I had a decision to make and I think you just helped me make it.Thanks :)…

Don’t be ignorant and/or obtuse. I never said any such thing. Reread my comment….

Freelancer on July 12, 2007 at 6:30 AM

Lol, don’t worry Freelancer, WillBarrett can’t debate anything without pretending you said things you didn’t. He’s extremely dishonest to the extent you’d assume he’s a lib in any other venue. I haven’t read your exchange with him, but I just found it funny that your response was almost identical to my responses to this guy.

WillBarrett on July 11, 2007 at 7:44 PM

Don’t be ignorant and/or obtuse. I never said any such thing. Reread my comment with your heart somewhere besides your sleeve, and you’ll find that it is accurate. The Catholic church follows practices which are SPECIFICALLY proscribed in the Bible. They have set themselves up as the final authority over the souls of humanity, which is an ANTI-CHRISTIAN behavior.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

- 1 Timothy 2:5,6

The office of Pastor(Minister, Clergyman, Bishop) as defined in the Bible is NOT a middle-man, go-between, filter, buffer, mediator or otherwise between God and man. He is a preacher, one who proclaims the truth of the Word for edification, one who serves a local flock as an under-shepherd.

This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

- 1 Timothy 3:1-3

There is no similarity between the office of bishop spoken of in the Bible and that which the Catholics have turned it into. In fact, there isn’t one example in the entire Bible of a church organizational heirarchy beyond the local, independent congregation. The governmental structure of the Church of Rome is non-canonical. Besides which, each of the items listed in the above passage are MUSTS. So a bishop MUST be the husband of ONE wife. Therefore, unless some are secretly married, Catholic bishops worldwide are in violation of scripture.

Now, none of that means anyone is going to hell, by itself. That, of course, is a matter between each individual and the Savior. But ANY supposedly Christian organization that so clearly scorns so many Biblical principles is no authority over believers, but is an impediment to them becoming all that God intends.

Cardinals: They can’t say “no” to his demands
They’re freaking out in foreign lands
He’s got the whole world in his hands
The Fuhrer is causing a furor!

if it was empirically proven that God exists (which you demand must be forthcoming to credit belief) then surely that certainty would make disbelief impossible and impair the human race.

It’s amazing what people can believe in despite evidence to the contrary. Say, for example, the Muslim God is proven to exist. He shows himself for everyone to see, no doubt. Do you really think the billions of Christians and other faiths will simply accept it? And not only accept it, but void their freewill because they know there is an omniscient overlord?

I mean if God proved his existence we would live in a celestial dictatorship and would be forbidden from making individual assertions.

I agree with ColtsFan and have something to add. If God was proven to exist (and for the sake of argument the Christian God) what difference would it make to the people who already believed in Him? How would people be prevented from making independent decisions after something has been proven?

Like I said read The Grand Inquisitor and think about it. You’ll like it.

aengus on July 12, 2007 at 1:49 AM

Read it after you suggested it, but it’s obviously a Christian tale about God’s motivations and human interpretations. Freedom does play a role by way of choice, although I still don’t see how if Jesus was proven to exist the Grand Inquisitor would suddenly lose his ability to decided whether to keep him locked up or release him.

I mean if God proved his existence we would live in a celestial dictatorship and would be forbidden from making individual assertions. Like I said read The Grand Inquisitor and think about it. You’ll like it.

aengus on July 12, 2007 at 1:49 AM

With all due respects, I am having trouble understanding how the following proposition,

P1: God exists

is in conflict or tension with another proposition

P2: humans have free will.

It is entirely possible that I may be misunderstanding you. I do not understand how Dostoevsky supports your position.

Do you think if the existence of heaven was empircally proven free will would be possible?
Yes. Freewill isn’t reliant on evidence or lack there of. For example there is no evidence a god exists but people still have the freewill to believe in him. Also, it has been proven 2+3=5, but people still have the freewill to believe that 2+3=4. But this boils down to how you define freedom.

I know freewill isn’t reliant on evidence or lack thereof but I’m saying hypothetically that if it was empirically proven that God exists (which you demand must be forthcoming to credit belief) then surely that certainty would make disbelief impossible and impair the human race. I mean if God proved his existence we would live in a celestial dictatorship and would be forbidden from making individual assertions. Like I said read The Grand Inquisitor and think about it. You’ll like it.

This is the thread that reuses to die. Charles Dickens got paid per word. I wouldn’t be surprised if Allahpundit got paid per post.

aengus on July 12, 2007 at 12:54 AM

We all must do our part. Unfortunately, I do not think that Michelle is going to change any time soon and give “the Defender of the Free World,” “the Defender of the Constitution” his just reward.

When I see Michelle at the next Parent-Teacher conference, you can bet that I am definitely going to bring up the “missing iphone” issue with her again….

Do you think if the existence of heaven was empircally proven free will would be possible?

Yes. Freewill isn’t reliant on evidence or lack there of. For example there is no evidence a god exists but people still have the freewill to believe in him. Also, it has been proven 2+3=5, but people still have the freewill to believe that 2+3=4. But this boils down to how you define freedom.

Matthew 23:9
“And call no man father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

Who else, when reading the title of this post, checked to see if it came from “The Onion”? You know-”Local man finds last weeks TV Guide unread under pile of dirty clothes.” THAT Onion.

What? It’s real?
…
Carry on.

Hey, that kinda talk just makes me wanna crawl back out and go through over four hundred statements on the chance you had anything worth remembering in the beginning.

manwithblackhat on July 11, 2007 at 11:00 PM

ah, more liberal tactics… this time you played the out of context, whiner cards, and basically write a completely pointless comment.

You, who can’t read, first accuse me of calling you sissy boy… When in reality I said “sissy boy” as a mocking name to call the Pope in reaction to him apologizing to Muslims after they used him as an excuse for their outrage of the week. Because you have nothing of substance to say, and can’t read, you whine about me calling you a name (which I didn’t) and sarcastically say you should crawl under a rock.

I explain your reading comprehension problems, and then as a joke quickly comment that the only way I was calling you “sissy boy” is if you are in fact the Pope (just a little joke, like the Pope is really sitting at a computer commenting at HotAir, get it?). And then you’re acting like because of how I’ve acted, I don’t deserve the act of you reading my comments? First of all, I don’t care if you read and respond to my comments, because you revealed earlier that you can’t. You can copy and paste them, and act as if you’re replying, while not refuting a single thing I said. I’m not asking you to come out from “under that rock”… I’m asking you to stay there and learn to read.

My above lengthy post omitted a key attribute of propositions, concepts, abstract entities, and the laws of logic.

It is almost universally recognized that these immaterial laws of logic, or propositions, concepts, etc are a-causal in nature. That is, they lack causal powers. They simply exist, but they lack causal activity.

In philosophy, the perennial question for thousands of years has been, “how does the human mind ever come into epistemological access with these very same a-causal abstract entities?”

There is no “philosophical calling card” for a-causal abstract entities to enter into contact with the human mind. This leads to the “need for an epistemic trigger.”

Something or someone must FIRST trigger the human mind to come into epistemological contact and access with these abstract entities lacking causal powers.

The answer I tried to give above, though incomplete, was that Jesus Christ is the Epistemological Trigger for mankind. Jesus Christ, according to the Bible, is what allows mankind to come into epistemic access with these a-causal abstract entities. Because of the grace of Jesus Christ, mankind has knowledge of logic, necessary truths, propositions, concepts, etc.

After all, physical brains, c-firings, molecular activity, and neurological activity cannot get the epistemological task done. We need an immaterial mind, and Jesus Christ is the epistemic trigger that provides mankind with access to these abstract entities. Knowledge is given to mankind by God’s grace only.

Sorry for the confusion.

All of this is to suggest that there is rational evidence for believing that Jesus Christ, the Epistemological Logos, is the answer for accounting for how our human mind can access logically necessary truths and immaterial laws of logic. We are made in his image.

Who made Jesus?

Fyodor Dostoevsky is one of my favorite existential writers. But he was a Christian, not an atheist.

Eh sorry. The story of The Grand Inquisitor is told in the book by an athiest. I think I might have gotten confused. I think he was an athiest at one point of his life but died as a Christian as far as I can remember. I’m not basing this on fact but on my sketchty memory which has already been wrong once.

…unless of course you are the Pope, in which case I was calling you “sissy boy” for the reaction to Muslim outrage in that instance

He didn’t apologise. Pope Benedict said he was sorry at the reaction his comment caused but never withdrew his statement or apologised for the comment itself. As I pointed at the time on the original thread it’s one thing for a HotAir commenter to express their bravery through their anonymous thoughts but the Pope held firm after threats from millions of the ummah and after the murder of Catholic nuns in Somalia.

I’m sure if countless Muslims were parading through the streets in Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia with signs saying “Death to RightWinged” you’d do us all proud and refuse to back down but I don’t see how the Pope’s non-apology makes him a sissy boy. Unlike Bush, Blair, (insert EU non-entity of your choice) and the MSM he declined to grovel.

Read “The Grand Inquisitor” by Dostoyevsky (an athiest) for a coherent understanding of this question.

aengus on July 11, 2007 at 11:45 PM

Fyodor Dostoevsky is one of my favorite existential writers. But he was a Christian, not an atheist.

You said Theism could account for the existence of immaterial abstract entities. You still haven’t said how it does this. I don’t believe these things are separate entities but as I said, I will stipulate that they are for the sake of argument.
B26354 on July 11, 2007 at 9:55 PM

You are correct. I haven’t said how it does this because I wanted us to be on the same page mentally. But maybe you would prefer to see my argument fleshed out in advance. I will try to give it a shot.

55.) Logical necessity is truly reflective of our physical world, our universe, because it is a non-natural feature of ultimate reality. We do not invent logical necessity. We discover it.
56.) Given 55, the law of non-contradiction holds universally true across all modal worlds, across all possible and fictional worlds, across all unknown planets, undiscovered universes, etc.
57.) Most, if not all, versions of atheism deny that logical necessity is a fundamental, ontological feature of ultimate reality. This is due to their definition of naturalism, as everything in reality is capable in theory of being reduced to “nature.”
58.) But 57 leads to the denial and negation of the universal law of non-contradiction.
59.) 58 is in-coherent with our empirical experiences of the world, and it is contradictory with the laws of logic being universally binding.
60.) Therefore, all systems of thought or worldviews that embrace or entail or even imply 58 are self-referentially false. Any view that is self-referentially false must be rejected.
61.) Given 60, most versions of naturalism, therefore, are false.
62.) Given 57, a “move” to rescue naturalism from defeat would be to change the restrictive and limited definition of naturalism. But this philosophical move opens up more problems though for the atheist.
63.) A human brain is composed of cells and neurons, among other things. It is purely physical on a metaphysical level. Yet us humans have immaterial thoughts and also we as thinkers are aware of mental causation.
64.) It is impossible for that which is purely physical to come into epistemological access with that which is purely NON-physical, i.e. immaterial abstract entities, laws of logic, etc.
65.) Neurons, cells, or C-firings, or molecular activity in our physical brain cannot transmit nor receive immaterial entities such as:
thoughts, propositions, laws of logic, non-reductive moral commands, etc
66.) 65 is acknowledged by most atheists, that is why many attempt with futility to reduce everything to the physical. But it is impossible to reduce the NON-physical to the physical. Or alternatively speaking, it is impossible to reduce the NON-Natural to the natural.
67.) The existence of the immaterial laws of logic, abstract entities, thoughts lead to the pressing need to rationally justify or account, for that which is fundamentally NOT-natural, in humans.
68.) Given 67, worldviews that deny that are false, because they are denying the facts of mental causation, etc.
69.) As humans with a physical brain, we can access immaterial propositions, immaterial laws of logic, or thoughts because we are conceptually endowed with something that is fundamentally NOT-natural.
70.) As humans, we do not just have a physical brain. Unlike the animals, we have (as the naturalist John McDowell says) “the spontaneity of the intellect”. We have MORE than just a physical brain. We also have an immaterial mind. It is agreed by almost everyone that evolution cannot supply the ontological equipment called the “spontaneity of the intellect.” This is because it is a non-natural feature of the human person.
71.) So we are stuck here. The prevailing dominant philosophy, naturalism, has negative implications for our knowledge of the world about us.
72.) Atheism does not allow or admit of NON-Natural reasons. Yet the existence of mental causation, immaterial mind in humans, immaterial propositions, abstract entities, non-reductive moral commands, properties, numbers, logical necessity, modality, thoughts in human minds, communication of abstract ideas, concepts all strongly suggest that reality is NOT-natural. Is there a non-natural worldview that provides an answer for us? Is there empirical evidence (not just conceptual) pointing in the direction of this worldview also?
73.) Christian Theism does not have the immediate problems of 58 or 60.
74.) The Gospel of John teaches that Jesus Christ provides epistemological Light to “lighten mankind.” John 1:9 reads: “The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world,” refering to the Messiah. Jesus Christ is declared in John 1:14 to be a bearer of the Truth. John 1:3 states, “through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.” John 3:19 states, “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.”
75.) Given 74, Jesus Christ, the Epistemological Logos of the Gospel of John and also of the book of Hebrews, has made mankind in His image. We have a mind that can grasp propositions and logically necessary truths across all possible worlds.
76.) There is empirical evidence for the historicity of the person, work of Jesus Christ.
77.) Jesus Christ himself lived on the Earth,and predicted that he would die and be resurrected. The resurrection of Jesus Christ provides an additional empirical evidence for rationally believing in Christianity.
78.) Jesus Christ, the suffering Savior, also meets our existential needs in times of utter despair and suffering. This is also reflective of our world where pain and suffering are common. Unlike an impersonal God or attempts to deny the “evil” of evils in our everyday human experience, the Suffering Savior addresses the problem of evil in concrete, existential terms.
79.) All of this is to suggest that there is rational evidence for believing that Jesus Christ, the Epistemological Logos, is the answer for accounting for how our human mind can access logically necessary truths and immaterial laws of logic. We are made in his image.

Now many of these propositions are contentious. But I threw this all together very quickly.

I’ve got an answer for you guys: there is no proof heaven even exists

As usual Nonfactor all I can say is duh! Do you think if the existence of heaven was empircally proven free will would be possible? Read “The Grand Inquisitor” by Dostoyevsky (an athiest) for a coherent understanding of this question. You are, as ever, a total nonfactor in the debates which you insert yourself into.

Hmmm. This is interesting, but I really don’t put much stock in the Pope as a protestant.

The Pope isn’t a Protestant.

Hint: Learn grammar and try again.

…unless of course you are the Pope, in which case I was calling you “sissy boy” for the reaction to Muslim outrage in that instance.

Hey, that kinda talk just makes me wanna crawl back out and go through over four hundred statements on the chance you had anything worth remembering in the beginning.

Freelancer on July 11, 2007 at 7:39 PM

Amen.

Wow. “Sissy boy.” I’m just too intimidated to compete with this. I have to go crawl under a rock now…

manwithblackhat on July 11, 2007 at 10:23 PM

I hope there are reading classes under that rock… I didn’t call you sissy boy… I was referring to the one time the Pope offended Muslims (who never need an excuse to be outraged anyway, so it really wasn’t him, it was just their latest excuse), and how the Pope apologized because he couldn’t stand the heat. Again, reading comprehension goes a long way fella.