Funky; Happy B'day!! Nice look at Van Til's, er, for want of beter word, 'argument'. For some reason presuppers like Clashy here always make me think of Violet in the Just William books; "I'll theqwem and theqwem and theqwm until you accept what I say is right without requiring external evidences".
Clash;
Clash misses the point that his religion is just as much a smorgasbord as anyone elses. He does this by refusing to look at the evidence, as of course, he doesn't need evidence, as he's right and needs only to say so to prove it... see Clash run...
Abaddon who doesn't fool anybody when he claims he is the logic master writes:
It's funny. On one hand, I can see why you would find Sirona's more smorgasbord approach to religion almost offensive. For you, the book is god. The idea that you can merge ideas from several books or traditions is alien to you.
we see Clash making a straw man argument;
If you think that being ecclectic (sic) is the way to go in constructing philosophy my advise abaddon is to put the crack pipe down and sort of come down to earth.
I never said that "being eclectic (sic) is the way to go in constructing philosophy". Why do you have to lie to support your argument Clash? Was it necessary to make an ad hom attack too?
News Flash abaddon , if one constructs an eclectic (sic ) world view borrowing sources that contradict eachother then that world view is false and self-refuting. You have no evidence but the blind and inccorect (sic) asertion (sic) that Christianity started this way. You just claim it as De Facto, your going to have to do better than that.
Oh Clash, you're so... SO! On one hand your entire philosophy is based upon claiming that something is fact, and then you say "You just claim it as De Facto, your going to have to do better than that." Well, you can do no better, so you again display the hypocritical nature of your beliefs. There is actually a lot of evidence relating to the origin of Christianity. You just won't accept it as you've decided the Bible is correct without any examination of the evidence.
Abaddon , you have never in the history of this board after being challenged time and time again to Refute Van Til of Bahnsen's Transendental (sic) Argument for the Exestance (sic) of God.(TAG)
It's a non-falsifiable theory dummy. You've never refuted ' Abaddon's Hung-over Argument for the Existence of The Glastonbury Fairy'. Nor can you. The fact you have a non-falsifiable argument at the centre of your philosophy does not make your philosophy right, it just makes it non-falsifiable. Are you incapable of seeing the difference? Probably. Oh, and if TAG is falsifiable, please demonstrate. If TAG is non-falsifiable, how are you able to demonstrate whether it is right or not? Oh, you don't need to! You've presupposed you're right!!
Again you claim of fallicies (sic) but this is just drivel on your behafe (sic). In formal discussion one must point out in detail what catagorical (sic) falacy (sic) that he is commiting (sic) unfortunatly (sic) you don't know of any because you have never sat in a logic class. What's new.
Another lie. And an argument from authority; a logical fallacy, don't you know. Look, Clash, if you're dyslexic, just say, and I'll stop taking the mickey out of your writing skills; as it is you just look like an ill-educated lunatic spraying a computer screen in a library somewhere with spittle.
Again abaddon who seems in shock ans awe over Van Til's methodology writes:
No, you're not allowed to use evidence; you've accepted it as truth before examining the evidence. You AGAIN make straw man arguments in accusing others of rejecting the account before examination.
If you read page 45-56 of Van Til's defence of the faith which you don't own (porn is probly (sic) the only literature you are really in to) you will see there is a propper (sic) use of evidences but not for converting the believer that is only left up to the Gospel, but evidence is collaborative (sic ) in the use of demonstrating the unintellagability (sic) of athiests (sic)
Here we have the cultic thinker, in the thrall of the mystical manipulation and sacred science of his leader or guru. It's just like a proponent of Intelligent Design ignoring the fact that his chosen theory is evolution with added god, with the unfortunate contradiction that the base belief of ID makes god impossible. Shock and awe? Yes, shock that anyone would try to push such a theory and awe at the credulity of those that accept it. Like I said, a worshipper of men and of a book; god doesn't even enter into it for someone like you Clash.
But if you are prepared to use evidence, then I assert the Bible is flawed and unhistorical. I assert this on the basis of the dating technologies that show the Earth could not have undergone a Global Deluge in the time period supplied by the Bible, and the lack of evidence worldwide for such a Flood. I look forward to your rebuttal of the evidence.
abaddon writes with such thoughful (sic) consistency (sic) ( ya right):
You are a judgemental person Clash; presuppositionalism is based upon judging people... go read the Bible, especially James, and tell me how you justify going against your made-up god's words?
If you an athiest (sic) abaddon , why should you care if anyone reads James. If this is where you apeal (sic) to for morals (and that is the right place) then your claim of athiesm (sic) goes up in smoke thanks to you and your inconsistency (sic).
Your moronitude knows no bounds; I was showing that you are a hypocrite according to the book you base your beliefs on. That is not in anyway inconsistant or me; it's not my book of beliefs. It is yours. So if you can't even follow the guidance in it YOU are the inconsistant one. Of course, here we expose the luxery of being 'saved'; you can be someone like CLash and still think you're a good example of a Christian
Now I have made it clear to you, perhaps you will actually trying to act like a Christian rather than a Pharisee.
abaddon who if he just thinks about what he say just might get it writes: There's no point in talking to you; evidence regarding inaccurate Bible chronology and events that there is no evidence for occurring would just be rejected.
This is why I am a presuppositionalist and not an evidentialist , if you think about it you in the way you handel (sic) evidence are a practicing presuppositionalist . You start with your circle and I start with mind. The only difference is that your circle is unintellegable (sic) and can not give an account to the created order, life, ethics, and so on and mine can because it is from the creator. This is the point of apologetics is to distroy (sic) your world view by showing it's inconsistencies and lack of intellegablilaty (sic). And giving the Gospel of christ (sic) which is your only hope.
Here we have Clash getting very confused. The only way he can remain faithful to his belief that those who are not saved are blinded to the truth is by refusing to accept the evidence that people who do not agree with him, and refusing to accept that those persons have made a genuine open enquiry into the existence of god. Poor dear, he's confused. Oh, Clash, capitalise your saviour! Bad bad boy!
Thus he accuses people of being presuppositionalistic , even if they have made an open enquiry, as to accept otherwise destroys his belief structure. Ain't presuppositionalist apologetics grand? Can't prove something? Then don't accept evidence and make it an article of faith that those who don't accept your beliefs are blinded to the truth!!!
The whole philosophy is a tad away from actually being actively evil; hell, if Satan existed, he'd be PROUD of coming up with Calvanism .
Finally here is a book that you can profit from since you are so clueless on this skill. This book is for your benefit so you can better yourself .
Next time my arse needs wiping, I'll think of this book Clash....
