|
camshaft96 (July 27, 2008 at 9:51 pm)
This video is pretty trite. You're up your ass with your linguistic ability, constantly repeating your opinions which lack any philosophical/physical/spiritual evidence, but at the end, feel that you have locked down something that no one has been able to to (or will for that matter). If its your opinion that there is a creator, good for you. You might as well have just said " I believe in god because I do". I challenge you to disprove the validity of any other religion or theory for existence.
kapwns (July 19, 2008 at 10:32 pm)
the difference btw science and religion is when we all go home and try the experiment for ourselves we'll get the same result. religion and god are the ones leaving things up to interpretation, your view is no more accurate or valid than any other religion's view, even lolcat's ceiling cat bible.
NeoConvert (July 17, 2008 at 1:14 am)
Mind is not a thing.-Ryle
paleocrat (July 17, 2008 at 1:14 am)
(Cont.)All of this for what? What is proven? a) I am a phony (whatever that would mean)b) I am not as smart as youc) I demonstrate that my position is not at variance with you.Here is where things get sad. Let's say that my view of the matter reflects that found in the works of Bahnsen, Van Til, and Rushdoony. All you have done is waste time, stroke your ego, and potentially embolden covenant breakers. This is rather sad... and reveals who you are and what you're about. *sigh*
paleocrat (July 17, 2008 at 1:09 am)
The irony is that you:a) claim to be a Christianb) claim to be a presuppositionalistA handful of presuppositionalists trying to handle a horde of atheists. I make a claim that Van Til insisted was central to presuppositionalism. You, then, come in here, amidst the horde, to see if I can go beyond an assertion that (presumably) even you endorse! (Cont.)
paleocrat (July 17, 2008 at 12:58 am)
I said I would do so. In fact, I dedicated myself to providing an 10 minute video to the matter! Amazingly, after having said I would do as much, you still complain. Truly amazing.How is choosing to do so in a video, which just so happens to be far more efficient and visible, diversionary? I wish, even for a moment, that I could take you serious...
NeoConvert (July 16, 2008 at 10:13 pm)
That is inaccurate.I am asking you to show me wrong.In your present diversionary mode, you're hardly doing so. My claim was that you make philosophical claims you can't defend. How is making philosophical claims you cannot defend admirable? Or, if you can defend them, just do so.But don't get mad that your knock-down method actually be questioned.
NeoConvert (July 16, 2008 at 10:10 pm)
The only way the events could seem strangely twisted were if you assumed that your views require no further elaboration; that they should be swallowed by your viewers and conversion commence.I have merely asked you a very obvious question that is bound to come in light of the claim you make in your video. You're merely being diversionary now. Your viewers are within their rights to ask you about your reasoning. That is what I've done.
paleocrat (July 16, 2008 at 10:04 pm)
I am not agitated, just pointing out that you wish me to do the very thing you criticized me for having done. Rather strange.Give me time to put together an entire video on the matter. I have a list of videos to do, but this is a good one. I'll take ten minutes (still insufficient) over the character limits of comments sections any day of the week. Not an expert? But the time and effort you've put into it! You can't be a petty novice like me... pitiable me.
paleocrat (July 16, 2008 at 9:56 pm)
You are rather strange. On the one hand, you are upset that a novice as I would dare to speak out on such matters. Then, in a strange twist of events, you wish for me go into detail as to how presuppositionalists argue that the ontological trinity provides the answer for the difficulty of the one and the many. It is a lose-lose with your type. You want one thing, and then demand something altogether different! And the point of this exercise? Knowledge for knowledge sake? Typical of your type. |
