Stephen Law

== Stephen Law ==
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/sye-show-continues.html
Sye TenB said...Well, I don't expect you to give an honest representation of our discussion, but I did briefly address 2 of the 3 three ‘atheist friendly’ accounts, and the third (Quine’s) equates laws of logic with laws of nature, and says that they are ‘not necessary,’ surely that does not require refutation.
As far as your silly rock scenario goes, it fails on 2 counts (as I have already stated). 1. Presuppositionalism does not say that the professed atheist cannot prove things, merely that they cannot account for the very concept of proof. 2. Your very challenge to me to prove anything, presupposes that my mind is not addled, or you would be a fool to make the challenge.
Now Stephen, for a PhD in philosophy, you’d think that you would have a justification for the laws of logic you wish to use in arguing against my claims, but, and everyone is free to search the thousands of posts, you have NEVER given YOUR account for logic, or your basis for assuming that the laws of logic WILL hold. You say that there are 3 accounts that may work, but that’s like a cop asking for YOUR ownership to YOUR vehicle, and you producing 3 different ownerships with other peopl'es names on them, which you claim may be for YOUR car. Is it any wonder the Bible calls the reasoning of those who deny God ‘foolishness?’
Stephen, how do YOU account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic according to YOUR worldview, and on what basis do you assume that the laws of logic WILL hold? Perhaps you could also include how you know that your reasoning about any of this is valid? It’s been well over a year though , and I doubt that you will offer your account. You should be ashamed.
tephen Law said...
I cannot resist (I know I'll regret it):
Sye said: "As far as your silly rock scenario goes, it fails on 2 counts (as I have already stated). 1. Presuppositionalism does not say that the professed atheist cannot prove things, merely that they cannot account for the very concept of proof. 2. Your very challenge to me to prove anything, presupposes that my mind is not addled, or you would be a fool to make the challenge."
MY REPLY: Your responses both involve logical inferences. So, semi-quoting you: How do YOU justify YOUR use of logic here? If you cannot, then you have no basis for offering these arguments. Thus my position that your brain is addled cos you were hit by a rock is proved by THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE CONTRARY!
=== Syllogism ===
ye TenB said...
Derrida said: ”If your goal is to save people from Hell, then why not provide the arguments or evidence for Christianity, rather than arguing that a single position, atheism, that a few people hold is inconsistent?”
Well first, my goal is not to save anyone from Hell, as that is entirely out of my hands. My goal is to speak the truth in the hope that people will be saved from Hell. What you fail to realize though Derrida, is that the very concept of ‘evidence’ is evidence for Christianity, as the preconditions necessary to call anything ‘evidence’(i.e. truth, knowledge, and universal, abstract, invariant laws) cannot be accounted for apart from God, and are accounted for with Him.
”It seems to me that if there is such a thing as "reality" which propositions can either describe or not, then the laws of logic are simply descriptions of the fact that all claims are either true (in that they describe what reality is like), false (in that they describe the way reality could be but isn't), and meaningless (in that they neither describe how reality is or isn't).”
Problem is, that would make the laws of logic contingent to what was described, and they would lose their universality.
”Reality either exists or doesn't. Of course, if reality doesn't exist, then how can I, a part of reality, doubt its existence? If reality didn't exist then I wouldn't exist and wouldn't be able to doubt its existence. So reality does exist, so there is an objective way things are, which claims can accurately or inaccurately describe.”
Sorry Derrida, but you are begging the question. How do you know that you are a part of reality? At best your argument is that there is doubting going on, but you have not proven that there is reality, or that you exist. (Not to mention the fact that you assume an absolute standard of logic to insist that the disjunctive ‘either/or’ syllogism is valid – a standard which you have not, and cannot justify without God).
=== Justify logic ===
Sye TenB said...
Stephen said: ”Your responses both involve logical inferences. So, semi-quoting you: How do YOU justify YOUR use of logic here? If you cannot, then you have no basis for offering these arguments. Thus my position that your brain is addled cos you were hit by a rock is proved by THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE CONTRARY!”
Problem is Stephen, I have never said that you cannot, or are unable to use logical inferences, so you are creating a false analogy. Quite simply, I have given my justification for using logical inferences, and you have not. You can play your silly game as long as you want, but it is glaringly obvious that you are simply avoiding your account for logic, and the validity of your reasoning, because you can justify neither.
Sye TenB said...
Stephen asked: ”What is your JUSTIFICATION for saying YOU were not hit on the head by a rock? How do YOU KNOW you were not? What is YOUR argument, and how do YOU know it is valid?”
Simple, God has revealed, such that I can be certain of it, that I can use my senses and reasoning to gain certain knowledge. I have used my senses and reasoning to determine that I was not hit on the head by a rock, and that my brain is not addled. Again, you may not agree with my claim, or presuppose that it is not valid, but my simple question is, what is YOUR justification for using logic? How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, how do you know that they will be valid, and how do you know that your reasoning is valid, according to YOUR worldview?
This is not a trick. We simply offer our respective claims for the justification of logic, and reasoning, and how we can arrive at certainty, and compare them. So far, for obvious reasons, you are unwilling to give us your claim.
ye TenB said...Stephen said: ”But if you WERE hit on the head by a rock and your brain addled, both this inference and your alleged God experience are unreliable.”
I gave my justification - revelation from God, such that I can have certain knowledge.
Now,
1. Are you suggesting that God could not reveal some things to us such that we can know for certain that they are true?
2. If so, how do you know THAT (or anything - i.e. that my experiences are unreliable) for certain?
ye TenB said...
Stephen said: "Please JUSTIFY your claim that you were not hit on the head by a rock!"
Well, it should be clear to everyone who is really playing games here. I have given my justification for knowledge, and granted, you may disagree with it, or even claim that it is not a justification, but what is yours?
Not only will you not give your own justification for logic, knowledge, and reasoning, you refuse to answer my questions because you are aware of the impications of doing so.
PhD. Piled higher and deeper perhaps? :-)
tephen Law said...Stephen said: "Please provide your non-question-begging justification!"
SYE: How do you know that I haven't?
STEPHEN: How do YOU know that you HAVE?!
Please provide your non-question-begging justification for your claim that you were not hit on the head with a rock and your brain addled!
Plus your proof that you have supplied such a proof!
If you can't, well, I have proved that you were hit on the head by a rock and your brain addled, by the IMPOSSIBILITY OF THE CONTRARY!
Oh BTW, my knowledge of, and the existence of, the laws of logic is underwritten by the INVISIBLE PINK UNICORN! Hence my use and knowledge of logic is justified. Unlike yours....
That's how I know you have not given me a proof. The INVISIBLE PINK UNICORN told me so.
But that is all by the by. We are all waiting for your refutation of my PROOF that you were not hit on the head by a rock and your thinking addled. Where is it?
NOVEMBER 30, 2009 AT 10:11 PM
=== 29 ===
Sye TenB said...
Stephen said: "You said God reveals to you that your logic is reliable, but how do you know this has been revealed to you, rather than that it merely seems that way to you because you were hit on the head by a rock? Your justification just ASSUMES you were not hit on the head by a rock."
Are you suggesting that God cannot reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
=== 30 ===
DECEMBER 1, 2009 AT 11:58 AM
 Stephen Law said...
SYE (about me)"I am simply asking him to account for what he is doing when he uses logic."
And I am asking YOU to account for what YOU are doing - in particular to JUSTIFY what you are doing, to show that your use of logic is reliable, and how you know it to be reliable and underpinned by God, by justifying your claim you were not hit on the head by a rock.
So now please stop evading these questions. Please provide the answers I have been asking for!
SYE: "Be my guest, search the thousands of posts and see where Stephen has given us HIS account for logic, and the validity of his reasoning."
Scroll up a couple. I said, twice, that the invisible pink unicorn underpins both logic and my use of it.
So now please give YOUR non-question-begging justification for claiming that your use of logic is reliable and that logic is underpinned by your God.
=== 31 ===
DECEMBER 1, 2009 AT 12:01 PM
 Psye said...
Let me quote the following, Sye:
"SYE: "I have never said that you cannot, or are unable to use logical inferences"
STEPHEN: I know, but you said I am not *justified* in using them. You just asked how do I *know* my inferences are valid, blah blah blah.
So now I ask you....
What is your JUSTIFICATION for saying YOU were not hit on the head by a rock? How do YOU KNOW you were not? What is YOUR argument, and how do YOU know it is valid?"
So which is it, Sye, are you dumb or dishonest?
=== 32 ===
DECEMBER 1, 2009 AT 12:01 PM
 Stephen Law said...
SYE: Are you suggesting that God cannot reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
STEPHEN: Are you suggesting the invisible pink unicorn can't?
===33===
DECEMBER 1, 2009 AT 12:02 PM
Stephen Law said...
SYE SAID "P.S. Why is my claim question begging, and why is question begging absolutely wrong according to YOUR worldview?"
Stephen: because the invisible pink unicorn says so.
But you are changing the subject again. Let's get back to my proof that you were hit on the head by a rock. You reject it. Let's have your non-question-begging justification for doing so....
How does YOUR world view, which includes the view that you were not hit on the head by a rock, provide you with a non-question-begging justification for supposing you were not hit on the head by a rock?
DECEMBER 1, 2009 AT 2:25 PM
=== 34 ===
Sye TenB said...
Stephen said: "We're all waiting for YOUR answer to these questions, Sye...."
I have answered them, scroll up ;-)
Odd of you to keep asking me though, as though you presupposed that my reasoninig was good enough to be able to understand and answer you;-)
As far as linking to this blog, I would love it if they did. I don't imagine it is very often that a PhD in philosophy is reduced to admitting that his justification for logic is the Invisible Pink Unicorn (I've already mentioned that in an interview - thanks btw).
=== 35 ===
Sye TenB said...
Stephen said: ”You tried to answer them, but failed, producing a hopelessly question-begging answer.”
1. How do you know that I have failed?
2. Why would question begging absolutely cause ANY answer to fail?
”OK Sye, then please now email Hovind asking for this link to be included and please copy me into the email, and also paste it up here so we can see you have done it.”
1. I don’t answer to self-serving requests for traffic to atheistic blogs.
2. I do not ask people to post stuff on my behalf. 
3. If you really think that I would not love it for everyone who is confronted with this apologetic to see how a PhD in Philosophy tries to justify logic (with the Invisible Pink Unicorn), you are more deluded than I thought.
DECEMBER 15, 2009 AT 3:40 PM
=== 36 ===
Sye TenB said...
Stephen said: ”THE UNICORN tells me.”
Could I examine this revelation Stephen?
”See? If you can wheel out your cranky, genocidal god of the Old Testament to answer such tricky questions, then I can wheel out my unicorn!”
Prejudicial conjecture aside, God’s revelation is available for all to examine, where is this revelation of your unicorn?
”Any twit can see your earlier answer was question-begging.”
That’s probably why you see it and I don’t.
DECEMBER 15, 2009 AT 4:03 PM
 Stephen Law said...
For the benefit of others who may have missed much of the preceding comment on this post, what I am doing is simply using two of Sye's argumentative strategies against him:
(i) Whenever someone uses logic against you, play the skeptical card. Ask them to justify their use of logic in a non-circular manner. That'll tie them up in endless knots.
(ii) If you are asked the same question, just say my SUPER-MAGIC-BEING underpins and reveals to me the reliability of my logical reasoning. (Currently, I am relying on the unicorn).
In this way, you can, er, "prove" that their arguments are all rubbish and "prove" (by the "impossibility of the contrary") that there really is a [substitute your preferred SUPER-MAGIC-BEING here].
It's all bollocks, of course.
DECEMBER 15, 2009 AT 4:07 PM
 Sye TenB said...
Stephen said: "But why would this be self-serving if you have so clearly WON, eh? Surely you would be HUMILIATING ME? Surely that's the last thing I'd want. So go on, then: request that link! If you would really "love it" why not ask Hovind? What have you to lose, and I to gain?"
Well, like it is said: "Any publicity is good publicity," and I will not contribute to your desperate need for attention. It is quite obvious that whenever I show up, traffic to your blog increases trememdously, and you seem to be addicted to the attention, no matter how silly you look. I am quite happy when anyone links here, but I will not contribute to your habit ;-)
DECEMBER 15, 2009 AT 4:09 PM
 Stephen Law said...
SYE: "Prejudicial conjecture aside, God’s revelation is available for all to examine, where is this revelation of your unicorn?"
Your God does not exist, Sye. You only think he does cos you were hit on the head by that rock. My unicorn reveals the truth to all (though some pretend to themselves otherwise). Deep down, even you know my unicorn exists!
BUT AGAIN YOU CHANGE THE SUBJECT SYE. Where is your non-question-begging justification for your use of logic? I ask, again and again and again and again. Readers will begin to suspect you don't have one, won't they....?
DECEMBER 15, 2009 AT 4:12 PM
 Stephen Law said...
SYE: "Well, like it is said: "Any publicity is good publicity," and I will not contribute to your desperate need for attention."
I see. But look, you might be able to save more souls by getting them to come over here and see how foolish you make me appear. You wouldn't want people to burn in hell just because you failed to ask for that link, would you?
DECEMBER 15, 2009 AT 4:16 PM
 Sye TenB said...
Stephen said: "I see. But look, you might be able to save more souls by getting them to come over here and see how foolish you make me appear."
People do not save souls, that is not up to us.
"You wouldn't want people to burn in hell just because you failed to ask for that link, would you?"
Perhaps you should look up "Calvinism." I am not responsible for the salavation or damnation of any souls. This may all be a joke to you now Stephen, but I trust that you will not feel that way if you meet your maker in this unrepentant state.
DECEMBER 15, 2009 AT 4:22 PM
 Stephen Law said...
Well you've got a bit of shock coming when you finally meet, THE UNICORN!
But now I am puzzled. You work very hard making sure as many people as possible know about your ideas and arguments. Videos, books, interviews, etc. So WHY NOT HERE?
If YOU have made ME look like a twit, why not spread the word about that? After all, you said you'd mentioned me in an interview already. So why not show people the PROOF that you've WON this debate, eh?
Saying, "I just don't want to give you publicity" seems very odd indeed, if the publicity would actually damage my reputation and very much add to your other promotional work.
Personally, if I thought I'd won a debate with you, I'd be very quick to link to you and Hovind. Wouldn't occur to me say "Ooh, better not link as that'll just give them publicity". (Oh wait, I DID include those links, didn't I?).
Yet you refuse to link the other way.
Interesting, eh?
DECEMBER 15, 2009 AT 4:37 PM
 Sye TenB said...
"Yet you refuse to link the other way."
I have not asked anyone to post anything on my behalf, nor will I commence doing so. If you wish to ask Eric to post the link to here, be my guest.
Why would I not want people to know that a PhD in philosophy gave as his jutification for logic 'the inivisible pink unicorn?'
You have abandoned atheism, as you realize that you cannot justify logic according to your actual worldview, and have now adopted the IPU as your 'god.' I mean, really, what more is there to say?
DECEMBER 15, 2009 AT 5:05 PM
 Stephen Law said...
We all know I have not abandoned atheism. Rather, I have provided a parody of your silly arguments.
So let's get back to your non-question-begging justification of your use of logic. When are we going to see it. I must have asked maybe 100 times now. Are we going to get an answer?
I am asking Eric to link here.
I ask you to link your own site here. Will you do so? If not, why not?
Sye, "Er, um, well, I don't want to give you any publicity...!"
Yeh, right Sye!
DECEMBER 15, 2009 AT 5:10 PM
=== 41 ===
Sye TenB said...
”I am not attempting to prove God is not the right answer, Rather, I am trying to show what's wrong with your "proof" that he is.”
In so doing you are attempting to appeal to an absolute standard of logic which you have not accounted for. How do you know that your reasoning about the proof (or about anything for that matter) is valid Stephen?
” By means of my stupid parody argument. Which has got you stumped.”
Not at all, I have answered it, and you have refused to answer my questions (for obvious reasons).
” For you are STILL evading the question: what is your non-question-begging justification for your use of logic, Sye? I ask again and again and again and again.....”
Simple fact is that I have given my justification for the laws of logic, and my use of them, and you have no absolute basis from which to claim that it is false according to your actual worldview. You must posit a deity (your IPU) to even being combating my position, and as I said, if you wish to debate the revelation of our respective deities publically, I will gladly do so.
=== 42 ===
e TenB said...
Stephen asked: "How do YOU know anything Sye? How do YOU know that your reasoning about this (or ANYTHING) is valid?"
Simple Stephen, by and through revelation from God. Your turn.
DECEMBER 15, 2009 AT 6:41 PM
=== 43 ===
ye TenB said...
”Well of course you don't, because the parody reveals the ridiculous character of your arguments.”
By what absolute standard of logic is my argument ‘ridiculous’ Stephen, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to my argument? Also, how do you know that your reasoning about this or anything is valid, according to your actual worldview?
DECEMBER 15, 2009 AT 10:09 PM
=== 44 ===
ye TenB said...
”I say, you're missing the point. You have to explain why it's Ok to say "God tells me" but not "the unicorn tells me".
I’m not saying that it’s not okay, and if it is your actual view I will be pleased to debate you on it (scroll up).
”You have not done that, so your "proof" fails.”
How do you know what I have or have not done? How do you know ANYTHING according to YOUR actual worldview? How do you know that your reasoning about anything is valid Stephen?
”And so on and on and on it goes.”
That’s right Stephen, I have given you my justification for knowledge and logic, and would be happy to debate you on yours – what is it?
=== 45 ===
ye TenB said...
Stephen said: "So, by what absolute standard do you judge your argument not to be crap?"
There is only one absolute standard, and that is God. 
Now Stephen, how are you able to know ANYTHING according to your worldview?
How do you account for the laws of logic according to your worldview, and on what basis do you assume that they will not change?
Also, how do you know that your reasoning about anything is valid?
=== secret stash ===
”Could God create a boulder so large He Himself could not lift it?”
[Sye]Self-contradiction is not an element of omnipotence in the Christian worldview (as that is a weakness not a power), however if you do want a ‘god’ who could contradict itself, then yes, such a ‘god’ could make a boulder so big that it could not lift it. “AHA” you would then say, “There is something God can’t do, He can’t lift that boulder.” Of course what you fail to realize is that a self-contradictory ‘god’ can lift a boulder that it can’t lift, demonstrating the absurdity of your question.
--------------
== Derrida ==
Sye replies to Derrida: 
ye TenB said...Derrida said: ”Not really. Reality is simply the collection of everything that is.”
How do you know that logic applies to everything that is since you do not have universal knowledge, or revelation from same? How do you know that it will apply in the future, since the future isn’t yet?
”Whether or not anything exists, the laws of logic would still apply.”
How do you know?
”I don't think that I am begging the question. To beg the question is to assume that a claim is true in order to show that the claim is true.”
I know what it means, and I have pointed out where you are begging the question, as you have neither proved that you exist, or that there is reality.
”Simply put, reality is defined as all that is. Anything that is is a part of reality. Hence, if I exist, I am a part of reality. Since you agree with me that "there is doubting going on", reality cannot be an empty set.”
Still, you have not proven that anything ‘is,’ let alone that you ‘are.’
”As to your point that I assume an either/or distinction, you seem to imply that I might neither exist nor fail to exist. However, if that is the case, then its also possible that God neither exists nor doesn't exist, meaning that God cannot be used to justify logic.”
No, I am not implying that, since I have a justification for saying that that cannot be the case, I am simply asking for yours.
NOVEMBER 30, 2009 AT 8:48 PM
Sye TenB said...DERRIDA SAID: ”YOU THINK THAT I MEANT "REALITY" TO BE EVERYTHING THAT COULD POSSIBLY EXIST, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE GOD. BY "REALITY", I MEAN EVERYTHING THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS, NOT EVERYTHING THAT COULD EXIST.”
PROBLEM IS, WE LIKELY DIFFER ON WHAT ACTUALLY EXISTS, OR CAN EXIST, SO OUR DEFINITIONS OF REALITY CANNOT BE AGREED UPON ABSENT OUR METAPHYSICAL, AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL POSITIONS BEING CLARIFIED. IN THAT CASE, LET ME ASK YOU, WHAT IS ACTUALLY REAL, AND HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW?
Sye TenB said...
Derrida said: "Well, the fact that we may differ on what actually or potentially exists doesn't pose much of a problem for the definition of reality. To take a trivial example, my friend Bill believes in UFO's and I don't. However, even if we don't agree on what makes up reality, we can agree on what reality is: it's whatever exists."
Well, let’s say that I say that reality includes universal, immaterial, invariant entities, and you say that those things cannot exist, then our definitions of reality obviously differ. Still though, for the sake of argument, I will agree that reality is whatever actually exists, but without defining our metaphysical, and epistemological views, we cannot agree on whatever actually exists.
”Those are very weighty questions, although I think that I have gone some way to answering them! Unfortunately, it's getting quite late where I am.”
Yes, I definitely have the time advantage if you are on the east side of the pond.
”Even if it could be showed that logic cannot be explained in an atheistic worldview, and can be explained in a theistic worldview, would this prove theism? How could it, since this implies an argument of the form:
If God does not exist, then logic is not real.
Logic is real.
Therefore, God exists.
But that would be to assume the laws trying to be proved.”
And why would that be absolutely wrong?
------------
=== Kosh ===
reply to: Kosh
ye TenB said...Kosh asked: ”You want to argue that logic only makes sense, and so only has rightful application, if it derives (somehow) from god. Thus the use of logic presupposes god.”
Use of, and existence of, yes.
” Since the use of logic is correct, god exists.”
Not quite, God is the necessary presupposition for the correct use of, and existence of logic.
Sye TenB said...Kosh said: ”It follows then that your use of logic in showing that logic depends on god presupposes that god is responsible for both the existence of, and reliability of, logic. It is then tacitly circular, and by that, argumentatively useless.”
Which brings us right back to the original response you deleted – what’s absolutely wrong with that?
Not only that, by what standard of reasoning do you make the determination of "uselessness," and how do you know that standard, and your employment of it, is itself valid?
” You could possibly be right (for your argument is not invalid), but it leaves nobody who does not already accept what you say without any reason to accept it”
Well, that would all depend on your own justification for evaluating the ‘rightness’ of my argument. It is my hope that you would see that according to your own worldview, you have no basis to do this.
”Interestingly enough, if it wasn't tacitly circular, you couldn't be right. The only way you can be right is by tacitly assuming what you conclude.”
Exactly, which is the case with ALL ultimate authority claims, which is why I constantly ask you people to tell me how you know that your ability to reason (likely your ultimate authority) is valid? You must assume it in order to prove it, the difference is that your argument is “viciously circular,” as opposed to the necessary “virtuous” circularity of the Christian argument. Greg Bahnsen writes:
”In the Christian worldview, however, the Christian is not engaged in viciously circular argument, a circular argument on the same plane. We appeal above and beyond the temporal realm. God’s self-revelation in nature and in Scripture informs us of the two-level universe. God is not a fact like other facts in the world. He is the Creator and Establisher of all else. His existence alone makes the universe, and reason, and human experience possible… … The “circularity” of a transcendental argument is not at all the same as the fallacious ‘circularity’ of an argument in which the conclusion is a restatement (in one form or another) of one of its premises.” ~ (Pushing the Antithesis pg.) 124.
DECEMBER 1, 2009 AT 4:09 AM
== Psye ==
Sye TenB said...
Psye said: "What is your JUSTIFICATION for saying YOU were not hit on the head by a rock? How do YOU KNOW you were not? What is YOUR argument, and how do YOU know it is valid?"
You have obviously not been paying attention. It is my claim that ALL knowledge comes by or through revelation from God. I'd ask how it is possible for you to know anything apart from God, but I suspect that you are the type who likes to play games like Stephen.
DECEMBER 1, 2009 AT 12:14 PM
== SS ==
Sye TenB said...
SS said: ”Of course they never bother to touch morality or science. I guess they figure if they can get you with one you'll just accept the other two.”
Um, the science video is up on the website, and the morality video is due out this week.
”It looks as though Sye will be retreating to such blogs where he can help censor comments.”
Wrong. Besides, the comment requirements were only for that post.
” He can't do that here or in a live debate and thus ends up looking foolish and childish.”
Do you want to debate me live SS?
”CENSORSHIP IS NOT A VALID FORM OF ARGUMENT.”
Not that I admit to censorship, but by what absolute standard of argument is censorship not valid, how do you account for that standard, and how do you know that that standard has not/will not change?
”If such a being did exist it's possible that He, She, It or They could.”
Fine, which means that you admit at least an avenue to certainty for me, now, how is it possible for YOU to know anything for certain?
”If God truly wanted man to KNOW for certain why doesn't everyone KNOW for certain? “
They (you) do. That’s the point. People are not sent to Hell forever for something they don’t know.
”If God truly wanted people to know something for certain would they be able to deny it?”
Obviously.
”Did God limit his own awesome power or give man too much power over God when He gave them free will?”
Neither.
”Could God create a boulder so large He Himself could not lift it?”
Self-contradiction is not an element of omnipotence in the Christian worldview (as that is a weakness not a power), however if you do want a ‘god’ who could contradict itself, then yes, such a ‘god’ could make a boulder so big that it could not lift it. “AHA” you would then say, “There is something God can’t do, He can’t lift that boulder.” Of course what you fail to realize is that a self-contradictory ‘god’ can lift a boulder that it can’t lift, demonstrating the absurdity of your question.
DECEMBER 15, 2009 AT 1:14 PM
=== Links ===
http://randalrauser.com/2013/07/stephen-law-accuses-me-of-writing-a-shoddy-review-and-then-responds-in-kind/ Agrippa's trilemma and review of Law's book
Category:Logical fallacies
Category:Agrippa's trilemma
Category:Philosophy
Category:Syllogism