for starters):

http://www.debate.org...

I see no logical reason to surrender my fundamental premise that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary--especially not the fact that you happen to really want me to. Can't blame you for trying, though. Priceless!

"One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?"

I have a question.

If something can't be explained, accounted for, etc etc, does that justify "God" as the necessary presupposition for that something ?

If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 3:41:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:24:18 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/17/2016 1:42:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:01:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 has recently decided to grace us with his daily presence (by hijacking one of my threads) I decided to give him his own thread.

Assertion: scmike2's worldview is self contradictory and thus incoherent.

This assertion will be proven by scmike2's attempts to answer the following questions:

1. HOW do you know that God has revealed himself to you?

2. HOW do you know that scripture is the word of God?

3. Is it possible for you to one day suffer brain damage that would result in you believing that you are living a life you are not actually living? If yes, HOW do you know that this is not the case right now?

Challenge to scmike2: Answer these questions and address relevant followups without attacking the person or the worldview of the person you are talking to (that's what it means to defend your worldview).

Thanks, Double_R! I pass, though, on the grounds that you are asking me to assume a neutral position here with regards to my ultimate authority and to grant that you have a rationally defensible one of your own from which to levy the questions and evaluate the answers at the outset---neither of which is logically possible (as has previously been demonstrated here:

http://www.debate.org...

here:

http://www.debate.org...

and here (for starters):

http://www.debate.org...

I see no logical reason to surrender my fundamental premise that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary--especially not the fact that you happen to really want me to. Can't blame you for trying, though. Priceless!

"One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?"

I have a question.

If something can't be explained, accounted for, etc etc, does that justify "God" as the necessary presupposition for that something ?

If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

See the thing is I have seen this game before.

God is claimed to be the only possible explanation. Then when this is question, well how do you explain it ?

In other words, the person thinks if no other "explanation" is offered then God wins by default.

So again my question to you is..."If something can't be explained, accounted for, etc etc, does that justify "God" as the necessary presupposition for that something ?"
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 1:55:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:24:18 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/17/2016 1:42:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:01:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 has recently decided to grace us with his daily presence (by hijacking one of my threads) I decided to give him his own thread.

Assertion: scmike2's worldview is self contradictory and thus incoherent.

This assertion will be proven by scmike2's attempts to answer the following questions:

1. HOW do you know that God has revealed himself to you?

2. HOW do you know that scripture is the word of God?

3. Is it possible for you to one day suffer brain damage that would result in you believing that you are living a life you are not actually living? If yes, HOW do you know that this is not the case right now?

Challenge to scmike2: Answer these questions and address relevant followups without attacking the person or the worldview of the person you are talking to (that's what it means to defend your worldview).

Thanks, Double_R! I pass, though, on the grounds that you are asking me to assume a neutral position here with regards to my ultimate authority and to grant that you have a rationally defensible one of your own from which to levy the questions and evaluate the answers at the outset---neither of which is logically possible (as has previously been demonstrated here:

http://www.debate.org...

here:

http://www.debate.org...

and here (for starters):

http://www.debate.org...

I see no logical reason to surrender my fundamental premise that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary--especially not the fact that you happen to really want me to. Can't blame you for trying, though. Priceless!

"One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?"

I have a question.

If something can't be explained, accounted for, etc etc, does that justify "God" as the necessary presupposition for that something ?

If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

You'll need to support that assertion with evidence.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 9:12:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

Demonstrated only in your own mind...
http://www.debate.org...
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:05:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 3:41:43 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:24:18 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/17/2016 1:42:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:01:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 has recently decided to grace us with his daily presence (by hijacking one of my threads) I decided to give him his own thread.

Assertion: scmike2's worldview is self contradictory and thus incoherent.

This assertion will be proven by scmike2's attempts to answer the following questions:

1. HOW do you know that God has revealed himself to you?

2. HOW do you know that scripture is the word of God?

3. Is it possible for you to one day suffer brain damage that would result in you believing that you are living a life you are not actually living? If yes, HOW do you know that this is not the case right now?

Challenge to scmike2: Answer these questions and address relevant followups without attacking the person or the worldview of the person you are talking to (that's what it means to defend your worldview).

Thanks, Double_R! I pass, though, on the grounds that you are asking me to assume a neutral position here with regards to my ultimate authority and to grant that you have a rationally defensible one of your own from which to levy the questions and evaluate the answers at the outset---neither of which is logically possible (as has previously been demonstrated here:

http://www.debate.org...

here:

http://www.debate.org...

and here (for starters):

http://www.debate.org...

I see no logical reason to surrender my fundamental premise that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary--especially not the fact that you happen to really want me to. Can't blame you for trying, though. Priceless!

"One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?"

I have a question.

If something can't be explained, accounted for, etc etc, does that justify "God" as the necessary presupposition for that something ?

If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

See the thing is I have seen this game before.

God is claimed to be the only possible explanation. Then when this is question, well how do you explain it ?

In other words, the person thinks if no other "explanation" is offered then God wins by default.

So again my question to you is..."If something can't be explained, accounted for, etc etc, does that justify "God" as the necessary presupposition for that something ?"

You're misunderstanding the argument. It is not that God exists BECAUSE there is no other answer for abstract, invariant, universals---He exists AND there is no other answer. Again, I invite you to study the thread you referenced (just the exchange between myself and Double_R there is even sufficient) and you will see over and over again both why and how the contrary position leads to one of hopeless irrationality. I'm sure you'd agree with me that we should reject irrational positions as false, no?
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:12:21 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 1:55:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:24:18 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/17/2016 1:42:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:01:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 has recently decided to grace us with his daily presence (by hijacking one of my threads) I decided to give him his own thread.

Assertion: scmike2's worldview is self contradictory and thus incoherent.

This assertion will be proven by scmike2's attempts to answer the following questions:

1. HOW do you know that God has revealed himself to you?

2. HOW do you know that scripture is the word of God?

3. Is it possible for you to one day suffer brain damage that would result in you believing that you are living a life you are not actually living? If yes, HOW do you know that this is not the case right now?

Challenge to scmike2: Answer these questions and address relevant followups without attacking the person or the worldview of the person you are talking to (that's what it means to defend your worldview).

Thanks, Double_R! I pass, though, on the grounds that you are asking me to assume a neutral position here with regards to my ultimate authority and to grant that you have a rationally defensible one of your own from which to levy the questions and evaluate the answers at the outset---neither of which is logically possible (as has previously been demonstrated here:

http://www.debate.org...

here:

http://www.debate.org...

and here (for starters):

http://www.debate.org...

I see no logical reason to surrender my fundamental premise that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary--especially not the fact that you happen to really want me to. Can't blame you for trying, though. Priceless!

"One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?"

I have a question.

If something can't be explained, accounted for, etc etc, does that justify "God" as the necessary presupposition for that something ?

If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

You'll need to support that assertion with evidence.

OK, watch: By what objective, binding logical standard do I NEED to do that? How do you account for such standards in your worldview? Why does it necessarily apply to me right here and right now?
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:39:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 9:12:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

Demonstrated only in your own mind...
http://www.debate.org...

So, 'consensus reality' is your angle now?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 1:54:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 4:01:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 has recently decided to grace us with his daily presence (by hijacking one of my threads) I decided to give him his own thread.

Assertion: scmike2's worldview is self contradictory and thus incoherent.

This assertion will be proven by scmike2's attempts to answer the following questions:

1. HOW do you know that God has revealed himself to you?

I can answer only for myself, but Jehovah reveals himself to followers of his son in three ways.

A) Scripture
B) His son's example (1 Corinthians 2:30)
C) Holy spirit (Romans 8:16)


2. HOW do you know that scripture is the word of God?

A) Because of the unerring accuracy of prophecy, right down to these days
B) Because when viewed with reason, Genesis 1 is outstandingly accurate for something written 3,500 years or so ago.


3. Is it possible for you to one day suffer brain damage that would result in you believing that you are living a life you are not actually living? If yes, HOW do you know that this is not the case right now?

A) All thins are possible.
B) I have not suffered any head injuries in my life
C) See 1)C.


Challenge to scmike2: Answer these questions and address relevant followups without attacking the person or the worldview of the person you are talking to (that's what it means to defend your worldview).

I am assuming that by "Worldview" you mean "view of the world", not "view as part of the world", which will never have been an accurate viewpoint.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 2:02:13 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 1:39:46 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:12:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

Demonstrated only in your own mind...
http://www.debate.org...

So, 'consensus reality' is your angle now?

No, it's been yours. Every time you fail to make a coherent rational argument you run back and hide behind unsupported claims of having "intellectually honest" readers who somehow understand what the rest of us dimwits are missing. I'm just giving them a chance to stand up. Funny how no one has yet bothered.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 2:04:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 1:42:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
I see no logical reason to surrender my fundamental premise that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary

How did you determine that the contrary is impossible?
Dogknox
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 3:19:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 3:41:43 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:24:18 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 4/17/2016 1:42:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:01:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 has recently decided to grace us with his daily presence (by hijacking one of my threads) I decided to give him his own thread.

Assertion: scmike2's worldview is self contradictory and thus incoherent.

This assertion will be proven by scmike2's attempts to answer the following questions:

1. HOW do you know that God has revealed himself to you?

2. HOW do you know that scripture is the word of God?

3. Is it possible for you to one day suffer brain damage that would result in you believing that you are living a life you are not actually living? If yes, HOW do you know that this is not the case right now?

Challenge to scmike2: Answer these questions and address relevant followups without attacking the person or the worldview of the person you are talking to (that's what it means to defend your worldview).

Thanks, Double_R! I pass, though, on the grounds that you are asking me to assume a neutral position here with regards to my ultimate authority and to grant that you have a rationally defensible one of your own from which to levy the questions and evaluate the answers at the outset---neither of which is logically possible (as has previously been demonstrated here:

http://www.debate.org...

here:

http://www.debate.org...

and here (for starters):

http://www.debate.org...

I see no logical reason to surrender my fundamental premise that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary--especially not the fact that you happen to really want me to. Can't blame you for trying, though. Priceless!

"One should ultimately ask, though, how any non-Christian can rationally account for any of these concepts apart from the God of the Bible. Well?"

I have a question.

If something can't be explained, accounted for, etc etc, does that justify "God" as the necessary presupposition for that something ?

If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

See the thing is I have seen this game before.

God is claimed to be the only possible explanation. Then when this is question, well how do you explain it ?

In other words, the person thinks if no other "explanation" is offered then God wins by default.

So again my question to you is..."If something can't be explained, accounted for, etc etc, does that justify "God" as the necessary presupposition for that something ?"

Miracles cannot be explained!!
So the answer is "YES" they point to God!
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 10:05:20 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 2:04:25 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 1:42:54 AM, scmike2 wrote:
I see no logical reason to surrender my fundamental premise that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary

How did you determine that the contrary is impossible?

Its called evidence, but since in the depth of your denial you refuse to accept that it even exist there is no point in saying more.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 2:34:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 2:02:13 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:46 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:12:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

Demonstrated only in your own mind...
http://www.debate.org...

So, 'consensus reality' is your angle now?

No, it's been yours.

It isn't, as truth is independent of belief in my worldview.

Every time you fail to make a coherent rational argument you run back and hide behind unsupported claims of having "intellectually honest" readers who somehow understand what the rest of us dimwits are missing.

I just have no problem at all with the fact that intellectually honest individuals may examine our arguments. That you are troubled by that is very telling.

I'm just giving them a chance to stand up. Funny how no one has yet bothered.

So, if enough people affirm that atheism is false and God exists, then that is the case? Guess I don't have to tell you what that means for your position. QED.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 2:50:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 2:34:52 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:02:13 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:46 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:12:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

Demonstrated only in your own mind...
http://www.debate.org...

So, 'consensus reality' is your angle now?

No, it's been yours.

It isn't, as truth is independent of belief in my worldview.

Is this true of all minds?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 5:12:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 2:50:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:34:52 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:02:13 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:46 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:12:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

Demonstrated only in your own mind...
http://www.debate.org...

So, 'consensus reality' is your angle now?

No, it's been yours.

It isn't, as truth is independent of belief in my worldview.

Is this true of all minds?

All contingent minds.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 5:15:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 5:12:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:50:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:34:52 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:02:13 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:46 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:12:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

Demonstrated only in your own mind...
http://www.debate.org...

So, 'consensus reality' is your angle now?

No, it's been yours.

It isn't, as truth is independent of belief in my worldview.

Is this true of all minds?

All contingent minds.

Contingent to what?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Trollord
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 5:21:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/16/2016 4:01:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 has recently decided to grace us with his daily presence (by hijacking one of my threads) I decided to give him his own thread.

Assertion: scmike2's worldview is self contradictory and thus incoherent.

This assertion will be proven by scmike2's attempts to answer the following questions:

1. HOW do you know that God has revealed himself to you?

2. HOW do you know that scripture is the word of God?

3. Is it possible for you to one day suffer brain damage that would result in you believing that you are living a life you are not actually living? If yes, HOW do you know that this is not the case right now?

Challenge to scmike2: Answer these questions and address relevant followups without attacking the person or the worldview of the person you are talking to (that's what it means to defend your worldview).

I am also answering these. ^ ._. ^

Uno:

To me it is a personal experience...

So prepare yourself.

I was joking one day with a deck of cards that if he exists i would pick the 10 of clubs.

It wasn't the exact card i picked but it came up with it.

I litterally rofled for like 3 seconds and continued laughing for two minutes.

Dos:

1). Seems ligit.

Less contradictions and rediculousness.

Less mythicsiacalitic.

2). If a god exists which is possible then one religion is real.

Tres

Yes.

Aerostadle evil demon thing.

Again seems ligit.
Athomos
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 5:27:04 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Leave the presupposionalists smucks to their own devices. I'm sure toddlers in Mongolia can dismantle their puns.

My only hope - though I can neither tell nor know for sure - is that this is cognitive dissonance at work here. I do hope deep down they realize the Christian god is a monstrous creature, a vicious mass murderer and a sadist of the first order of magnitude, and so fabricating the necessity of his existence is a gimmick that allows them to swallow the notion whole.

One can hope.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 6:20:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 5:15:16 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:12:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:50:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:34:52 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:02:13 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:46 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:12:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

Demonstrated only in your own mind...
http://www.debate.org...

So, 'consensus reality' is your angle now?

No, it's been yours.

It isn't, as truth is independent of belief in my worldview.

Is this true of all minds?

All contingent minds.

Contingent to what?

Ultimately, contingent upon the self-consistent, omniscient mind of God (in Whom is all truth).

Hey, check my latest response to you on the other thread. Can you give a reason why we shouldn't leave this here given that exchange over there? I am content with just linking to that particular comment for any intellectually honest readers who may read this thread to view. Any rational objection to that?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 6:30:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 6:20:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:15:16 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:12:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:50:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:34:52 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:02:13 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:46 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:12:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

Demonstrated only in your own mind...
http://www.debate.org...

So, 'consensus reality' is your angle now?

No, it's been yours.

It isn't, as truth is independent of belief in my worldview.

Is this true of all minds?

All contingent minds.

Contingent to what?

Ultimately, contingent upon the self-consistent, omniscient mind of God (in Whom is all truth).

.... that doesn't exactly make sense, though.

Truth is independent of a mind, specifically a mind they rely upon another mind.
Truth is dependent on a mind if said mind does not rely upon another mind.

That would make truth a variable prospect to... in this instance, God. I am not sure that really answers the point of the question here.

Hey, check my latest response to you on the other thread. Can you give a reason why we shouldn't leave this here given that exchange over there? I am content with just linking to that particular comment for any intellectually honest readers who may read this thread to view. Any rational objection to that?

I left another similar reply, in hopes you would realize the futility (read as intellectual dishonesty) of simply avoiding points with "Why should...", but it seems you haven't seen it yet.

So, that being the case, the lesson continues: "Why SHOULD people act in a consistent or rational manner?".
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 7:57:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 6:30:16 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 6:20:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:15:16 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:12:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:50:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:34:52 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:02:13 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:46 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:12:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

Demonstrated only in your own mind...
http://www.debate.org...

So, 'consensus reality' is your angle now?

No, it's been yours.

It isn't, as truth is independent of belief in my worldview.

Is this true of all minds?

All contingent minds.

Contingent to what?

Ultimately, contingent upon the self-consistent, omniscient mind of God (in Whom is all truth).

.... that doesn't exactly make sense, though.

Truth is independent of a mind, specifically a mind they rely upon another mind.
Truth is dependent on a mind if said mind does not rely upon another mind.

That would make truth a variable prospect to... in this instance, God. I am not sure that really answers the point of the question here.

Hey, check my latest response to you on the other thread. Can you give a reason why we shouldn't leave this here given that exchange over there? I am content with just linking to that particular comment for any intellectually honest readers who may read this thread to view. Any rational objection to that?

I left another similar reply, in hopes you would realize the futility (read as intellectual dishonesty) of simply avoiding points with "Why should...", but it seems you haven't seen it yet.

So, that being the case, the lesson continues: "Why SHOULD people act in a consistent or rational manner?".

How SHOULD I respond to the question at this point and why, given your admission that laws of logic aren't necessarily true in your worldview?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 8:07:11 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 7:57:42 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 6:30:16 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 6:20:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:15:16 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:12:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:50:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:34:52 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:02:13 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:46 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:12:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

Demonstrated only in your own mind...
http://www.debate.org...

So, 'consensus reality' is your angle now?

No, it's been yours.

It isn't, as truth is independent of belief in my worldview.

Is this true of all minds?

All contingent minds.

Contingent to what?

Ultimately, contingent upon the self-consistent, omniscient mind of God (in Whom is all truth).

.... that doesn't exactly make sense, though.

Truth is independent of a mind, specifically a mind they rely upon another mind.
Truth is dependent on a mind if said mind does not rely upon another mind.

That would make truth a variable prospect to... in this instance, God. I am not sure that really answers the point of the question here.

Hey, check my latest response to you on the other thread. Can you give a reason why we shouldn't leave this here given that exchange over there? I am content with just linking to that particular comment for any intellectually honest readers who may read this thread to view. Any rational objection to that?

I left another similar reply, in hopes you would realize the futility (read as intellectual dishonesty) of simply avoiding points with "Why should...", but it seems you haven't seen it yet.

So, that being the case, the lesson continues: "Why SHOULD people act in a consistent or rational manner?".

How SHOULD I respond to the question at this point and why, given your admission that laws of logic aren't necessarily true in your worldview?

And there you have it.

How can you do anything regarding a response when the person claiming to be open to discussion presupposes from the onset via derived 'ultimate' authority.

Such a thing is disingenuous. A lie.

Thank you, Mike. Yes, we can leave this right here if you so desire.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 8:39:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 8:07:11 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 7:57:42 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 6:30:16 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 6:20:17 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:15:16 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:12:10 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:50:33 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:34:52 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/19/2016 2:02:13 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/18/2016 1:39:46 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/17/2016 9:12:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/17/2016 3:37:15 AM, scmike2 wrote:
If it is true that God is the only possible explanation (which it is regarding abstract, universal, invariants such as logic, truth, etc., since the contrary position leads to absurdity, making it a false one). Keep reading that thread and you will definitely see that demonstrated repeatedly and in a myriad of different ways (in fact, Double_R plays a huge role in the demonstration, by the way). Take care!

Demonstrated only in your own mind...
http://www.debate.org...

So, 'consensus reality' is your angle now?

No, it's been yours.

It isn't, as truth is independent of belief in my worldview.

Is this true of all minds?

All contingent minds.

Contingent to what?

Ultimately, contingent upon the self-consistent, omniscient mind of God (in Whom is all truth).

.... that doesn't exactly make sense, though.

Truth is independent of a mind, specifically a mind they rely upon another mind.
Truth is dependent on a mind if said mind does not rely upon another mind.

That would make truth a variable prospect to... in this instance, God. I am not sure that really answers the point of the question here.

Hey, check my latest response to you on the other thread. Can you give a reason why we shouldn't leave this here given that exchange over there? I am content with just linking to that particular comment for any intellectually honest readers who may read this thread to view. Any rational objection to that?

I left another similar reply, in hopes you would realize the futility (read as intellectual dishonesty) of simply avoiding points with "Why should...", but it seems you haven't seen it yet.

So, that being the case, the lesson continues: "Why SHOULD people act in a consistent or rational manner?".

How SHOULD I respond to the question at this point and why, given your admission that laws of logic aren't necessarily true in your worldview?

And there you have it.

How can you do anything regarding a response when the person claiming to be open to discussion presupposes from the onset via derived 'ultimate' authority.

Well, you can compare ultimate authorities to see whose is logically defensible and whose is not for one. Thank you for the demonstration of that here. Just to recap---laws of logic are abstract, invariant, universal standards in my worldview which SHOULD be adhered to since they reflect the absolute thinking, character, and nature of God. For an atheist, they might not even exist.

Such a thing is disingenuous. A lie.

Says the man who openly undermines the existence of the very laws of logic required to have intellectual honesty in the first place. I think the terms 'disingenuous' and 'lie' are fitting descriptors of such behavior. Well chosen.

Thank you, Mike. Yes, we can leave this right here if you so desire.

I do. No reason why we should continue after the concession above.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 9:06:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 6:30:16 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:

In the interest of final resolution:

It isn't, as truth is independent of belief in my worldview.

Is this true of all minds?

All contingent minds.

Contingent to what?

Ultimately, contingent upon the self-consistent, omniscient mind of God (in Whom is all truth).

.... that doesn't exactly make sense, though.

Truth is independent of a mind, specifically a mind they rely upon another mind.
Truth is dependent on a mind if said mind does not rely upon another mind.

Truth is reality as perceived by God.

That would make truth a variable prospect to... in this instance, God.

Only if you assume that He is not who He claims to be in His Word (abstract, invariant, universal, sovereign, and self-consistent) and that truth is not reality as perceived by Him (and therefore derived from Him). Of course, I'd love to know how you arrive at knowledge of any abstract, invariant, universal truths assuming that. However, moot point now. No need for you to respond after the concession here:

http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 1:29:23 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 5:21:58 PM, Trollord wrote:
At 4/16/2016 4:01:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
Since scmike2 has recently decided to grace us with his daily presence (by hijacking one of my threads) I decided to give him his own thread.

Assertion: scmike2's worldview is self contradictory and thus incoherent.

This assertion will be proven by scmike2's attempts to answer the following questions:

1. HOW do you know that God has revealed himself to you?

2. HOW do you know that scripture is the word of God?

3. Is it possible for you to one day suffer brain damage that would result in you believing that you are living a life you are not actually living? If yes, HOW do you know that this is not the case right now?

Challenge to scmike2: Answer these questions and address relevant followups without attacking the person or the worldview of the person you are talking to (that's what it means to defend your worldview).

I am also answering these. ^ ._. ^

Uno:

To me it is a personal experience...

So prepare yourself.

I was joking one day with a deck of cards that if he exists i would pick the 10 of clubs.

It wasn't the exact card i picked but it came up with it.

I litterally rofled for like 3 seconds and continued laughing for two minutes.

Dos:

1). Seems ligit.

Less contradictions and rediculousness.

Less mythicsiacalitic.

2). If a god exists which is possible then one religion is real.

Tres

Yes.

Aerostadle evil demon thing.

Again seems ligit.

I don't think you understand the point. scmike2 is a presuppositionalist of the worst kind. He not only claims to know God exists with absolute certainty, and he cannot possibly be wrong about this because he has received divine revaluation. However when questioned as to how he knows these things he, as you have already seen, runs away from the conversation because he knows that the second he tries to explain how he knows then he will be demonstrating the same problems he asserts invalidates everyone else's worldview. It's really quite a pathetic and cowardly way to debate.