we don't just have inputs we have inputs and a brain that can learn through empirical experience and can reason about its experiences.

Also mate, you are the most guilty of adhom and sliding off into assertion of every person in the thread.

Just repeating your mantra does not make you right. And listing logical fallacies does not mean you understand them.

I liked that a lot, well said. 

very respectfully

Reverend Willie G.

Hey Extremeist,

Regarding #101, you have to define learning. Learning is the when one receives knowledge. Since knowledge is not possible via empiricism, then learning is not possible via empiricism. Empiricism is nothing.

Regard ad homs. There are two different types:

1) Argumentum Ad Hominem Abusive (Invalid - a logical fallacy based on error).

2) Argumentum Ad Hominem (Valid - Logically viable via truth).

I Used # 2.

Regarding Post 102

Empirical testing? What do you mean? Again, define your terms. And since it is non-knowledge, it is complex of what?

I'm not just saying you can't test how you know. You cannot know via experience. Experience is via the senses. And for one to say experience denotes knowledge assumes some infallibility and inerrancy of the senses and experiences of the individual itself. Which begs the question since ALL experiences are particular and it becomes circular since it is the person going back to himself via his experiences, and they justifies it via his senses, and so fourth. It's invalid.

Children learn at birth via a-priori means and NOT aposteriori means. Though the learning is not knowledge but probably. The knowledge is only within the realm of Scripture alone.

God did give us senses, so there is a use for them. Just not in the area of knowing. The Bible is against empiricism and the Bible says the only way to know is via God's revelation.

________________

Hi Tess,

Atheistic philosophy is indeed just someone's speculation which is non-philosophy. Philosophy attempts to deal with Knowledge and the method of knowledge. It deals with the objective or the real, and the subjective is by definition, non-philosophy.

I absolutely 100% agree with you that to base a worldview on logic and philosophy alone is not sufficient. That is the epistemology of Rationalism (Capital R) of Rene Descartes. I am not a Capital R Rationalists.

The Burden is the negation of the thesis according to Black's Dictionary of Law. A required text in almost all Law Schools across the country. So write the author and all the schools and tell them that they are all wrong. lol.

I lack your KIND of evidence, since I am not an empiricist. I provide DEDUCTIVE evidence via my argument of consistency in relation to the correspondence of the every day world. So it is still evidence, but not empirical evidence.

Again, the verified evidence is the world around you. If God says He made fish, and in the world there are fish, that is the evidence that DEMONSTRATES the argument.

You need to go back and reread my arguments. And them address where I discuss evidence. Since you missed that part clearly.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Well at least it said (rare) although it should read (impossible)

The topic of this thread is true.

Hi BobSpencer1

Just because you say I have not refuted empiricism, doesn't mean that I haven't refuted empiricism. I have refuted empiricism via the grounds of empiricism itself. What more could you want. It's beauty.

The knowledge comment is an ad hominem abusive. Move forward.

Technology is not knowledge, for via empiricism, one has no idea what they have done. That is what I am saying. So technology was in reality NOT built by empiricism because EVERYTHING is fragmented. So there would be no possible RELATIONSHIP of thought between anything.

Answer me this. How can fragmentation of everything, relate to anything, to know something?

Those of Medieval time did not believe this way (the rare Christians did though that aren't mentioned - Jude 3.). They were of empiricism themselves or a sort of Socialist type Dictatorship of hermeneutics.  Another ad hominem abusive.

I do not assume most of these things. You evidently did not read my argument. I assume 2 things via axiomatically via the first principle which is acceptable in logic and everybody assumes their first principle in ALL arguments.

Probability is NOT knowledge by definition. Knowledge is a variable with absolute error. Probability ALWAYS has a probable means of false AND true, which in logic means that the subject does not have absolute dibs on either the true of the false. Thus probability by definition cannot know since the negation and the affirmative of the know contradict the possible outcome making it a GUESS. A guess is not a know.

And yes, just because you turn on your TV one, twice or a 150 times, does not mean it will turn on 151. Thus you do NOT know. You guess. And guessing is not knowing.

Induction is the incest with empiricism since they are both stuck together. They can't EVER get off the ground into universals. They are fallen and can't ever get up, thus by definition, can't every know.

This is the problem Thomas Aquinas had with the Theistic Proofs for the Existence of God, and you are making the same logical fallacy as Aquinas made over 700 years ago.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

It’s Tassman or Tass – not Tess. 

Philosophy is philosophy, atheistic or otherwise. Philosophy (which is just some guys best guess put on paper) cannot have equal status with empirical evidence and must always give way before it. After all, empirical knowledge is the verification of what philosophy is theoretically attempting to deduct or induct in the first place. The scientific method is designed to exclude confirmation bias to arrive at conclusions based on observed evidence, philosophy works in the exact opposite way.

Glad to hear it because it is crap. Most theists are "Capital R Rationalists though.

Nicely blurred – typical theist muddy-the-water tactic.

Burden of Proof is the legal obligation on a party to prove the allegation or assertion made by him against another party. In plain English the burden of proof rests with the one making the assertion – in this instance, you.

Deducing from WHAT???

Totally circular argument! You know there is a god because he said he made fish – there are fish so god must exist, because he said he made them.

“First catch a rabbit”, so begins a famous recipe for rabbit stew. In this instance, first prove god exists before you start claiming what he says.

I don’t think so. Not if the "fish-making god" is an example of your “evidence”?

Technology is a form of knowledge, of the only kind we have access to, ie provisional and qualified by a confidence factor.

Your version of 'knowledge" is ultimately empty, since we can only ever determine the truth-value of any factual statement about the state of reality provisionally. We can be somewhat more confident about deductive conclusions derived ultimately from the Laws of Logic, since we have no practical alternative. But Logic alone cannot lead us to even provisional truth, since it is just as dependent on the 'truth' of its input propositions as any empirical argument, which is also ultimately constructed on logic, but addresses more input data than purely deductive processes, and continually refers its conclusions back to reality for checking, before making the next step. 

That confidence factor, a probability, is data, is what allows us to decide in critical situations which alternative paths to start out along. If it suggests the probability of success is too low, then we need to find ways to increase it. Such as having our car's engine overhauled to bring it back into a more reliable condition.

Trying to apply binary (true/false) logic in a situation where the data are continuous variables is a error. That is why the extensions of logic via probabilities and tools like Bayes Theorem were developed.

You are effectively trying to calculate the orbit of the Earth with integer arithmetic.

Your demonstrated unfamiliarity with how these work just means that your education/understanding is incomplete, and until you study these things you are not qualified to comment.

The logic and philosophy of the Greeks and Aquinas are simply inadequate to address reality.

Complexity Theory, studies of Chaos, Non-linear feed-back systems, are developments of the last century or so, so if you have only been educated in philosophy, which is now way behind science in the 'knowledge'.

I must have missed your demonstration of the existence of God, can you point me to it, or at least give us a brief summary?

EDIT: I found a reference to some of your alleged proofs in another thread, so hold on that last question until I consider them.

Hey Jean, where is this Rational Intelligent Christian you promised us?

You sound exactly like that delusional computer nerd in Golden Eye, " I AM INVINCIBLE".

You have defeated empiricism like I have gotten a blow job from Anjolina Jolie.

This is also a guy who thinks referring to a few verses from the Bible, which simply make a few claims about what God did, proves God... WTF?

Jean, you are a just a sad joke to us now, we are so disappointed, we thought you might actually have something substantial for us to wrestle with. 

Instead we just have a tattered chew-toy, throwing arrogant ad-homs at us. Like a Chihuahua dog fiercely attacking our ankles.

Or perhaps a grasshopper...

Blake, you may be interested in my discussion with our friend Louise here, where I did very much try to bring her up to speed on my current take on the MWI.

I would be interested in your comments. I am still trying to formulate another attempt at explaining it, in between other commitments.

Indeed, I am still working my way thru it in my own head.

I think this is fair.  I usually use the book/story analogy, but try to make clear that an 'outside' observation is really impossible because observation can't occur in that context.

It is not eternal so much as 'timeless'; as much as is pi, or e, or 1- as notions along the number line.  These things bear only logical existence relative to each other, but not a temporal one, because time doesn't exist for these indelible concepts. 

Time is an emergent property of perception much as is the tendency to count along the number line from zero to infinity, assuming the larger numbers come later, and that somehow when you get to them the others have passed away.  Logical sequence just doesn't imply that.

It is probably more important to explain the illusory nature of time than to confuse people by bringing in an impossible notion of a meta-time.  From an objective perspective, time, observation, information, and existence as we know it are all impossible- it's something Eloise will never want to accept because it obliterates her deity on the most fundamental level.

There is no theism, no deism, and certainly no pantheism allowable by logic- a logic which derives everything we see from the input of our subjectivity and allows nothing- not a shred of objective information- outside of that.

The most psychologically positive thing that comes out of it is the logical inherence of being; in that sense, if it's a logically possible 'world', it's a logically necessary one to make up the whole (which would present with objective information without that symmetry), and though a part of a whole, we are an inherent part of the ultimate emergent property.  That we exist proves that we are logically possible in our context, and makes us logically inherent to any reality- every moment of us, and every possible moment of every possible us.  From the first kiss to that awkward time Aunty Sue didn't knock- these are all indelible parts of this cosmic symmetry, this 'number line' of sorts that is the multiverse, and which ultimately contains no information at all.

Hi DESD,

I actually had responses and lost it since I didn't save anything. Then I got sick. So, we'll try again since yet again, there is confusion regarding my argument.

I love science. I'm arguing that you cannot do science by definition, but you REDEFINE knowledge so you look like you know what you're doing. You're like an atheist leading a Bible study, no beginning and no end.

Only via Christianity is science even possible.

My argument has yet to be thrown out of the water. If one does not ever understand the argument, how can they destroy it? lol. Usually, it works in steps. As a Christian via science I would know this. Via an Atheist via fake science, I can see your confusion.

The rest was ad hominem abusive and you went down the toilet. What happened, brain dead?

______________

Hi Tess,

You do not know what philosophy is. Atheistic philosophy is just another guys guess, you're right, that's why they can't do science. But that is not Biblical philosophy.

I do not have a circular argument because my first principle is never used via my premises, but rather it works downward via deduction.

It is my evidence that ABC corresponds to reality. You don't like it because it works, and blows your egocentric selfishness out of there.

_____________

BobSpencer1

Technology is not knowledge. And technology when it is built is built OUTSIDE of empiricism, since empiricism CANNOT teach you anything. So if you want to use technology as an argument, It would be on my side for the inconsistency your empiricism offers (e.g. Mathematics).

Knowledge is only possible via revealed revelation from the Infinite Reference Point. You have 0% knowledge. I win.

If you want to make the Laws of Logic argument, then you are arguing from a Rationalistic epistemology. (Capital R, Rene Descartes). So which is it bob? Are you a Rationalist or an Empiricist? You can't be both since they are contradictive of one another and to be both would be to refute both at the same time.

I can understand the laws of logic because God is logical, and Jesus Christ is the very logic of God. How do you justify your inconsistency?

Probability is NEVER knowledge since there is always a probable factor of the negation and the affirmative of the claim. SO with that, you can never be sure. And since knowledge is in the realm of the non negation factor but only the affirmative factor, then to have ANY negation would cause it to be non-knowledge by definition. So you logically have no knowledge.

Just because you rename it knowledge, and you dress it up to look like knowledge, and you say it over and over again, does not make it knowledge by definition from a philosophical point of view.

lol, Bayes Theorem would be an ad hominem towards your position since the evidence itself is more of a higher qualify via a priori. Since Empiricism is a posteriori, then your own reference is a counter against you. That's funny. I am arguing purely via an a priori starting point.

Besides that, there you go talking about logic, which is a non-empiricist subject. Justify logic via empiricism, if you can't do that, you are refuting yourself constantly.

Mathematics corresponds to Scripture. I believe via the Bible I can deduce Calculus. If this was not possible, then mathematics would not be knowledge, but rather validity via a system.

Do you study chaos theory via order or via chaos. Then if chaos theory is valid, then wouldn't you study it via chaos itself? If you cannot do this, the subject is invalid.

I will tell you my argument again:

I start with an assumption via 2  axioms. The first axioms if God Is, and the second axiom is the Bible is God's Word.

Then via Kant's transcendental argument, the doctrines are the theorems of the axioms. So the proof does not support the argument, but rather demonstrates the argument via the following phrase:

With that, the evidence of demonstration would be that which we would expect to find. So If God said there was a flood, we would expect to find evidence of such a thing. If God said He created trees, the trees would be demonstration of the argument.

This is 100% a prori.

That is a very brief statement of the argument.

__________________________

Hi Albedo,

The Unicorn in Job 38:9 should be translated Wild Ox (A specific kind that is now extinct). The KJV writers didn't so they went with the etymology of description of the word which meant "horned beast."

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
"Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

Remember, my argument has the original autographs as the first principle, this is why I took up Textual Criticism as a child.

lol, as stated before, via the original autographs, my argument still stands. And the KJV only had the textus receptus and Textual Criticism was an infant at the time.

__________

Hi BobSpencer1

The verses are the implications of the axioms. Completely 100% valid. You must not be emotional but demonstrate how it is invalid.

The rest turned into ad hominem abusive again. Very sad.

______________
 

Hi UBuntU,

I simply repeated the apathy of David Hume, the GREAT EMPIRICIST. So the ad hominem is on you my friend. One of your very own. Harvard just made David Hume one of their favorite philosophers.

If Hume was wrong, how was he wrong?

I have defined it well, and NOBODY has given me an argument against this. Do you have one? If Atheism fragmented or not? argue.

Reason and knowledge are NOT the same thing. You should know this. You got lazy on me.

You can't determine certainty since mathematics is NON-EMPIRICAL. If you use an aprori means to support an apostori means you are a poor man with one leg, and you can't find a pot to piss in.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

And yet the Pythagorean Theorem was formulated well before Christianity. And yet General Relativity was formulated by a non Christian. And yet Euclid was doing geometry without a Bible. And yet Egyptians were doing chemistry 2000 years before the dead guy on a stick was even born.....

I'm still waiting for that rational Xtian to show up. This comic relief Xtian is getting dull.

You have yet to throw it out of your head. Reality is far different than your delusion Ned Flaunders.

We are not impressed with your pathetic attempts at mental masturbation.

"Ad hominem" != "abusive." An ad hominem is a fallacy in which the validity of a source is questioned, rather than the merits of the proposition. An ad hominem is saying something along the lines of, "Universities are liberal, and therefore everything produced by universities is worthless."

Calling you a half-educated buffoon with no sense of rationality is not an ad hominem, it is an insult. It would only be an ad hominem if I used your lack of logical discourse as an excuse to not answer your questions.

I'm not entirely sure exactly how this relates to empiricism, at least in the modern sense of empiricism. It seems you are using an archaic version of empiricism as a strawman.

The assumption of empiricism is that everything fits together logically. This is not necessary for empiricism to work -- after all, empiricism is nothing more than observation. Empiricism asserts that our only evidence of reality is that which we observe, not what we make up. 

But, the modern assumption of empiricism is that everything fits together logically. Reality is composed of interlocking patterns. Why do we make that assumption? Because all our observations show the outline of the underlying patterns. The way this works is illustrated quite well by the observations and synthesis of Copernicus and Galileo and Tycho and Newton. Observations lead to the discovery of underlying patterns, and those patterns are reduced to a mathematical model.

So, no, my good and respectful friend Jean. Empiricism (as implemented by science) is not fragmented, any more than the pixels on your monitor are fragmented. (To explain the analogy: each pixel is independent and unique, and means nothing on its own. But when combined with all the other pixels on your screen, a discernible pattern arises, one which even you have no problems interpreting. The underlying pattern is an expression of a very complex system that is bult on very simple principles.)

You seem to think that empiricism excludes logic. It does not. The scientific method uses empiricism to gather data (which manifests according to the underlying patterns of reality). Scientists then use inductive logic to create various possible models that might explain the emerging pattern. They then use deductive logic as a logical sieve to sort the possible explanations from the impossible.

You use empiricism every day. Do you drive? Then you use empirical knowledge to gather data concerning the actions of other drivers. Does one driver move unpredictably? Then you know to be particularly cautious around that driver. Do you have a girlfriend or significant other? Then you know this other person loves you, or does not love you, by their actions. Some actions are neutral, but others are not. 

You deny empiricism while using it.

Do you know the sun will rise tomorrow? Yes. Do you know that if you are hungry you can eat some bread, and it will sustain you? Yes. Do you know you will see other people if you go outside in a city? Yes.

You use induction all the time. Effectively. You can't even deny it. So you also have knowledge that induction is effective. And knowing the TV will turn on 150 out of 151 times is knowledge. It is statistical in nature, but it is certainly better than no knowledge at all. It's not like you are surprised every time your TV turns on. In fact, you are surprised when it does not. And when it does not turn on, you assume there is a problem. So you check the power cord, and the breaker box, and so on. You can assume when it does not turn on that there is something wrong.

And that's exactly what people do.

You dismiss all this, all while treating this as knowledge.

Fortunately, science does not rely entirely on induction. Induction is used in the intermediate creative step, while building up possible explanations. Deduction is used afterwards, to help discern which hypotheses (built by induction) are not viable. (This is called "testing." It's an important part of science. I wonder if the Bible, also important to science, has a chapter on testing?)

It seems you have a few mistaken ideas about how science works, and the role of empiricism in everyday life (as well as in science). You can deny empiricism works, or you can bemoan the logical certainty of induction, but the truth is, you use them both every day. In fact, you use empiricism and induction far more than you use deduction.

So please, continue to claim you have "disproven" them. It makes for an amusing spectacle.

Hello 100PercentAtheist,

There was no science via the Greeks since they never came up with an agreed epistemology to reach the universals without an infinite reference point. Mathematics is deductive and logical.

I should know, one can still be scientifical inconsistently via the Imago Dei.

God can use Pagans for His Will. Just look at Billy Graham!!!

______________________

Hi DESD,

IBID

_______________________

Hi Brian47

You cannot define reality unless you think like a Christian. The mere speculation about such things are inconsistent. Since God created all things the reality of all things are found in Him and Him alone.

____________________

Hi UBUNTU,

You asked about fragmentation. In order for knowledge to be, you must have at least one subject connect to the other all the time. While there is diversity in the subjects,  there is a relationship of subjects.

CONSISTENT empiricism does not allow for such relationship thus it does not allow for such knowledge.

A consistent empiricist starts with a blank slate. Nothing. So all things that are received the child has no idea what is knowledge. He is fed all kinds of stuff. Then when he gets older, since logically he cannot remember everything, must try to find a relationship between the subjects.

Thus language (which is non empirical), mathematics (non empirical) Logic (non Empirical),  Love (non empirical) (UNIVERSALS) are non empirical (Fragmentaton (non Empirical). Empiricism is the very pitty of ignorance.

So the question for you is to demonstrate how a consistent empiricists can RELATE to other subjects via having knowledge.  If connotative definitions are non empirical, then the only way for a consistent empiricists to define is to jump up and down and grunt while he points to a tree like a monkey.

I have discussed fragmentation more specifically on other posts. I may come back to it and do a whole post on it.

You do not know if you stick your hand in again that it will burn. AGain, empiricism is 100% experience. You are using 1 experiences for all experiences, and that is NOT empiricism. So you are a very bad empiricist.

Can you taste mathematics. Can you hear mathematics. Mathematics is non empirical since it is DEDUCTIVE and empiricism by definition is INDUCIIVE.

__________________________________

Hi Nigel,

You use the term "modern sense of empiricism." Please define this. Do you speak of logical positivism?

Logic is non empirical since logic is deductive and empiricism is inductive.

Empiricism is fragmented so badly, as you write you refute it. Show me how empiricism consistently applies finds relationship with the subjects. YOu cannot use logic since logic is a universal. If you do, then you are not an empiricist. You are a confused baboon.

The Scientific method originated from Francis Bacon who was deductive. Francis Bacon was an Anglican thus He used Biblical thinking to form this. The Empiricists hi jacked this and claimed it as theirs while all the time refuting themselves via their silly inductions.

Empiricism by definition is: The view of the experience, especially the senses, is the only way to know.

While God made my senses, and I do use them, I do NOT use them for knowing since logically one cannot know via the senses. My senses are not inerrant or infallible. Only God is. Your senses are your god.

An empiricists can't know the future. They can only know via what they experience at that time. You are a very bad empiricist.

Science CANNOT rely on induction FOR KNOWLEDGE. I used induction as a study AT TIME rarely, but for study, not for knowledge.

Science is knowledge.

____

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Yes, I speak of logical positivism.

Deduction is one kind of logic. They also refer to induction as logic. So your statement is false.

Logic is non-empirical, I will give you that. However, logic without empiricism is simple wankery. Empiricism provides the grist for the logical mill. Without that grist, you have nothing with which to work. It is like a sculptor without clay, or a mixed metaphor without language.

How again do I refute empiricism? And how is it fragmented? You have not clarified either of these points. You merely assert they are true. This is one of many places in which you fail.

If empiricism fails, why do you bother turning on the TV? How can you know it will turn on at all? How do you navigate from your home to the grocery store, as you cannot be sure the grocery store will be in the same place? In fact, how can you be sure the road you take on the way to the grocery store will take you to the same place?

If empiricism fails, how do you know anything about the universe? Logic cannot give you rocks, nor gravity, nor trees. Your only knowledge of these things is empirical. And yet they are the very things that constitute reality.

As I pointed out, you use empiricism every single day.

Not quite. This is what I mean by a "modern" definition of empiricism (or not so modern, as it began with Sir Francis Bacon). Logical positivism states the only way to gather data about reality is via the senses (or by using machines that measure aspects of reality, which is essentially the same thing).

If you have another demonstrable way of gathering data about reality, I'd like to know.

I don't care what religion to which Francis Bacon adhered. He most certainly did not use Biblical thinking to formulate his fundamental version of the scientific method. Francis Bacon was himself an empiricist. It was his work that established induction as a vital tool for creating propositions about the nature of reality. There is simply no way to restate the Baconian method without using induction.

While your historical revisionism is noted, it won't help. Bacon was the first modern empiricist. He defined the scientific method using induction as a centerpiece.

So, if I am a confused baboon, I am in esteemed company.

I don't assume my senses are inerrant or infallible. I do know my senses are my only means of gathering data about the universe. If I had no senses at all, I'd not know about the universe.

Again, your ignorance of science is showing. The practitioners of science have developed many proven tools for validating the data gathered by the senses. This is where the various biases come into play. There are methods for reducing bias into essential non-existence. So science doesn't assume the senses are infallible. In fact, it assumes quite the opposite -- that human senses, and the interpretation of data gathered by the senses, are quite prone to various biases.

I'm not sure where you get the "Your senses are your god" bullshit from. I have no god. That's what makes me an atheist. It's right there in the definition of the word.

Science is an epistemology, a methodology, and the intellectual results of the application of that methodology. Science DOES rely on induction FOR KNOWLEDGE. You use induction EVERY SINGLE DAY, for knowledge. Otherwise, you would not eat, because you could not know that eating will satiate your hunger. You would not be able to navigate elsewhere, because you would not be able to know where the road will take you. You would not use the English language, because you could not know that the words will mean the same thing today as they did yesterday.

If you'd like me to explain how induction is used FOR KNOWLEDGE yet again, I most certainly will. I will also explain yet again how science uses deduction to test that which is built using induction.

But really, I'd like you to explain how science works. That might make for far more entertaining reading.

It was going to come to this eventually. If we're going to insult Jean, I'd like to recommend this technology to his royal highness, courtesy of good old, satan-fueled induction.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101123174334.htm

Repeat this every day to yourself Jean: I am not intelligent. I am not rational. I'm a disrespectful person. I believe in everything I read as long as it's appealling to me as the bible was. I like to insult people because it makes me feel good. I am a very rude dude.

If you do this every day for long enough, and it may take years, eventually you will believe it. Kinda like reading the bible only this is a self help thing I've provided you with. Oh but that's right, it's evil because an atheist told you. Ugh it can't be right.
You are an evil person Jean and I will pray to the spahgetti monster during this noodlemas season for you to realize what a boil on the ass of humanity that you are.

Oh yeah, respectfully lol!
Becky:p

Someone likes rubbernecking at the car wreck, don't they?

Jean reminds me of that kid in the Cheese It commercial when they dream about how the cheese got into the snack. "CHEESE IT"

After all his elaborate tripe what you ultimately end up with is "God did it". Sorry if I spoiled your fun for you. If you've seen one car wreck, you've seen em all.

Other problems with Jean's definitions

"absolute"

He believes that one can't have absolute knowledge without God. Unfortunately, one can't have absolute knowledge with God either.

"consistent"

He's never given a definition (though I'm sure he believes he is the only such being on the planet).

the "ad hominem" fallacy

He believes that there can be an ad hom attack that is valid. I think it comes to the difference between what he uses and what he interprets as being used against him.

Hey, now. I've been away for a while. I'm a quart low on accidental irony. And while all car wrecks look the same after, the actual dynamics of the wreck play out a bit differently.

I personally prefer the ones that attempt to rationalize their belief in God, rather than beg the question by assuming God. (Yes, I know, even the rationalizations usually amount to question-begging, but at least it's entertaining to watch a mental contortionist in action.) But, there's something to be said for the complete mad-dogma approach preferred by the likes of Jean. The pure-blind assumption of God, coupled with the brazenly tautological acceptance that the word of the Bible proves the Bible is true, demonstrates a refreshing willful ignorance the like of which I haven't seen in many years.

The real icing on the cake, though, is the insistence that he is trained in logic while constantly (and consistently) making the most basic logical mistakes. He's like a kid pretending to be all grown up and rational, or a living example of cargo-cult logic.

Best of all, he has taken the empirical refutation of God so seriously, he denies empiricism to the point of solipsism. It rather indicates he understands that knowledge of reality leads to a dismissal of God from serious consideration. Ergo, his total ad hominem fallacy of his strawman liberalism is a tacit admission he understands reality favors atheism (which he conflates with liberalism), and so he'd rather deny reality.

Or he's just a troll. But if so, he's quite skilled. He's not let anything too obvious slip, though his list of 10 fallacies committed by liberals comes damned close. If he's not a troll, he's one of the most fucking obtuse people I've run across in a while.

Anyway, while I admit this wreck will look the same as the others when it's done (with Jean leaving, never having presented a single coherent proposition, and ignoring anything that is too discomfiting for him to address), it's enjoyable watching him try to communicate. Or preach. Or whatever it is he's trying to do with his poorly-employed use of the English language.

If there were an award for understatement of the year, that would be at the top of my list.