lex,>>EDIT – I just read this – [Stephen Law] and was very amused by his argument that counters SyeStephen Law's whole premiss is on Sye having brain damage. Stephen said: "Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock." We took a moment to conclude that the fact that he was discussing things with Sye and, attempting, to engage him in a conversation about logic, and other things, cogitates [shows] that he believes that Sye is a rational logical being capable of a reasonable conversation. The evidence is within Stephen already, thus Sye didn't have to respond to any of Stephen Law's brain damage garbage because its already been revealed as a false premiss. Also, Stephan's whole argument is a Relativist Fallacy. Stephen Law was debunked by his own argument. Also, Sye stated it this way: The way that a transcendental claim is refuted is to demonstrate that claim is not the necessary precondition for the thing claimed, i.e. to demonstrate that God is NOT the necessary precondition for the laws of logic. You cannot show evidence for the necessary precondition of evidence, cause then it wouldn't be the necessary precondition of evidence!Any takers?
Alex,>>I'm sorry, but your TAG word games aren't going to fly here…Are we to take that as you don't know how to address it, as in some pseudo avoidance mechanism? Just address the questions, don't try to run away like a scared little boy. Or concede to your lack. Then we can begin to understand Him more. Its a good thing. Never be afraid of, or run away from, truth."Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them? ">>No, because to be omnipotent and omniscient simultaneously is impossible, no such being exists.No? You claim that its impossible for such a being to exist? To KNOW this, one would have to be omniscient them self. Thus, its directly a contradictory statement.It would take intellectual dishonesty to claim that God could not reveal some things to us such that we could know them for certain. You, on the other hand have no such rescuing device for your circularity. Please try again. You are exposing, to hopefully yourself, that your worldview is reduced to the absurd. We can work with that to a better understanding. If you are willing that is. Is truth a bad thing? >>You're not going to gain ANY ground hereSo you admit that you are dogmatic about your beliefs? That is a step towards truth, yet again. Keep it up!
Alex,>>Don't be a patronising dick, Dan, that's not going to fly here either.When things fly smack into your face, things have a way of discontinuing to fly, that is for sure. :7)>>if one is all knowing one knows what one will do next, which prevents one from changing one's mind….so no longer all powerful. And you KNOW this how? So you claim to KNOW that no one can KNOW? (snicker)Besides, you and I seem to be in disagreement with regards to the meaning of ‘omnipotent’. Omnipotence simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.God cannot contradict His own character, as then he would be able to be both ‘God’ and ‘not God’ at the same time and in the same way, which means He could also be both omnipotent and not omnipotent as well (which is absurd, of course).It’s also important to note that the ability to contradict oneself is not a ‘power’, but a weakness and is necessarily precluded from the scope of omnipotence by definition.You inspired me to do a new post though. What you have said reminded me of a video I watched a couple of days ago.I titled it Atheism: Not KnowingI will remember you as one of the poster children for that one. Take care of yourself, and don't die before figuring all this out. http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2011/05/atheism-not-knowing.html