Wednesday, May 11, 2011

More from Eric Kincade

Eric has responded to my previous post in the comments section. Unfortunately, he has decided against answering the points and arguments that I have brought up, and instead resorted to mischaracterizing my response, and asking a series of further questions which are (putatively) designed to shake the Christian out of his faith-based stupor.

Academic gobbledygook
To the owner of the “Vox Veritatis” blog. Why respond to me with academic gobbledygook and hide behind 50 cent words?

To restate or ergo qua dim sum
Stated another way. When you say my arguments are “error, error” or when you say that my arguments are ergo qua dim sum multiplied by the modular equivalence of epistemological positivism over the square root of ontological metaphysics, how does this prove my arguments are valueless—to the average reader?


Eric is making it out as if my previous post was meaningless nonsense obscured by sesquipedalianism. I suppose that strategy has some appeal - rather than undertake the incredibly arduous task of actually dealing with another person's arguments, simply claim that they are "academic gobbledygook" and leave it at that. It's hard to tell if Eric is simply being lazy, or if he is intentionally mischaracterizing my previous post.

Writing in layman’s terms
Why don’t you simply write to me in layman’s terms? How are your philosophical red light warnings concerning my comments helping the average believer to understand what you are talking about?


Eric apparently has a very low view of the "average believer." None of the terminology I used is esoteric. All of the terms can be easily queried using a dictionary, Wikipedia, or a Google search. Never mind that if a reader has a question regarding the post, he/she is free (and encouraged) to leave a comment or send me an email about it.

Eric has it backwards - rather than being obfuscatory, using precise terminology allows one's point to be expressed concisely and unambiguously. This allows the heart of the matter to be addressed much more easily than it can be while mucking around with terminology poorly-suited for the topic at hand.

Your response to me is that I am in error because on page 3,849 in your Philosophy 101 text book, it says I’m wrong.

Another blatant mischaracterization. Once again, it's hard to tell if Eric is simply being lazy, or intentionally mischaracterizing my previous post.

The ultimate snob
Who’s really the snob? The people who don’t believe there’s any evidence for a “God” or those who claim they know a “God” personally?


It's hard to see how snobbery is relevant to the topic at hand...unless Eric is referring to my mention of Chronological Snobbery in the previous post, which far different from simply "being a snob."

But this question is also reversible. Who's really the snob? The people who take God at His Word, or those who use the faculties of communication that He provides in order to deny His existence? The latter is not unlike a child receiving a megaphone for Christmas from his parents, and then using it to loudly insult them in front of the whole neighborhood.

On divine revelation
Your plea is that divine revelation makes your religion, the only true religion—and all other religions are false.


Yet another mischaracterization. I nowhere said that divine revelation makes Christianity true. Divine revelation (and hence the truth claims of Christianity) is true because its propositional content corresponds with reality.

Since any religious follower—based on belief alone—can make the claim of receiving divine revelation as the absolute truth, how can any religion be true?

Eric is confusing ontology with epistemology. It may be the case that out of a large number of alternatives, one is true, even if it is not discernible which of the alternatives is true. But given that God has made His existence obvious to all, and that all know Him (Rom. 1:18-21), humanity is not stuck in the epistemological quagmire that Eric portrays.

On invisible friends
Why should I believe in your invisible celestial friend over the next guy’s invisible celestial friend? And another question: Why is it necessary for an adult to have an invisible celestial friend?


Invisible friends? Really? Does Eric want to have a serious interaction, or does he simply want to insult Christians by claiming their beliefs are childish? Does he really expect Christians to take him seriously when he compares the great and majestic I AM to the figment of a child's imagination?

Show yourself
If your “God” was able to create the entire universe and can do anything he wants—why not make himself into a physical form that we could see without burning out our retinas? And why doesn’t God have a website?


And so continue the vapid questions. If God does not conform to Eric's expectations, God must obviously not exist.

Such a question also reveals an ignorance (or willful mischaracterization) of Scripture, which records appearances of the pre-Incarnate Christ (e.g. Gen. 18, Dan. 3), as well as the Incarnation of Christ Himself.

Given that God has made Himself known to all (Rom. 1:21), and they still do not believe, there is no reason why Eric would change His mind if God ever deigned to conform to his petty demands.

Religions love promises of later
Why do religions love the promises of later. Just believe, because after you die, you’ll live forever. When? Later. Christ is coming back. When? Later. We will see “God.” When? Later. You do believe in my promises of “later,” don’t you?


This is yet another category error: simply because something is promised in the future does not mean that it will not come to pass. And it is not as if God has come up short on His promises - there is also fulfilled prophecy, which Eric has chosen to ignore.

You can’t prove that God does not exist.
Christians typically tell me, “You can’t prove God does not exist, so there, you, you… atheist.” Okay, since that’s the case, Christians can’t prove that Zeus does not exist. For that matter, Christians can’t prove that an infinite amount of gods do not exist.


Yes, it is true that the atheist cannot prove that God doesn't exist. More than that, the atheist, on atheism, cannot prove anything. Denying the existence of God entails irrationality, because without God, proof of anything is impossible.

However, it is not true that the Christian cannot prove the non-existence of other gods, for Is. 45:5-6 states this outright.

“God” of the gaps
I don’t think the religious believe in “God.” I submit the religious believe in the “God of the Gaps,” that is, the “God” who fills in the gaps found in science.


Yet another assertion in search of an argument.

How did this all begin? What’s our purpose? What happens when I die? Science does not know. Oops! A gap in science! Not to worry, “God” (of the gaps) did it and that’s all I need to know to be satisfied. And I hope you are satisfied because I’m satisfied.

Yet another category error. Eric is confusing knowing-that with knowing-how. The former does not entail the latter, nor vice versa. I believe that the ancient Egyptians quarried, moved, and raised some massive obelisks, though we don't have a good idea of how this was done. I guess I must believe in the Egyptians-of-the-gaps.

This, of course, is in addition to the mistaken belief that the scope of science concerns knowledge of things other than the natural world (a topic which I addressed in the previous post, and to which there has been no response).


How healthy is it for people in modern society to believe our scientific laws can be broken at will, by the testimony of Bronze Age and Iron Age religious texts?

How healthy is it for skeptics to persist in Chronological Snobbery, even after they have been informed of the fallacious nature of such thinking?

Either “God” made man or many men made many gods. I submit that ancient primitive men wrote the Bible in the culture and science of their day, trying to explain the world around them and they got it horribly wrong. All religions are man-made. Sin is a man-made concept.

And, we're back to Bulverism. More assertions in search of arguments.

Wishful thinking and self-delusion—not good for you.

Fallacious thinking and willful suppression of your knowledge of God - definitely not good for you. I urge you to repent of your sin and believe the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

3 comments:

Eric said...

1) After the original challenge was made, I submit that each topic of my initial post on the UofOISV web site has not been responded to, with easy to understand explanations from believers.

2) If you (and others) claim you are powered by the Holy Spirit, I submit it would be child’s play to comment on every one of my topics by providing mind-blowing wisdom using your own easy to understand words.

(Wouldn’t writing with the larger audience in mind be the wiser course of action?)

3) I submit you prefer the snobbery of academic scribble.

(Don’t take my word for this, ask other people for their opinion. Simply print out both of your blog entries, go to a local church—where you don’t know anyone—and ask people if it’s easy for them to understand your blog entries. When they prompt you for a little help at deciphering your blog, refuse and tell them to continue reading. Then once they are finished, ask them if your blog entries are easy to understand. Would this not be a fair test?)

4) My guess is that you are afraid to respond to my topics, with easy to understand words, and are afraid to watch all the videos I posted because your “God” wouldn’t be happy with you. If this is so, I submit you are willingly a member of a functional cult.

The original UofOISV post is here:
http://www.oudaily.com/news/2011/apr/29/guest-column-atheists-need-stronger-arguments/#comments

The videos I posted on religion, morals and science are here:
http://blog.vox-veritatis.com/2011/05/bulverism-chronological-snobbery-and.html

Rhology said...

I think it would be cool if "sesquipedalianism" and "dak" shared the same definition. It's the same question as why "abbreviation" is such a long word.

Matt said...

If you (and others) claim you are powered by the Holy Spirit, I submit it would be child’s play to comment on every one of my topics by providing mind-blowing wisdom using your own easy to understand words.

If you (and others) claim to be enlightened, free-thinking, with minds freed from the confines of religion, I submit that it would be child's play to engage in this discussion without putting forth such inane expectations.

I submit you prefer the snobbery of academic scribble.

I submit that you prefer to the ease of simply dismissing your opponent, as opposed to performing the incredibly arduous task of actually addressing his arguments.

Do you treat everyone this way? If so, I'm honestly surprised that you've made it this far in life.

Why do you insist on denigrating the average believer? Simply because you are uncomfortable with certain terminology does not mean that it is beyond anyone else's grasp.

My guess is that you are afraid to respond to my topics, with easy to understand words, and are afraid to watch all the videos I posted because your “God” wouldn’t be happy with you. If this is so, I submit you are willingly a member of a functional cult.

It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Given that I've directly responded to the majority of your points, and that you've directly responded to none of mine...who's the one who's "afraid" here?