# Infidel Guys Podcast



## caddy

How do I listen to Paul's Pod Cast debate?

I'm just not seeing it....


Nevermind: Got it....

[Edited on 7-10-2006 by caddy]


----------



## Pilgrim

Go to Unchained Radio, should see a big icon "On Air" and click on that


----------



## panta dokimazete

http://www.unchainedradio.com:8000/listen.pls


----------



## panta dokimazete

do we have a "peanut gallery" set up?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Yeah! use his opponents own words to define the debate!


----------



## fivepointcalvinist

go Paul!!!


----------



## panta dokimazete

I am loving his definitions and setting the Reformed Doctrines as his worldview.

And pointing out the pointlessness of Atheism.


----------



## panta dokimazete

ooo! killing Barker's presuppositional platform!


----------



## panta dokimazete

uh-huh - damning Paul with "faint praise"...

"If you write a book, I'll read it..."

and begins with an EMOTIONAL APPEAL!!!


----------



## fivepointcalvinist

doesnt presupposing anything presuppose logic? this guy is off to a bad start...


----------



## panta dokimazete

"The only way we have found to know if something is true is to 'check it out'"???

...deeeeep....

[Edited on 7-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

ah - the ambiguity of Truth...no wait...little "t" truth...


----------



## panta dokimazete

"In most cases, truth is NOT absolute..."

...and of course, that is absolutely true...


----------



## panta dokimazete

...again - the ambiguous definition of atheism - set the stage to cloud the issue...been there, done that...


----------



## fivepointcalvinist

dan relies on Gods immutability to maintain uniformity of anything he can "check out", but yet reproaches God for the same. what incoherency!!


----------



## panta dokimazete

...with the presupposition that an omniscient and omnipotent being is limited by the logic/law of space-time...


----------



## panta dokimazete

Barker's argument is weak, weak, weak...what a weak opening statement.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Time, dude!


----------



## panta dokimazete

where to start?


----------



## panta dokimazete

YEAH! Confront him with his own weak definitions...with his own words!

[Edited on 7-10-2006 by jdlongmire]

[Edited on 7-10-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

"I don't OBEY my mind????"


----------



## panta dokimazete

Which brain is working logically and which one is not?

Beautiful.

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## fivepointcalvinist

why does it keep cutting out!!!!


----------



## panta dokimazete

Ah, the talking snake...I have seen a talking snake...ever watched the Jungle Book?

This presupposes what is has always been. Presupposes that the serpent's physicality could not have been manipulated.


----------



## Pilgrim

"How's the LSD?" LOL


----------



## fivepointcalvinist

but Paul can account for his epistemology! how does this guy account for induction? answer the question!


----------



## panta dokimazete

I would use an example of virtual reality.


----------



## panta dokimazete

I would site the source of Dan's statement. The source is not God. The source is capable of lying.

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## fivepointcalvinist

post hoc reasoning via dan...


----------



## panta dokimazete

Assert...assert...assert.


----------



## blhowes

Go Paul!


----------



## fivepointcalvinist

when was servatus johns friend?

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by fivepointcalvinist]


----------



## panta dokimazete

You ain't going to get Paul on Calvin's acts!

ad hominem!!!!!!!

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

go! go! go!

WHO IS PREPARED!


----------



## panta dokimazete

and if it works a certain way today means it works/worked the same way in the past and future!


----------



## panta dokimazete

very nice rebuttal.


----------



## panta dokimazete

stupid?


----------



## caddy

"A Positive Proactive Human Being" !


----------



## panta dokimazete

reify
verb 

reifies, reified, reifying
1. To think of (something abstract) as a material thing; to materialize.

Derivative: reification

The turning of something abstract into an object; materialization.
Especially in Marxist terminology: depersonalization.
Derivative: reificatory
adj

Derivative: reifier
noun

Etymology: 19c: from Latin res thing.


----------



## panta dokimazete

to be more moral one must be more informed?

information=morality?

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

He is trying to anti-reify with his "digestion" analogies.


----------



## panta dokimazete

"nothing cares and nobody cares"

and yet I can be moral...


----------



## blhowes

He's attacking Calvin again?


----------



## panta dokimazete

God is supra-moral.


----------



## panta dokimazete

assert...assert...assert


----------



## panta dokimazete

he is ALL OVER THE place!


----------



## panta dokimazete

Go Paul!


----------



## panta dokimazete

AMEN!


----------



## blhowes

A call to repent and turn to Jesus! Amen!


----------



## panta dokimazete

emotional appeal - he is no better than a televangelist - Dan Barker, that is...

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## VanVos

Dan sending a lot of people to hell here, I thought he said that was immoral


----------



## panta dokimazete

I want to rebut the snake thing...

If I could create an environment in which you could see, touch, hear and smell a snake - and that snake talked - would you believe that snakes talk?

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## panta dokimazete

I was posting this on the chat - never did get it asked...

for Dan - is reality malleable? 

that is - can the perception of reality be manuipulated so that something that would normally be perceived as irrational be perceived as reality? If so - how is a talking snake not plausible?

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## caddy

What happened? Did it just cut off and go to something else ?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Gene's feed is working fine.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Paul rocked! He debated - Dan appealed to emotion.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Paul was having stomach trouble?


----------



## panta dokimazete

Kudos to Paul for walking into the Lion's den!

-JD


----------



## turmeric

That was better than the Greeks & the Germans! Thanks guys, for the play-by-play!


----------



## Vytautas

Did Paul win?


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Derek Sansone did a much better job at debating Paul then Dan Barker did. Take from that what you will. Congratulations Paul! 

The lines were busy and I couldn't get in. I posted my question on the IRC chat but it didn't get picked either. Here was my question for Dan:

If this world just contains molecules in motion, then all matter reacts to stimulus response. How can you condemn an individual (if you can even call it that) who has committed murder as morally accountable if he had no choice in the matter, it was predetermined by the material universe and the action/re-action that takes place. Wouldn't it be better to saythat the material universe is immoral given your definition of morality than to say that the murderer is? Why impose psychological harm on the murderer if he cannot be held accountable"? 

To sum up my question,How can you account for moral accountability in a material universe where there is no choice involved? Everything is 
just reacting to external stimuli.


Yet, I didn't get a chance to ask my question. When I finally got through the debate was over (although not on the feed because there is a delay), so I thought I could ask the question. I got Reggy and he said we are discussing post debate comments. So I made some comment on how Dan didn't back up his definition of morality in that he just asserted it without demonstrating why it is the only definition that works. So Reggy started going on and on and on. It was really annoying. Anyways, so I asked Reggy if he considered it always a greater harm to take an innocent human life than it is to cause psychological harm. From the best of my understanding interpreting his incoherant babble I think he agreed. So then I went on to say that an unborn prenatal being is an innocent human being. He copped out and said that had nothing to do with the debate etc. He said the unborn prenatal being isn't a person and we could talk about that some other time. Then I asked him if I killed a dog that would cause harm. He said no. I then said, "so you are saying you have to be a person to be harmed?". I could barely get a word in because he wouldn't stop talking. He then took me off the air. You see Reggy was being inconsistent. Nothing new I guess. Even if the unborn prenatal being isn't a person (which he/she is), then tremendous harm is still being done. Anyways, God definitely used Paul tonight and I applaud Paul for a job well done. 

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by caleb_woodrow]

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## panta dokimazete

I would like to get a transcript of the program and deconstruct some of the strawmen arguments and rabbit trails Dan tried to throw out there.

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by jdlongmire]


----------



## Vytautas

If all is matter in motion, then maybe "œatoms sometimes swerve in unpredictable ways, thus providing a physical basis for a belief in free will."- Â© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. If you have free will, then you have moral accountability.


----------



## py3ak

If I can eat broccoli because it's going to wither soon, then could I eat an _old_ human being?


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Another thing that I liked was that when Dan would try to keep talking and waste Paul's cross time, Paul would stop him and ask him another question. I figured Dan would try that as he had in other debates.



> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> If all is matter in motion, then maybe "œatoms sometimes swerve in unpredictable ways, thus providing a physical basis for a belief in free will."- Â© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. If you have free will, then you have moral accountability.


lol, swerve in "unpredictable ways", like that changes anything. 

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## blhowes

I don't have time to search around now, but I was wondering about Mr. Barker's background. Didn't he say during the debate that he had been a preacher for 15 years? Anybody know what denomination/church? It was mind boggling, after Paul told him he needed to repent, what Mr. Barker said that he'd like to say to Jesus if he met Him face-to-face.


----------



## BobVigneault

http://ffrf.org/about/bio_dan.php

Here's his own bio Bob. Very sad. His words about Jesus are probably one of the best and concise examples of what it means to commit the unforgivable sin.

Reading his religious pedigree it's pretty clear that he was never regenerated. In fact given his association with Kathryn Kuhlman there is a good possibility he was demonized. In my humble opinion

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Paul,

You are the man. I think Pastor Gene Cook needs to do a "Man of Genius" tribute to you.


----------



## BobVigneault

In all due respect, Pastor Gene's parody of the 'Men of Genius' commercial is cheesey and annoying. I hope he doesn't associate it with our brother Paul. BTW, I'm from Wisconsin, I know cheesey.


----------



## a mere housewife

The part about Hitler being 'free to do what he did', but God deserving to be 'sent to hell' for making a hell seemed to me one of the most terribly ridiculous inconsistencies -- emphasis on 'terribly'. Hitler can torture children for no reason, and though we as a species are free to denounce him its ultimately all a matter of the sufferings of broccoli. But if God creates a hell to punish Hitler to get justice for that child.... suddenly we're not talking about broccoli are we? And what a lie, that there is so much beauty in the transitory here and now which are all we have and which we make valuable by simply investing in the appearance of value, if the sufferings of children amount to the consumption of broccoli as far as justice goes.

I thought his true reason for rejecting Christianity came out very clearly in his anger against God as a 'slave master'. He wants autonomy, and if we have to be broccoli to have it, and Hitler has to be free to do what he did, then so be it.

(BTW, Paul, if you're reading this: we thought you did an amazing job. You definitely didn't get sidetracked, and turned more difficult objections into an offensive. I think anyone with a sincere, reasonable attitude listening to the debate would definitely have come out of it realizing that Barker made no case for atheism and did not disprove yours for Christianity. We were praying for you, and have since thanked God for His presence with you.)

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by a mere housewife]


----------



## Augusta

> _Originally posted by a mere housewife_
> The part about Hitler being 'free to do what he did', but God deserving to be 'sent to hell' for making a hell seemed to me one of the most terribly ridiculous inconsistencies -- emphasis on 'terribly'. Hitler can torture children for no reason, and though we as a species are free to denounce him its ultimately all a matter of the sufferings of broccoli. But if God creates a hell to punish Hitler to get justice for that child.... suddenly we're not talking about broccoli are we? And what a lie, that there is so much beauty in the transitory here and now which are all we have and which we make valuable by simply investing in the appearance of value, if the sufferings of children amount to the consumption of broccoli as far as justice goes.
> 
> I thought his true reason for rejecting Christianity came out very clearly in his anger against God as a 'slave master'. He wants autonomy, and if we have to be broccoli to have it, and Hitler has to be free to do what he did, then so be it.
> 
> (BTW, Paul, if you're reading this: we thought you did an amazing job. You definitely didn't get sidetracked, and turned more difficult objections into an offensive. I think anyone with a sincere, reasonable attitude listening to the debate would definitely have come out of it realizing that Barker made no case for atheism and did not disprove yours for Christianity. We were praying for you, and have since thanked God for His presence with you.)
> 
> [Edited on 7-11-2006 by a mere housewife]





I think Paul was speaking over Dan Barkers head most of the time because Dan's "worldview" is not based on sound reason it is based on suppressing the Truth in unrighteousness because that Truth is unpalatable to him. I got the sense that Dan knows his position is untenable but he doesn't care and holds on to it with religious zeal for precisely the reason Heidi mentioned: He wants autonomy, and if we have to be broccoli to have it, and Hitler has to be free to do what he did, then so be it. 

He has blind eyes and deaf ears. Hopefully someone listening to the debate will have their's opened through the gospel message that Paul proclaimed.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I just listened to the debate this AM while working out. Great job Paul!

I'm not precisely sure that Paul was talking over his head. This is typical of Dan Barker from what I've heard before. I just realized that he is popular _because_ he is irrational and unthinking and populist. He is a postmodern populist atheist.

I'm waiting for the transcript but Barker's closing statement (as was the rest of his stuff) was a vaccuous "we have meaning because we say we have meaning" and "we have purpose and are good because we say we are good". He admits that, cosmically, we have the value of broccoli but "here and now" we believe we have meaning so we do. It's idiotic but it might as well have been a Finney-like altar call for atheism with the mindless atheists weeping and coming forward to embrace belief for belief's sake.

Barker preaches to the choir. He makes atheists feel good about who they are. He doesn't present arguments but, because atheists are only looking for affirmation, he gives them what they like. Paul's analogies were very good and very funny at times (I burst out laughing a few times in the gym). In the final analysis, however, Paul was appealing to rational thought and Barker was making populist statements.

Paul concluded with a call to Barker's repentance. The general call of the Gospel. He held out words of life to Dan. He presented argument for the Christian faith and Barker had no answer except to play the fool. In the end, Barker heaped curses upon himself. He gnashed his teeth and shook his fist at Christ and then turned His hatred toward God the Father.

I fear that Mr. Barker will have all eternity to contemplate the folly of his words last night.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> http://ffrf.org/about/bio_dan.php
> 
> Here's his own bio Bob. Very sad. His words about Jesus are probably one of the best and concise examples of what it means to commit the unforgivable sin.
> 
> Reading his religious pedigree it's pretty clear that he was never regenerated. In fact given his association with Kathryn Kuhlman there is a good possibility he was demonized. In my humble opinion
> 
> [Edited on 7-11-2006 by BobVigneault]


Thanks for the link. Interesting...ly...sad.


----------



## fivepointcalvinist

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> http://ffrf.org/about/bio_dan.php
> 
> Here's his own bio Bob. Very sad. His words about Jesus are probably one of the best and concise examples of what it means to commit the unforgivable sin.
> 
> Reading his religious pedigree it's pretty clear that he was never regenerated. In fact given his association with Kathryn Kuhlman there is a good possibility he was demonized. In my humble opinion
> 
> [Edited on 7-11-2006 by BobVigneault]
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link. Interesting...ly...sad.
Click to expand...









[Edited on 7-12-2006 by fivepointcalvinist]


----------



## B.J.

Barker seemed to have a real problem with a talking snake. However, I wonder wether or not he has a problem with a talking bird, like a parrot? Furthermore, since Barker believes in evolution it shouldnt come as a surprise that a snake might speak a human tounge. After all, he and Paul are nothing more than 2 talking monkeys arguing over a

As far as the induction aspect of the debate ..... Building upon Barkers "talking cat" story...I have my own story building upon the Pirates of the Caribean movie I just saw. Suppose we lived in the 17th century when Pirates roamed the Seven Seas, and we had never heard of such a thing as a talking bird. One day as a group of merchant sailors were picked up, stranded at sea, they made mention of a beatifully colored bird that could speak Spanish. Of course everyone listening did not believe them, and called then fools. Saying things like...you stupid ol' sailor...You have been in the sun to long. Birds cant talk. Thats irrational! 

Low and behold one day a Pirate is captured by her majesties armada and a Parrot is among the prisoners. That being because his owner is one of the pirates. All the doubters were proved wrong. Here is something for Mr. Barker to address, which he never did in the debate. Are we justified in expecting that every time we run into a Parrot it will talk just because this one example of a parrot spoke? I know this is frustrating for a man like Mr. Barker. As we saw in the debate, his secular answer was of a Pragmatic nature, and not an answer at all. Anyway....

If you all noticed, Mr.Barker conceded his position at the end of the debate when he said that God was basically unjust, and a big cosmic meanie by "his own standard!" Brothers and Sisters this is what Van Til and Bahnsen warned us about....When you start with man you will end with man, ans always end up in Subjectivism and Skepticism. Barkers position was reduced to absurdity by his own mouth. The debate was about Which view is more rational Christanity or Atheism. If Barker maintains that "By his own Standard" his view is rational than he begs the question. If we were to say that we would be clubbed to death for circular reasoning. 

Anyway...Well done Paul! God Bless you and your family.

He is Risen,
B.J.


----------



## caddy

From Barker's site: about C.S. Lewis's Book Mere Christianity:

http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=assertions


So, now I have to ask myself why I once thought Mere Christianity was so special. Because it told me what I wanted to hear. As a freethinker I am now no longer satisfied with mere assertions, with creative rehashings of myth. Freethought demands evidence in place of analogy, data over dogma.

What do you think? Should I cash the royalty checks I continue to receive from my Christian musicals? Now there's a moral dilemma with which I struggle all the way to the bank.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Cheshire Cat

LOL Dan Barker thinks he is a freethinking materialist. Yet, in a material scheme we are zombies. Everything is predetermined by the variables involved affected by the action/reaction taking place. There is no such thing as free thought on a materialist scheme.  Then he asserts like they should act like it (why call himself freethinking and Christians not in a zombie world), without giving a reason WHY.

[Edited on 7-13-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

By the way, did anybody catch it when Dan Barker was talking about the King James Bible and said that it was the Bible that Calvin used?

What a dope.


----------



## Magma2

> Barker seemed to have a real problem with a talking snake. However, I wonder wether or not he has a problem with a talking bird, like a parrot? Furthermore, since Barker believes in evolution it shouldnt come as a surprise that a snake might speak a human tounge.




And Paul had a problem with Barker´s talking cat. Could that have been a concession that at least in some areas "œdata over dogma" applies? I think both men did a good job and played well to their own side and both scored some points.


----------



## Magma2

> How would a talking cat affect my worldview, at all? I believe a snaked talked and a donkey talked. I believe God used a burning bush to speak, etc.
> 
> My point, which you may have missed, was that God's say-so was a little bit higher on my list of authorities than Dan's say-so.



It appeared to me that you conceded Barker´s point by calling him a liar and that the empirical method he was contending for is adequate for making judgments concerning the truth or falsity of propositions, in this case the proposition that he met a talking cat. Perhaps a better approach would have been to demonstrate that the conclusions to all inductions are false ( and even if true we have no way of knowing it) and that only valid _deductions_ from true premises can produce true conclusions. The question then becomes; how do you arrive at true propositions? Non-Christians, atheists of course included, can arrive at no true propositions at all given their starting point; nor have I ever come across one that could demonstrate how this might occur and few in history have actually tried. Secular (even theistic but non-Christian) philosophy has been a complete faliure at this point (see Clark's "Thales to Dewey" as a good place to start).

As you know I´m no Van Tilian and I´ve heard the TA used in debates before whether it was Bahnsen v Stein or Wilson v Drange, but I´m just not a fan of that line of argument. OTOH I am a presuppositionalist and presuppose the propositions of Scripture as the only basis by which knowledge is possible. I realize we don´t agree on this central epistemological point, but I think this is where Van Tilian apologetics gets into trouble.

On a side note, I would have loved to see you rip apart Barker's claim that he had been a Christian. I also thought he made an interesting argument (at least one I don't recall seeing before) that I guess could be called "An Argument Against God from Immutability." In a nutshell:

If there is a personal being who knows all things "“ who is omniscient "“ then that being knows all its future actions. By knowing all future actions that being is unable to change anything and the future is fixed for that being. There are then limits on what that being can do. Or, to put it another way; for a being to be omniscience requires that it knows what it is going to do, and it cannot do other than it knows or it wouldn´t be omniscient. Barker then defines personal as having the ability to choose options or the ablity to make decisions. Since an omniscient being cannot choose options or make decisions (since they're already made and in this case eternally), and since Christians claim the God of the Bible is personal, it follows that the Christian God does not exist. Yet, Christians define God as a personal being, instead what the Christian worship is a cosmic computer program. 

I´ll have to listen to the debate again, but I don´t recall where this argument by Barker was directly addressed. It might have been, but you covered a large amount of turf in your replies, so I may have missed it.

All and all the debate was very instructive. Thank you.

[Edited on 7-14-2006 by Magma2]


----------



## Me Died Blue

I continually saw two fatal flaws (among many others) come about in Dan Barker's thinking and arguments:

1) In talking about the "reification" of logic, and comparing it to the digestive process, he was saying that we don't need to account for the principles of logic just as we don't need to prove digestion for it to work. The entire point of how his worldview cannot account for logic, however, is _not_ even that he needs to "observe" or "prove" logic _as a thing_, but rather that he needs to account for the _statement_ that logic is in fact coherent, rational and accurate - and in the same way, with the digestive system, what _does_ need to be accounted for is the _statement_ that it actually goes on and occurs as a process. And he _does_ assume the truth value of that statement, otherwise he would never eat anything for fear of vomiting each time; likewise, if he cannot account for the truth value of the statement that logic is rational and accurate, he cannot trust the use of logic for any purposes any more than he could trust his body to actually digest any food (regardless of the precise means it does so) when he eats.

2) In his ethical system of minimizing harm and the importance of that to us _relative_ to our perspective (even granting his groundless belief in that relative morality disconnected from a cosmic broccoli nature), I think the folly and ridiculous and empty conclusions of that system can be exposed simply by asking him if it is equally wrong to cause _emotional_ and _psychological_ harm as it is to cause _physical_ harm. He would have to answer that question in the affirmative in order to consistently hold that many particular cases of, say, rape, are wrong relative to minimizing harm in our human experience, since many cases of rape have not in fact caused any physical damage to the woman's body, but only intense emotional and psychological damage. Hence, Dan Barker thus has to assert in his relative humanist system of ethics that in addition to physical harm, the ultimate goal is also to minimize _emotional_ harm. Well, for the sake of argument, Paul, myself or any Christian could claim (for ourselves or point to another younger Christian) that by Dan's very debating of the existence and goodness of the Christian God, that he is causing intense fear, discomfort, sadness, uncertainty and distress to Christians who love God but struggle in their belief security. I assume Dan would justify that by saying that it is not ultimately emotional or psychological harm of a bad type, since he truly thinks that what he is arguing for is true and is the best thing for such people (young Christians) to hear and know; but on the very same grounds, I could claim that I believe or know that an emotional rape experience is actually what is best for a woman at a certain time, be it because of strength she needs to develop, a discovery of her sexuality, or any number of things. Thus, in Dan Barker's humanist ethical system of minimizing harm, he has to include emotional and psychological harm in order to look down on many rapes, yet he could not include that emotional or psychological harm if he wanted to even consistently follow his ethic in the whole process of debating and denying God.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

Nice observations Chris. 



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> p.s. in a debate, resorting to made up stories does not constitute a point. Sorry I didn't pander to Dan's little game. He wanted me to, but homie don't play that!


lol.



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Perhaps a better approach would have been to demonstrate that the conclusions to all inductions are false ( and even if true we have no way of knowing it) and that only valid _deductions_ from true premises can produce true conclusions.


In Dan´s worldview he could not absolutely know if something is true given induction, but I wouldn´t say the conclusions to all Dan´s inductions are false. 



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> The question then becomes; how do you arrive at true propositions? Non-Christians, atheists of course included, can arrive at no true propositions at all given their starting point; nor have I ever come across one that could demonstrate how this might occur and few in history have actually tried. Secular (even theistic but non-Christian) philosophy has been a complete faliure at this point (see Clark's "Thales to Dewey" as a good place to start).



Well I guess then we could never arrive at the true proposition that the bible is true (initially), for we learn that by induction. 



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> I also thought he made an interesting argument (at least one I don't recall seeing before) that I guess could be called "An Argument Against God from Immutability." In a nutshell:
> 
> If there is a personal being who knows all things "“ who is omniscient "“ then that being knows all its future actions. By knowing all future actions that being is unable to change anything and the future is fixed for that being. There are then limits on what that being can do. Or, to put it another way; for a being to be omniscience requires that it knows what it is going to do, and it cannot do other than it knows or it wouldn´t be omniscient. Barker then defines personal as having the ability to choose options or the ablity to make decisions. Since an omniscient being cannot choose options or make decisions (since they're already made and in this case eternally), and since Christians claim the God of the Bible is personal, it follows that the Christian God does not exist. Yet, Christians define God as a personal being, instead what the Christian worship is a cosmic computer program."


Future? Is God bound by time? By being omniscient God knows what changes he will make, yet it does not deduce that this takes any power or ability away from him. Dan goes from saying *the ability* in his definition of personal, to saying *can´t* in his argument. Dan´s argument is useless. 


> _Originally posted by Magma2_I´ll have to listen to the debate again, but I don´t recall where this argument by Barker was directly addressed. It might have been, but you covered a large amount of turf in your replies, so I may have missed it.


Why would Paul waste his time refuting such a ridiculous argument?

[Edited on 7-14-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Magma2

> In Dan´s worldview he could not absolutely know if something is true given induction, but I wouldn´t say the conclusions to all Dan´s inductions are false.



What do you mean "œin Dan´s worldview"? Given your worldview how can you know any of Dan´s inductions, or your own for that matter, or any for that matter are true? Induction is a fallacy because the form of the conclusion is not the same as the form of the premise(s). Induction attempts to arrive at universals from particulars and that is not only futile, but logically impossible. That's why revelation is needed. Inductive arguments (with the case of a closed induction I suppose excepted) are always fallacious. How does a Christian worldview make a fallacious argument valid? Russell said long ago, and I don´t know that anything has change, that induction "remains an unsolved problem of logic." Yet, you seem to be saying that Christians have solved it. Care to explain?




> Well I guess then we could never arrive at the true proposition that the bible is true (initially), for we learn that by induction.



That´s not true at all and the Bible itself mitigates strongly against your assertion. Not only that, the Confession refutes such empirical assumptions as well. After the Confession lists a number of different evidences to the truth of Scripture (none of which are empirical or require induction I might add), the Confession asserts: "œyet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts."




> Future? Is God bound by time? By being omniscient God knows what changes he will make, yet it does not deduce that this takes any power or ability away from him. Dan goes from saying *the ability* in his definition of personal, to saying *can´t* in his argument. Dan´s argument is useless.



You may think it useless, but I suspect you miss the problem. You say God knows what changes he will make, but the point is God doesn´t make changes. His decree is eternal and God is immutable. God never changed His mind.




> Why would Paul waste his time refuting such a ridiculous argument?



Regardless of whether you think the argument ridiculous, are you confirming that Paul never directly addressed it? For what it's worth, that´s my recollection too. Maybe he thought it was ridiculous too?


----------



## Magma2

> Regarding induction, yes I do not point out that all inductive inferences are deductively false because I don't want to make elementary blunders like that.



It´s not that inductive inferences are deductively false, which they are, rather they can never arrive at the truth of any conclusion, including claims to talking snakes or cats. 



> Regarding his false profession, I didn't have time to debate his false profession and would not have dealt with the irrationality of atheism, anyway.



I just said "œI would have liked . . . ." It wasn´t meant as a criticism.



> Regarding his argument that you found interesting. Perhaps you missed that this argument was the *first* thing I addressed during my rebuttal period.



Yes, I found it very interesting and evidently Caleb, who didn´t find it interesting, missed it too. You were speaking very fast, so when I get the time, I´ll try and listen again to your first rebuttal since I´m curious what your answer may have been? For what it's worth, I´m not sure how I would have answered that argument or whether I could have being put on the spot like you were. Thanks.



> Lastly, perhaps you missed where I took all his main point, i.e., conceptualism and functionalism and showed that the former led to theism or the denial of conceptualism and the latter could not account for debate itself.




No, I don´t think I missed it, but I guess I never really cared much for defending theism per se, just Christian theism which most of Barker´s arguments, not to mention his insane tirade of blasphemies, were aimed. 




> Then, after that, I made a positive argument (albeit brief, the time allowed was *very* short) for the Christian worldview providing the proper story in whcih the paradigms of rationality are not undermined.



That part was good.


----------



## Cheshire Cat

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> Well I guess then we could never arrive at the true proposition that the bible is true (initially), for we learn that by induction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That´s not true at all and the Bible itself mitigates strongly against your assertion. Not only that, the Confession refutes such empirical assumptions as well. After the Confession lists a number of different evidences to the truth of Scripture (none of which are empirical or require induction I might add), the Confession asserts: "œyet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts.
Click to expand...


I obviously do not believe what I said, I was only following your logic. You said that "œPerhaps a better approach would have been to demonstrate that the conclusions to all inductions are false ( and even if true we have no way of knowing it) and that only valid deductions from true premises can produce true conclusions." Did you not learn the truth claims of the bible by induction? 




> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> Future? Is God bound by time? By being omniscient God knows what changes he will make, yet it does not deduce that this takes any power or ability away from him. Dan goes from saying *the ability* in his definition of personal, to saying *can´t* in his argument. Dan´s argument is useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may think it useless, but I suspect you miss the problem. You say God knows what changes he will make, but the point is God doesn´t make changes. His decree is eternal and God is immutable. God never changed His mind.
Click to expand...


God doesn´t make changes? Of course God is immutable, but that has nothing to do with him "œchanging" his creation, and in that I mean affecting it in some way. I never said God changes his mind and I don´t see how you can deduce (I know how much you love deduction) that from my post. 



> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Paul waste his time refuting such a ridiculous argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of whether you think the argument ridiculous, are you confirming that Paul never directly addressed it? For what it's worth, that´s my recollection too. Maybe he thought it was ridiculous too?
Click to expand...


After reading Paul´s post I listened to the Paul´s rebuttal section and he does indeed refute it.


----------



## Magma2

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> "Regardless of whether you think the argument ridiculous, are you confirming that Paul never directly addressed it? For what it's worth, that´s my recollection too. Maybe he thought it was ridiculous too?"
> 
> Sean, again, I just told you I addressed it. You're not reading the thread here or listening to the debate.



I was replying to Caleb when you posted and our posts crossed paths. 



> Btw, do you know of any Clarkian's whove debated atheists? I mean, are there any taped debates I could listen to? Or, do you spend all your time calling Van Tillians heretics that you don't have any time left over to actually engage in the public defense of the faith?



I can see you are too defensive to calmly discuss the debate. I was afraid this might be the case which is why I withheld any comment until now. 

But what if no Scripturalist has ever publicly debated an atheist? I know this is not the case, but what difference would it make if it were? I have heard more than a few evidentialists debate atheists, does that make evidentialism a sound and biblical defense of the Christian faith? I don't think so.



> And, Caleb, here's how you deal with the likes of Sean, who despises all things Van Tillian.
> 
> Take every single one of his sentences above and ask him to deduce each one from scripture. If he can't dismiss him as just giving his opinion. Apparently this is an intellectual sin because he dismisses induction since it doesn't lead to knowledge and truth, and neither do mere opinions.



I thought Christian apologetics was a defense of the knowledge of the truth, not opinions? I guess some people still can´t tell the difference?

Look, I applaud you for going on the guy's show and debating this dog, but I don't think it was the routing that some here (most even) seem to think and for the reasons I gave. I think you made a lot of good points, but I think Barker did to.


----------



## Magma2

> Did you not learn the truth claims of the bible by induction?



No I didn´t and if you´re a Christian neither did you.




> God doesn´t make changes? Of course God is immutable, but that has nothing to do with him "œchanging" his creation, and in that I mean affecting it in some way. I never said God changes his mind and I don´t see how you can deduce (I know how much you love deduction) that from my post.



You clearly missed the point of Barker´s argument. 




> After reading Paul´s post I listened to the Paul´s rebuttal section and he does indeed refute it.



Great. Care to share his refutation?


----------



## Cheshire Cat

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not learn the truth claims of the bible by induction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn´t and if you´re a Christian neither did you.
Click to expand...


How could I learn special revelation without reading it or hearing of it (that is by induction. Well we can deduce from the bible its truth but initially we learn the conclusions through induction, do we not)? Of course it is by the working of the Holy Spirit but we need to use our sense experience using induction to *read* or *hear* the special revelation. In as much we are not using deduction in itself in learning the initial truth claims. At least I don't see how. I could be wrong. 




> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> God doesn´t make changes? Of course God is immutable, but that has nothing to do with him "œchanging" his creation, and in that I mean affecting it in some way. I never said God changes his mind and I don´t see how you can deduce (I know how much you love deduction) that from my post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly missed the point of Barker´s argument.
Click to expand...

How so? I think his point is fallacious and I did understand it. Demonstrate that I do not understand it by showing a misunderstanding in one of my post. After you post I will see if in fact it is a misunderstanding or not. 




> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> After reading Paul´s post I listened to the Paul´s rebuttal section and he does indeed refute it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Care to share his refutation?
Click to expand...

He already posted it probably right before you posted this post I am responding to.



[Edited on 7-14-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Magma2

> Just to be clear. I do not have a problem *that* you're critiquing me or my performance. I do not think that I can do no wrong. I just have a problem *how* you're doing it and disagreeing with your take on the issue. So, I hope you don't think I'm acting holier than though and geting upset at the mere fact that you would offer some criticism.



Yes, I was thinking exactly that.




> Anyway, you don't need to listen to it again. I had already writen my rebuttal since I knew almost every argument Barker would make. So, I'll just post what I said. Keep in mind that I only had 10 minutes (which isn't long) to rebut and offer my positive argument.
> 
> Having said that I'll post what I said:
> 
> "Free Will Incoherency Argument: The problems with this argument are multiply. Briefly, it assumes a libertarian view of God, which I deny. It further assumes that God is in time rather than His choices being made timelessly. Therefore it begs the question against my worldview on those two scores. Moreover, Mr. Barker does not think that man has libertarian freedom, all of our choices are made certain and determined by the laws of physics. Therefore Mr. Barker is not a person, according to his own argument!
> 
> If Mr. Barker wants to say that he escapes this critique since he acts free and is uncertain about the future then three points should suffice to rebut that claim: [1] It should be granted that it is theoretically possible to find out, in advance, how we´ll respond to a certain situation given physicalism. Indeed, many physicalists are committed to this project. If they succeed, will Mr. Barker say that at that point persons will cease to exist? [2] Infants do not "œact as if they were free"therefore are infants not persons? [3] It's theoretically possible, as a thought expereiment, to time travel. I fBarker wne tback in time and had his choice to make over again, but this time he knew what he'd choose since he had already chosen it, would Mr. Barker deny that he was a person then?




All good stuff and I missed it the first time. Thanks, that was a good answer. Don't get upset that I asked Caleb to share, not only do you tend to talk fast, you post fast too. I can't keep up.


----------



## Magma2

> How could I learn special revelation without reading it or hearing of it (that is by induction. Well we can deduce from the bible its truth but initially we learn the conclusions through induction, do we not)? Of course it is by the working of the Holy Spirit but we need to use our sense experience using induction to *read* or *hear* the special revelation. In as much we are not using deduction in itself in learning the initial truth claims. At least I don't see how. I could be wrong.



I think you´re confusing a few terms, but I think I still get your meaning. I think instead of induction above you mean either sensation or empirical means or something along those lines. So I gather you argue that we come to a knowledge of the truth by sensate means, I suppose by having our auditory nerves being tickled or by somehow drawing inferences from ink marks on a page. Have I got it?



> Quote:
> God doesn´t make changes? Of course God is immutable, but that has nothing to do with him "œchanging" his creation, and in that I mean affecting it in some way. I never said God changes his mind and I don´t see how you can deduce (I know how much you love deduction) that from my post.
> 
> 
> You clearly missed the point of Barker´s argument.
> 
> How so? I think his point is fallacious and I did understand it. Demonstrate that I do not understand it by showing a misunderstanding in one of my post. After you post I will see if in fact it is a misunderstanding or not.



Well, you said that God changes his creation. God doesn´t change his creation, rather his creation changes according to his sovereign, eternal and immutable decree. Not only that, the number of days you live, where you live and the number of hairs on your head "“ even whether or not you´ll get your hair cut next Thursday at noon "“ are determined down to every detail by the same immutable decree. in my opinion Barker got around Paul´s reply, at least partly, by claiming his brand of mechanism was a form of compatibilism. He evidently wasn´t, or didn´t claim to be, a strict determinist. 




> Great. Care to share his refutation?
> 
> He already posted it probably right before you posted this post I am responding to.



God willing this reply will not be on the tail end of some other reply and I´ll be accused of being impatient. I did, however, try and check my spelling.


----------



## Vytautas

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> 
> 
> 
> Did you not learn the truth claims of the bible by induction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn´t and if you´re a Christian neither did you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could I learn special revelation without reading it or hearing of it (that is by induction. Well we can deduce from the bible its truth but initially we learn the conclusions through induction, do we not)? Of course it is by the working of the Holy Spirit but we need to use our sense experience using induction to *read* or *hear* the special revelation. In as much we are not using deduction in itself in learning the initial truth claims. At least I don't see how. I could be wrong.
Click to expand...


I think learning by deduction or induction is a category error. We do not learn by arguing because arguing is a type of output, so we learn by input.


----------



## Vytautas

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> p.s. still looking for a Clarkian who wants to defend your guys' position in the book I'm trying to get done. Why don't any Clarkians want to do it? Is there a problem with you guys actually putting your views on the line? Doesn't look good.



May I give it a shot? What is the title of your book and where can I get a copy?


----------



## Cheshire Cat

> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> I think you´re confusing a few terms, but I think I still get your meaning. I think instead of induction above you mean either sensation or empirical means or something along those lines. So I gather you argue that we come to a knowledge of the truth by sensate means, I suppose by having our auditory nerves being tickled or by somehow drawing inferences from ink marks on a page. Have I got it?



I don't know, I think I do probably have the terms confused but it still makes sense to me. I of course have to study more on the topic. 




> _Originally posted by Magma2_
> Well, you said that God changes his creation. God doesn´t change his creation, rather his creation changes according to his sovereign, eternal and immutable decree. Not only that, the number of days you live, where you live and the number of hairs on your head "“ even whether or not you´ll get your hair cut next Thursday at noon "“ are determined down to every detail by the same immutable decree. in my opinion Barker got around Paul´s reply, at least partly, by claiming his brand of mechanism was a form of compatibilism. He evidently wasn´t, or didn´t claim to be, a strict determinist.



I think we are defining change differently. Perhaps a better word would be cause.


----------



## Vytautas

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> secondly, you told me that you were not a clarkian over at unchained! you told me that you don't don't believe all that we can know are propositions in scripture and those deduced from scripture. but know you do?



Let me be clear. I do not believe all that we can know are propositions in scripture and those deduced from scripture. However, I still hold to his view of logic and things like that. I believe some things can be known without going to the Bible. I also believe that Scripture is a stating point for knowledge, but things can be known outside of scripture.


----------



## Vytautas

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> sorry, but you can't. The contributers need ph.ds.
> 
> anyway, it's a reformed views on apologetics book.



After you are done with your program, could you tell me more about the book?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Paul, try contacting Dr. Talbot at Whitefield for the Clarkian view, or Dr. Gary Crampton? They would probably be interested.


----------



## Vytautas

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> it's basically like the 4 views book on apologetics, but all the contributers will be reformed. Also, I'll have other species of presuppositionalism included, rather than just Van Tillianism.



Are the views Frances Schaffer presup, Gordon Clark presup, Van Til presup, and Reformed Epistemology?


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> it's basically like the 4 views book on apologetics, but all the contributers will be reformed. Also, I'll have other species of presuppositionalism included, rather than just Van Tillianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the views Frances Schaffer presup, Gordon Clark presup, Van Til presup, and Reformed Epistemology?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not classifying RE under presupp, though it has some things in common.
> 
> But, the others are basically it, except I don't know of any Schafferians! Also, I might split VTil into a Bahnsen/Frame thing.
Click to expand...


I can think of a few who might qualify as Schafferians, but none that I know of offhand that have Ph.D's. I think Schaeffer thought of himself as mainly an evangelist and may not have had as defined an apologetic as Van Til and Clark.


----------



## Vytautas

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> it's basically like the 4 views book on apologetics, but all the contributers will be reformed. Also, I'll have other species of presuppositionalism included, rather than just Van Tillianism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the views Frances Schaffer presup, Gordon Clark presup, Van Til presup, and Reformed Epistemology?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not classifying RE under presupp, though it has some things in common.
> 
> But, the others are basically it, except I don't know of any Schafferians! Also, I might split VTil into a Bahnsen/Frame thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can think of a few who might qualify as Schafferians, but none that I know of offhand that have Ph.D's. I think Schaeffer thought of himself as mainly an evangelist and may not have had as defined an apologetic as Van Til and Clark.
Click to expand...


Phil Fernandas analyzed and explained Schaffer´s apologetic and called it Verificational Presuppositionalism. So he does have one. His analysis is in the link that I posted on this topic section if you want to hear it.


----------



## Pilgrim

I didn't say that he "didn't have one".


----------



## Magma2

> Robbins decilned for myriad reasons but I asked him for Crampton's contact info and he's not got back to me. If you know Cramptons could you U2U me?



A myriad of reasons? I was under the impression that he was waiting for you to apologize for the virtiolic and personal attacks you've hurled his way on your blogs and elsewhere. 

I know he does have a lot on his plate, incuding finishing his own book on apologetics.


----------



## MW

4 lawyers are locked in a room arguing over how best to defend their client who is charged with murder. One indignantly maintains self-defence is the best option. Another is vehement for temporary insanity. Another attacks his fellows for not looking for a scapegoat. The fourth man sits quietly in the corner waiting for the opportunity to speak. At last he comes forward with the suggestion that such is the preponderance of evidence in favour of the man's innocence that his best defence will be a sound exhibition of the truth. If that does not serve the turn, it is quite clear there is something wrong with the judicial system.


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> I love it when Barker says, "This is fun here...", speaking of when Paul was replying to Barker and the moderator interrupted. Immediately after (and a bit during) Barker's statement you can hear him sigh a sigh of weariness....ha ha ha ha


----------

