Monday, February 24, 2014

The NoPE Argument (Negation of Presuppositional Enlightenment) - Refuted



This is my refutation to 'the NoPE Argument' by 'Negation of P' found in the video above.

The NoPE argument attempts to refute Presuppositional Apologetics, and in doing so is attacking the authority of the Bible.

Negation of P also gets to #3 on the charts of the video "Top 10 ATHEISTS of 2013" for his admission that he didn't know if anything existed outside of his own consciousness, including his own wife! He also said that he "cannot give definitive evidence for anything" - and yet here he is trying to give definitive evidence for something! (*See bottom for transcription including that admission)

I've summarised negation of P's argument and put it in bold inside // marks. My responses are below those statements.

//This is a stand-alone argument – so please address the argument and not the person presenting it.//

Unless the argument is being claimed to be divine revelation then it can’t stand alone. In order to know that it is true, and in order to even formulate the argument you’ve had to use your reasoning. So the question ‘How do you know your reasoning is valid?’ is still very much a massive and insurmountable problem for you and anyone else who would reject God. The argument was devised by you and thus cannot be separated from you in terms of the validity of the argument and the validity of your reasoning.

//God’s plan could include erasing individuals from existence without us knowing it.//


No it could not. This would be equivalent to lying and God cannot lie. God can destroy people, but he has never and will never do this in a deceptive way where this happens and no one knows about it.

//Until someone demonstrates why God could not or would not erase individuals without us knowing it, the NoPE argument in my opinion is both sound and valid//Well I'm doing just that by refuting your argument which is neither sound nor valid. It is indeed merely your "opinion" and an incorrect one at that. In contrast, I know some things for certain by revelation from God, such as God's existence and the truth of the Bible.

//The NOPE argument in a nutshell – if the universe exists as a presuppositionalist would have us believe, there are no fundamental properties governing the universe rendering everything subjective and unknowable. Absolute knowledge is therefore not possible.//


God cannot change and does not lie. He upholds the universe in a logical and consistent way because this is His nature, and he has promised to do so. Therefore the NoPE argument is a strawman.

//Naturalism enables us to have knowledge via scientific testing and data gathering.//


However science does not give us truth. Science is based on the fallacy of hasty generalisation, and it’s also based on the uniformity of nature – which can be accounted for with God, but not without Him.

//Science doesn’t give certain knowledge, but if correct the theories themselves would be true.//


But this is begging the question. If you can’t be sure that any theories or knowledge is absolutely true then how can you be sure to ANY degree? Guesswork does not bring us truth.

//Absolute knowledge is attainable.//


If you have no way of knowing if it’s true – then no it’s not. Absolute knowledge presupposes the biblical God.

//Miracles mean that God is suspending the laws of the universe, therefore there is no absolute knowledge of the universe.//


This is the black or white fallacy. God performing miracles in no way hinders us from knowing absolute truth. God has revealed things to us with certainty – such as His existence.

//Presuppositionalism Implodes - Another video presents this argument with Matthew4nineteen, BibleThumpingWingnut, and Colin Pearson.//


According to your presuppositions you’re declaring yourself the ‘winner’ but how can you know that? I’ve watched the video ‘Presuppositionalism Implodes’ and it was painful because you kept bringing up irrelevant issues and things that in your worldview you can’t know, and then claiming that because they interrupted you that this meant they were avoiding the issues. They weren’t avoiding the issues – you were playing the martyr.

So what do I say to the NoPE argument by way of summary? Am I impressed? Nope. Is the NoPE argument valid? Nope.

The NoPE argument is the kind of absurdity that people resort to in order to deny the God they know exists but are in rebellion against. If you are not a follower of Christ I pray that you would stop denying God and that you'd repent and trust in Jesus.

* Transcription from Top 10 Atheists - Negation of P (NoP) on BTWN Show

NoP: To anyone outside my own consciousness I cannot give definitive evidence for anything.
Colin: How do you know that anything exists outside of your consciousness?
NoP: I don’t, and in the same way that I know I exist, that feeling is real to me. Now let's be clear – it doesn’t mean my wife exists.
Colin:  So you say you have a loving relationship with someone who might not exist?
NoP: Exactly.
Len: You can’t know of anything that exists outside of your consciousness. You believe that?
NoP: Absolutely.
Len: Are we even holding this conversation outside of your consciousness?
NoP: I don’t know.
Colin: Ok. And how do you know that your reasoning is able to bring you to proper conclusions?
NoP: Well... I never claimed that it could.



Atheists Stupid Statements #6 (Exposing the self-refuting nature of the NoPE argument)



57 comments:

  1. Brendan,

    I would first like to thank you for taking the time to review my argument and posting this refutation. I truly welcome feedback be it positive or negative. Truth be told I value the negative feedback much more that the positive because I want to know the flaws of my arguments. That being said I hope this response better clarifies what I am attempting to demonstrate with the NoPE rebuttal. I will use the following to delineate our comments: >>your comments<< & //my own// (>>you<< & //me//)


    RE: //This is a stand-alone argument//
    >>Unless the argument is being claimed to be divine revelation then it can’t stand alone.”

    //sorry but I must disagree, some statements, arguments, as well as proofs are true or false independent of the person expressing them. Let me use basic mathematics as an example, if an individual states 2+2=4 that statement is correct & has nothing to do with the individuals reasoning ability, grasp on reality, or even their sanity. The NoPE argument is in the same way true or false independent of anyone or their abilities//








    RE: //God’s plan could include erasing individuals from existence without us knowing it.//
    >> No it could not. This would be equivalent to lying and God cannot lie.<<

    //As I stated @ 00:50 in the video the argument is not contingent on god lying, changing himself &/or his plan. I can only assume the artist analogy must have not been clear enough to you so let me try this instead. When a jeweler creates a new piece of jewelry him/her has a plan. The plan may include crating a mold that will later be destroyed. The creation and later destruction of that mold is not a lie or a “change” in the plan. It is PART of the plan. If (as you claim) the bible is to be taken literally then we have “evidence” of god not only destroying entire cities (Sodom & Gomorra, & may others) and all life on the planet (Noah’s Flood) save a boatload of animals & individuals as PART of his “plan” but God also destroyed individuals (Genesis 38:10, 2 Samuel 6:7, & many others) & before you claim that he will not do that now or in the future I must remind you of (2 Peter 3:10 & 1 Corinthians 3:17) where scripture mandates god WILL destroy individuals in the future. Finally in the same way as a jewelry customer could completely unaware of the mold (or even the process) that creates a piece of jewelry it is conceivable we are unaware of individuals that god creates/ed & later destroy/ed to facilitate his ”plan”.







    RE: >> God cannot change and does not lie. He upholds the universe in a logical and consistent way because this is His nature, and he has promised to do so. Therefore the NOPE argument is a strawman.<<

    //Again the NoPE argument does not require that god lie &/or change (see above). I apologies again if this was not clear in the video but there are no “strawmen” (on my side anyway ;~))//


    RE: //Naturalism enables us to have knowledge via scientific testing and data gathering.//
    >>However science does not give us truth. Science is based on the fallacy of hasty generalization, and it’s also based on the uniformity of nature – which can be accounted for with God, but not without Him.<<

    >>“fallacy of hasty generalization”?<<
    //So, you are claiming science (all science) does not have adequate sample size/s to infer anything?

    >>“uniformity of nature”<<
    While I agree that uniformity is a basis for science but I feel I must also point out that if that “uniformity” is subjective there is no way to “Know” (have any degree of certainty of) anything. Let me explain why, if (as has been described multiple times throughout the bible) god’s plan includes him suspending &/or redefining “uniformity” then we cannot be certain of anything. In short how could we be certain (Know) that it is not part of gods plan that tomorrow some or all “uniformities” are suspended &/or redefined?//
    1 of 2

    ReplyDelete
  2. 2 of 2

    RE: //Science doesn’t give certain knowledge, but if correct the theories themselves would be true.//
    >>If you can’t be sure that any theories or knowledge is absolutely true then how can you be sure to ANY degree? Guess work does not bring us truth.<<

    //This is an either-or fallacy (or as you put it “black or white fallacy”), just because we cannot “Know” anything to 100% certainty. That does not mean we cannot “be sure to ANY degree”. In fact our “guess work” can be 100% accurate and therefore “bring us truth”. As an example: I cannot “Know” the sun will rise tomorrow. However I will use “guess work” to predict it will. If/when the sun rises tomorrow my “guesswork” will be 100% accurate therefore becoming a “truthful” statement.//


    RE://Absolute knowledge is attainable.//
    >>If you have no way of knowing if it’s true – then no it’s not. Absolute knowledge presupposes the biblical God.<<

    //I find it interesting you again “forgot” to include the qualifier in my explanation of this statement? So again I will remind you of what I stated at 02:57 in to the posting. “To be clear the observer will never be able to claim with 100% certainty they have absolute knowledge of their universe”

    Again, just because you can’t “Know” a claim is or is not factual in no way does that affect the accuracy of that claim. I feel I am in danger of beating a dead horse (see above) but let me try this one last approach. If I were to teach one group of 4 year olds to respond 625 and another group to respond 725 when they hear “25 times 25 is?” NIETHER would “Know” if they were giving the “true” answer this does not mean the group responding 625 are “not” giving the “true” answer. Sorry to be so redundant but I hope that clarifies things.//

    RE: //Miracles mean that God is suspending the laws of the universe, therefore there is no absolute knowledge of the universe.//
    >>This is the black or white fallacy. God performing miracles in no way hinders us from knowing absolute truth. God has revealed things to us with certainty – such as His existence.<<

    //@ 0:31 in to the video I clarified how I defined the term “Absolute Knowledge” at least in the context of this argument. To remind you I defined it again here “Absolute Knowledge: Personal knowledge of an objective fact” emphasis on the word “objective”. Now, if due to gods plan (or anything for that matter) the laws of the universe can be suspended &/or changed they are by definition subjective not objective.//

    RE: //Presuppositionalism Implodes - Another video presents this argument with Matthew4nineteen, BibleThumpingWingnut, and Colin Pearson.//

    >>According to your presuppositions you’re declaring yourself the ‘winner’ <<
    //Please cite (via time/s index) anywhere I claim victory, Thanks//

    >>”you kept bringing up irrelevant issues and things that in your worldview you can’t know”<<
    //Again please cite (via time/s index) examples of “things I cannot know” & most importantly how &/or why those claims are relevant to the NoPE rebuttal//

    >>They weren’t avoiding the issues – you were playing the martyr.<<
    //In my opinion that’s all they did & I’m sorry but you have completely misunderstood the reason I felt I needed to highlight their actions. I do not feel I am nor do I want to be considered a “martyr”. The only reason I added the annotations were to allow the viewer to be aware of just how many times (even when given a 3 to 1 advantage) these individuals avoided answering questions and/or allow their guest (me) to address their claims &/or questions.//



    Thanks again for you time I hope this helps & I look forward to future dialogues with you.

    Sincerely

    Ned
    (~P)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Ned for your response. I've read through it all and have a number of questions and comments for you. Btw - have you been carefully through my website? www.godorabsurdity.com If you did I think perhaps you'd realise that it's impossible to refute the biblical argument of presuppositional apologetics.

      How do you know that 2+2=4 (or anything for that matter) in your worldview? How do you know that anything is true? What is truth in your worldview? How do you know that the NoPE argument is in the same category as 2+2 being 4?

      How do you know that your reasoning is valid in relation to your interpretations of anything in the Bible?

      As for science - See my other blog post ‘Why science is always false’.
      What is your basis for the future being like the past?

      Knowledge is justified true belief. If you can’t give a justified reason why you know something is true, then it’s just guessing, whether or not it’s true.

      In relation to God's plans - they are irrelevant. He cannot lie or deceive, and therefore you’re making a strawman argument.

      As for my comment relating to you talking about things you cannot know - how can you know anything according to your worldview?

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brendan,
    Thanks again for taking the time to read through my responses & as for examining your website, yes, I have been through it in its entirety (in fact I had done so in preparation for your appearance on the show last Sunday).

    1. As for the presup argument being impossible to refute, I could not disagree more (imo) it's not even a valid argument in that it only makes assertions that a person cannot substantiate without using special pleading, furthermore its claims are non-testable & therefore nonscientific. The most egregious thing (imo) is that it attempts to imposes attributes & constraints on people without demonstrating how one “Knows” that is the state of that individual. I liken this to someone claiming 2+2=7 and when asked to demonstrate how one came to that conclusion, getting the response of "the math gods revealed to them it is correct” and that the person asking for the explanation “Knows” 7 is correct but is “suppressing” the truth of 7 because the choose “4” over the “Truth of 7”. Then when the “4-ist” attempts to demonstrate why they believe 7 to be incorrect the “7-err” only attempts to deflect focus away from the actual issues and call into question the abilities of “4-ist” &/or even the mathematical methods (as you attempt to do with science) that would demonstrate the error(s) of the “7-ist.”

    What I find amazing is presuppers don’t realize just how transparent this tactic is and how weak it demonstrates their position to be. This is because a person with a position that they feel is accurate will welcome scrutiny (like me & the NoPE rebuttal & the entire scientific community using the peer review process) & not run from it.



    As for your apparent “misunderstanding” of a number of my points I would like to start by addressing the fact that you seem to want to question MY ability to "reason, have knowledge…“ Brendan, as I pointed out numerous times now, some statements are independent of the observer and can be tested independently. Lets try this, if a parrot (yes the bird) said “2+2=4,“ is the statement true? Of course it is. 2+2=4 is true independent of the ability of the person (or in this case the bird) to "know" if it is or is not true. I feel the NoPE rebuttal is also true in the same way... if you disagree that’s fine all I ask is you address the argument & not me & or my abilities.

    Btw I hope you are starting to realize that what could be “misconstrued” as an attempt on your part to avoid questions by only addressing my abilities &/or lack thereof does nothing but highlight that (if this were your intent) you would seem to be unable to address the NoPE argument and its conclusions.

    As for the NoPE argument itself you seem to want to reconstruct it in away to give yourself an easy out (strawman). So again I feel I must point out the NoPE rebuttal does NOT require your god to change &/or lie. I have given multiple examples of why this is the case. If you feel I am in error please address where I am misrepresenting the attributes of your god &/or its plan but to just claim it is the cases is again strawmanning the argument & I hope you would not be attempting that type of disingenuous tactic.

    Thank you.
    Ned

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Ned for your reply, although it's a lengthy example of irrelevant thesis. I've read through it all and you've not answered my questions at all - not even close - so I'll try again. How do you know any of what you've just said? Let's focus on truth. What is truth in your worldview, and how do you know anything to be true?

      Delete
  5. Brendan,

    I am becoming confused so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I thought this blog was meant to address the NoPE rebuttal/argument? I came to that conclusion after reading the TITLE as well as YOUR first statement in this blog.

    TITLE:
    "Refutation of the NOPE Argument (Negation of Presuppositional Enlightenment) “

    YOUR first statement of the blog reads:
    "This is my refutation to the NOPE Argument found here……"

    Now I "know" someone who is attempting to not only live as your religion teaches but also as someone who is attempting to show others the influence Jesus has on ones life would never intentionally mislead people but I hope you realize how your responses thus far may potentially impact how others perceive you. Imo if you continue to redirect the conversation away from the very argument you claimed you were going to be addressing it could result in both your integrity &/or believability being called in to question.

    To be clear your own title clearly demonstrates this blog is not about me &/or my abilities. So, as much as I would love to discuss my abilities &/or epistemology sometime with you I feel this is the neither time nor place for that discussion.

    With that said, I again invite you to focus on the argument at hand.

    Thank you
    Ned
    (~P)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The argument at hand is that without God you can't know anything. You can't know if your NoPE argument makes any sense at all apart from the God of the Bible. If you will not answer my questions and are just going to accuse me of basicallly lying I reserve the right to delete any further comments from you. Last chance - how can you know anything to be true in your worldview? What is truth? Truth is what corresponds to reality, right? How can you know what is real according to your worldview? How do you know your reasoning is valid about anything to any degree? If you can't or won't answer these questions it shows that you are borrowing (stealing) from the Christian worldview (where knowledge, reason, logic, truth etc can be accounted for) in order to try to argue against it.

      Delete
    2. No, AGIAN the argument at hand is (as YOUR TITLE states) the "NOPE Argument". The correct spelling is "NoPE" btw but that is not the point so again ask you to address the argument.
      If you would like to delete my comments go ahead and do so. I have made my case and as Bas so astutely put it:
      "Ned asked you to respond to the nope argument as a stand alone argument. The nope argument even GIVES you TWO presuppositional starting points. One: suppose there is a god… And two: we can ALL use logic and reason. That gives you, as a presuppositional, really al you need to actually address the argument itself, but instead of that all you do is repeating that atheists can not account for reasoning, and therefor cannot use the nope argument."

      This clearly shows my points have been made & others (as I feared would happen) are seeing that you have no desire to engage in real discussions. So I will move on to someone who does. If I am incorrect & you do have the courage to step up & address the argument I apologize in advance. & will retract this part of my comment. However If (as I am beginning to believe) you are nothing more than a Sye-clown (yes, clown not clone) and I fully expect for you to delete my comments and run and hide from me and the NoPE rebuttal like all the Sye-clowns have done thus far.

      Your next reply &/or actions will forever tell not only me but everyone viewing this what you truly are.

      Thanks
      Ned

      Delete
  6. Hi Brendan,

    It seems to me that you not only don’t understand the nope argument, but you don’t even understand your own presup argumentation.

    Here is a question. Starting from your worldview, can an atheist use logic and reason? According to your colleagues Ten Bruggencate en Eric Hovind they can. God is in their presup argumentation an absolute universal base necessary for logic and reason, and because god exists we, that is the whole of humanity, believers AND non-believers, can use logic and reason.
    So starting from your worldview, can an atheist use logic and reason?

    You seem to argue that atheists can’t use logic and reason at all, since they don’t believe in god. This would lead to very funny situations. For instance: a teacher could ask his students to prove that the gravitational constant G is approximately 6.67×10−11 N. The students start working on it, they create a vacuum, drop a feather and a stone from one meter high, measure the time needed for those objects to drop that distance starting at 0 speed, and then calculate the constant from it. They all use the same measurements, the same materials, and the same mathematical calculations to get to their result, and they all do it perfectly well.
    Now according to you the teacher should give A’s only to the religious students, and D’s to all atheist students. Why? Because according to you, only the logic and reasoning from the religious students is valid since they have an absolute base for it, and since the atheists students don’t have an absolute base for their logic and reasoning their results can never be valid.

    Now that would be absurd woudn’t it. You might wanna rethink your interpretation of the presup argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bas. Thanks for commenting on my blog. Where did I say that professed unbelievers cannot use logic or reason? Obviously they can, but they can't justify logic or reason without God. The fact that professed atheists and others can use logic is because God exists. Everyone knows that God exists but some people suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1). What is your justification for absolute laws of logic, and your justification for knowledge Bas? What is your justification for gravity not radically changing in the future? Here's another good question for you - can anything happen?

      Delete
    2. Nice job, I specifically like your point regarding the ability of "nonbelievers" to utilize logic. If (as I feel you did) one can demonstrate that we can use logic that in effect opens a huge can of worms for the presuppers & it puts everyone back on equal footing. Outstanding!!!!!

      Delete
    3. Hi Ned. Yes, you can use logic, but you can't account for logic, knowledge, or truth in your worldview. No problem there for me. You are borrowing from the Christian worldview and your footing is standing on the Christian foundation but you won't acknowledge it.

      Delete
    4. Ok If I grant that I get my logic from "god" will you address the question then?

      You see it makes no difference where I "get my logic" the NoPE argument does not change & is still left unanswered.

      So Ok "I get my logic from god" you going to answer now?

      Delete
    5. You don't get your logic from just any god, but from the biblical God. If I remember correctly you see yourself as an atheist. So you can't just abandon your atheism and say that you believe in "god" as you put it in order to justify logic, truth, knowledge etc. That is unless you accept that the God of the Bible is true and have decided to repent and put your trust in Jesus. Are you conceding that atheism cannot account for knowledge, logic, and truth, and that you are actually in rebellion against God?

      Delete
    6. >>"Are you conceding that atheism cannot account for knowledge, logic, and truth, and that you are actually in rebellion against God?"<<<

      Is that what I need to say to get you actually do what you said in the title?

      If so then ok , yes, no, absolutely, you win, I lose, Brendan is the man, Jesus is lord, Brendan's god is the best &/or only god & I was/am in rebellion against he/she/or it"

      Insert those phrases as you see fit.

      You see Brendan I don't care about what you say about me, my beliefs, &/or abilities. I can renounce all I claim to know, believe, &/or possess because NONE of it has anything to do with the argument & even after I did so the NoPE argument would still remain unanswered & unchanged.


      Now that you have established that I got my knowledge from god, & anything else you need me to say using the words/phrases I provided above can you please now address the NoPE argument?

      Delete
    7. So you admit that you have no way of knowing that the NoPE argument is true without God? Can't you see that this IS the refutation of NoPE? Btw please capitalise God while commenting on my blog. He created the whole universe, so the least you can do is show Him the respect he deserves by capitalising His name.

      Delete
    8. Brendan,

      I have treated you with respect, answered your questions, & even defended you in the post show of Sunday Nights Sinners & Saints.

      I have given you every point, conceded you every condition, & even gone so far as to “accept” every one of your claims.

      Even after all this you still refuse to even attempt to live up to the claims you made in your own title & opening statement.

      Based on the discussion we had on SNS&S I truly thought that just maybe you were not a typical Sye-clown. Your deplorable conduct during this exchange has proven you are nothing more than exactly that, a disingenuous coward working from a “script” & will never answer even a single question.

      Im an truly disheartened by this realization and have no choice but to no longer engage in this farce you call a “discussion”. If a god &/or gods exist I want to know it but I need evidence not the unsubstantiated claims of a narcissistic poser like Sye. You see I am seeking individuals that honestly wish to discuss topics and explore issues in an effort to find truth not just claim “Truth”.

      If you ever find the integrity and courage to address the NoPE argument it will be there waiting. Until then however I hope it will serve as a thorn in your side and a reminder to just how weak and afraid you, your argumentation, Sye’s argument & most importantly your god have proven to be during this “discussion". Btw, just where was your god? I find it telling that it could not be bothered to even “reveal to you in such way" a single point that would allow you to refute or even address the simple question developed by a lowly human called the NoPE argument?

      Good Day
      Ned
      ~P

      Delete
    9. I'm not sure in what way or where you've defended me, but thank you if you've done that. As for answering all of my questions, you've done all you can to avoid my questions actually. I guess all you've got is empty accusations - because you can't know anything to be true in your worldview. I'm happy for the record to stand as is. I do not accept that I've lacked integrity in anything I've said or done here, but if I did why would that be wrong in your worldview? Who cares what one bit of stardust does to another bit of stardust? Don't feel you have to try and answer those questions, because it's clear you have no good answers and no interest in finding truth - you can't even know what truth is in your worldview - you can't know anything to be true because you can't know the true nature of reality without God. I pray that you would stop putting up a smokescreen to hide from the God you know exists, and that you'd repent and trust in Jesus Christ. If anyone has run from you it's because of the way you avoid questions Ned. But I can understand that it's much easier to do that than to actually admit you're wrong and can't know anything to be true in your worldview.

      Delete
  7. Hi Brendan,

    Thanks for your respons.
    Quote: “Where did I say that professed unbelievers cannot use logic or reason? Obviously they can, but they can't justify logic or reason without God.”
    Thanks! Would you then also agree that if students use logic and reasoning to argue that G (the gravitational constant) is actual a constant, this is then a stand-alone argument. After all, it doesn’t matter if the student is a believer or not, if starting from the point that we can ALL use logic and reason then it is ONLY the argumentation itself that needs to be valid to proof the constant. And therefor it is a stand-alone argument.

    Ned asked you to respond to the nope argument as a stand alone argument. The nope argument even GIVES you TWO presuppositional starting points. One: suppose there is a god… And two: we can ALL use logic and reason. That gives you, as a presuppositional, really al you need to actually address the argument itself, but instead of that all you do is repeating that atheists can not account for reasoning, and therefor cannot use the nope argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Bas.
      Just wanted to again say OUTSTANDING!!!! Thank you, Thank you Thank you.

      Ned
      ~P

      Delete
    2. Hi Bas. No argument can stand alone. All arguments rest on a foundation of truth and knowledge - which are accounted for in the biblical worldview, but cannot be accounted for without it. How do you account for truth in your worldview? What is your basis for things like gravity being constant 5 seconds from now? How do you know whether or not the NoPe argument is true?

      I'm noting a consistent theme amongst those trying to refute me - ignore my questions, don't try and account for anything, make bald assertions etc. I may have to change the settings on this blog to deal with this. In the meantime - further responses that make no effort to answer my questions will be deleted as I have better things to do than waste my time with trolls who have no interest in an actual two way dialogue where questions are asked by both sides and answers given.

      Delete
    3. There can be no two way dialogue with you, Brendan, you don't provide one of the "ways" yourself, so what you're saying here is blatant dishonesty.

      Delete
    4. Mathew, I've deleted a few of your comments on the other post because you did not heed my warning about irrelevant posts that don't answer my questions getting deleted. I will do the same if necessary as it's clear you've got no interest in having a dialogue and actually answering my questions properly, and then claim dishonestly that I've not answered your questions. You're exhibiting signs of what has been termed 'crazy-making' and I won't put up with it. I'm not sure what you're referring to in relation to 'ways' sorry. As for dishonesty, I reject that lie, but why would it be absolutely morally wrong in your worldview for anyone to lie? Again you're stealing from the Christian worldview in order to try to argue against it.

      Delete
  8. Hi Brendan,

    Quote: “I'm noting a consistent theme amongst those trying to refute me - ignore my questions, don't try and account for anything,”
    I’ll try to answer some questions and account for some things.

    Quote: “How do you account for truth in your worldview?”
    Atheists in general assume the reality of the universe. IF the universe is real, than there is an absolute base, and just as presuppers use god as an absolute base to account for logic and reason we can then use the reality of the universe as an account for logic and reason. We then use logic and reason to find statements about the reality we are part of that are ‘true’. But we accept the statements that we find as conditionally true, since we don’t consider ourselves all-knowing and/or omnipotent, and therefore we might have missed some important information.

    If you ask me: are you sure about the reality of the universe? My answer to that is: pretty sure, but not sure in an absolute way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bas. Thank you for attempting to answer my questions.

      //Quote: “How do you account for truth in your worldview?”
      Atheists in general assume the reality of the universe.//

      To assume is to presuppose something is true without proof. Or in other words, to believe something without a reason - blind faith. So you admit that at the heart of your worldview you are living by blind faith.

      // IF the universe is real, than there is an absolute base,//

      In your worldview you can't even know if anything is real, but neither can you know that you have an absolute base for anything.

      // and just as presuppers use god as an absolute base to account for logic and reason we can then use the reality of the universe as an account for logic and reason.//

      Please capitalise God when writing at my blog. Which reality of the universe? Even assuming that the universe exists doesn't mean you know ANYTHING in terms of the correct nature of the universe. In order to know anything you need to know that your reasoning is valid. How do you know your reasoning is valid?

      // We then use logic and reason to find statements about the reality we are part of that are ‘true’.//

      You are assuming the truth of my worldview in order to try to do this. But how can you know even 1 thing to be true? If you could be wrong about something then you don't really know it.

      // But we accept the statements that we find as conditionally true, since we don’t consider ourselves all-knowing and/or omnipotent, and therefore we might have missed some important information.//

      Things are either true or false. I reject the idea of things being 'conditionally true'.

      //If you ask me: are you sure about the reality of the universe? My answer to that is: pretty sure, but not sure in an absolute way.//

      Which reality? The hindu reality? Hitler's reality? Are you absolutely sure about anything?

      Delete
  9. Thanks so much Brendan,
    Now I have given you some basis answers, and in response you have tried to show me, using logic and reason, that the answers I gave ultimately lead to absurdity. You have some points there Brendan. You can surely understand it if someone doesn’t instantly convert to christianity, but first wants to explore your worldview using logic and reason. After all, you object to absurdity, so if starting from your worldview logic and reason leads to similar or even more absurdity why should anyone be convinced?

    Now this is exactly what the nope argument does. It picks up from your worldview, explores it using logic and reason, (wether or not borrowed from your worldview) and comes to the conclusion that it leads to even more absurdity. This webpage is set up as a refutation of the nope argument, so let’s discuss the nope argument.

    Your first words are: “Unless the argument is being claimed to be divine revelation then it can’t stand alone”
    Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. Let’s first give a definition of the term ‘stand alone’. I would define it as: an argument given by a human that is from start to end logically consistent, and doesn’t win or lose any logical validity due to the worldview of that human.
    This definition matches perfectly with the example of the students. Their starting point is the agreement that they can all use logic and reason to handle the mission given by the teacher (proof that gravity in a vacuum is constant). We should also define then the term ‘constant’. I’d say: the same for every object (heavy or light, flat or round) that was measured.

    Using these definitions, would you now agree that the argument the students gave for the gravitational constant is a stand alone argument? After all, both christian and atheist students come to the same conclusion using the same line of logical reasoning. The argument is from start to end logically consistent, and it doesn’t win or lose any logical validity due to the worldview of the student who presents it. That it doesn’t win or lose any logical validity is expressed in their rating, which is the same for both groups if they use exactly the same argumentation and results.

    ReplyDelete
  10. //Thanks so much Brendan,
    Now I have given you some basis answers, and in response you have tried to show me, using logic and reason, that the answers I gave ultimately lead to absurdity. You have some points there Brendan. You can surely understand it if someone doesn’t instantly convert to christianity, but first wants to explore your worldview using logic and reason. After all, you object to absurdity, so if starting from your worldview logic and reason leads to similar or even more absurdity why should anyone be convinced?//

    There is nothing absurd at all about my worldview, only your distorted understanding of it. The question is why is your understanding distorted? It's distorted because of your sin against the God you know exists but are denying because you prefer your sin.

    //Now this is exactly what the nope argument does. It picks up from your worldview, explores it using logic and reason, (wether or not borrowed from your worldview) and comes to the conclusion that it leads to even more absurdity. This webpage is set up as a refutation of the nope argument, so let’s discuss the nope argument.//

    How do you know that? The NoPE argument doesn't prove anything, and neither can you - the proof that God exists is that without Him you can't prove anything, and your attempt at arguing against God is confirming that.

    //Your first words are: “Unless the argument is being claimed to be divine revelation then it can’t stand alone”
    Maybe there is a misunderstanding here. Let’s first give a definition of the term ‘stand alone’. I would define it as: an argument given by a human that is from start to end logically consistent, and doesn’t win or lose any logical validity due to the worldview of that human.//

    How do you get knowledge, logic, truth etc without God? If you can't show how your reasoning is valid then nothing can stand alone but must steal from the biblical worldview. You are reasoning that your reasoning is valid which is viciously circular.

    //This definition matches perfectly with the example of the students. Their starting point is the agreement that they can all use logic and reason to handle the mission given by the teacher (proof that gravity in a vacuum is constant). We should also define then the term ‘constant’. I’d say: the same for every object (heavy or light, flat or round) that was measured.//

    I disagree with your belief that neutrality is possible. This is called the pretended neutrality fallacy. There is no neutral ground where you can use logic or science without God. The fact that you can use it is only because God exists, and you know this in your heart.

    //Using these definitions, would you now agree that the argument the students gave for the gravitational constant is a stand alone argument?//

    Definitely not. What is your basis for the future being like the past? You are using the past to assume that the future will be like the past but this is viciously circular and shows you are living by blind faith. In contrast the biblical view is that God is a uniform God who upholds the universe in a uniform way.

    //After all, both christian and atheist students come to the same conclusion using the same line of logical reasoning. The argument is from start to end logically consistent, and it doesn’t win or lose any logical validity due to the worldview of the student who presents it. That it doesn’t win or lose any logical validity is expressed in their rating, which is the same for both groups if they use exactly the same argumentation and results.//

    You are on borrowed intellectual capital. I've got another blog post on Greg Bahnsen that illustrates that point here http://brendantruthseeker.blogspot.co.nz/2013/12/dr-greg-bahnsen.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Brendan,
    Thanks again for your reply.

    ME “Using these definitions, would you now agree that the argument the students gave for the gravitational constant is a stand alone argument?”
    YOU “Definitely not. What is your basis for the future being like the past?”
    I defined ‘constant’ as: the same for every object (heavy or light, flat or round) that was measured in the students test. It does not say anything about the future, and I haven’t used any argument governing the future. ‘Constant’ in this context just means constantly the same for every time the students measured it.

    Quote: “There is no neutral ground where you can use logic or science without God.”
    So let me get this clear. If you where the teacher that asked the students to proof the gravity constant in your classroom, and they would all come up with the same result using the same methods, you would than take in account their worldview, and actually rate the christian students an A, but the non-believers a D since they cannot account for the logic and reason they used?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You've avoided answering my question - what is your basis for the future being like the past? What is your basis for the present being like past? If you can't know why the future should be uniform then you have no basis for the present being anything like the past - so unless you can deal with this issue you've got no basis for science, physics, gravity etc.

      We aren't in a science classroom. If we are going to use classroom analogies, we are in a theology class because the reason for the NoPE argument is to try to negate the presuppositional argument for God. So if any student in a theology class tried to avoid God like you are doing then yes I'd probably give them a D for avoidance and a D for strawman arguments.

      Delete
    2. I'm not saying that unbelievers don't know anything, or can't use logic or reasoning. I'm saying that unbelievers can't account for any knowledge, and therefore can't know anything in terms of epistemic knowledge.

      Delete
  12. I would like to ask Ned if he has any definitive evidence that this blog posting exists outside of his own consciousness?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Brendan,

    //If we are going to use classroom analogies, we are in a theology class because the reason for the NoPE argument is to try to negate the presuppositional argument for God. So if any student in a theology class tried to avoid God like you are doing then yes I'd probably give them a D for avoidance//

    Ok, let’s go back then to the NoPE argument. The NoPE argument does not avoid God, it assumes God. Ned and I are defending the NoPE argument, so we are not avoiding God.

    The NoPE argument in a nutshell again: if the universe exists as a presuppositionalist would have us believe, there are no fundamental properties governing the universe, rendering everything subjective and unknowable. Absolute knowledge is therefore not possible.
    Your reply to this was //God cannot change and does not lie.//
    But according to the bible god can change his mind. For instance in Exodus 32:7-14, where sinner Mozes makes God change his mind. And what about Genesis 6 where God regrets his creation and decides to destroy practically all of it. If THAT is not ‘changing your mind’.
    According to the bible, god can also lie. In Jeremia 7:22 God says: “I gave your ancestors no commands about burnt offerings or any other kinds of sacrifices when I brought them out of Egypt.” I suggest you reread Exodus, Leviticus and Numeri, and count all the verses where God explicitly give commands about burnt offerings or any other kind of sacrifices. Jeremia 7:22 is clearly a lie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The NoPE argument does not assume the biblical God but puts forth a strawman argument of a God who can lie. As for the Bible verses you've brought up - I'm sorry but as a general rule I don't do Bible studies with those who cannot justify knowledge or truth and have no basis for the absolute law of non-contradiction. The Bible is clear that God cannot lie, and when there are other less clear verses that we aren't sure about then that is a good thing that Christians can reconcile during a Bible study. If I were to reconcile the verses then would you accept God? I doubt it. You'd reject my reconciliations based on your presuppositions. You also need to give a basis for why lying is absolutely wrong in your worldview. I'm sorry but I will not let you get away with making arbitrary accusations against the Bible while standing on the foundation the Bible provides, while you are simultaneously trying to deny the truth of the Bible.

      Delete
  14. It’s fine with me if you don’t want to defend your claims about God that are clearly not in agreement with the bible. Those remarks where just marginalia from my side anyway.
    Now the NoPE argument not only postulates God, it also goes along with the presuppositional claim that god doesn’t change and doesn’t lie. Ned used the artist analogy in his video, where God is working on his final plan like a painter. He could erase parts that are just temporarily used to get the final results, like a painter who first makes sketches and later on removes lines he doesn’t need anymore. Or like a jeweler who has a plan for a new piece of jewellery, a plan which include creating a mold that will later be destroyed. The creation and later destruction of that mold is not a lie or a “change” in the plan. It is PART of the plan. The destruction of entire cities and almost all life on the planet could be part of the plan. So the NoPE argument is not a straw man. It actually represents the god that you represent very accurately.
    But as a result of this, it LOGICLY FOLLOWS, that you can not be sure that your whole existence is not erased from the plan at some point. Therefor you can never have absolute certainty about your existence. As Ned pointed out, the Bible does mention individuals that will be destroyed in the future (2 Peter 3:10 & 1 Corinthians 3:17). And in Revelations 22:19 it says: “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” So God can take away individuals out of the book of life, as if they never have existed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bas
      //It’s fine with me if you don’t want to defend your claims about God that are clearly not in agreement with the bible. Those remarks where just marginalia from my side anyway.//

      There is no "clear" knowledge possible in your worldview. And even if there were you probably haven't taken the time to check out the original Hebrew and look online at ways to reconcile contradictions - when one does this and looks at the full context of the verses then there is no problem other than your own faulty presuppositions.

      //Now the NoPE argument not only postulates God, it also goes along with the presuppositional claim that god doesn’t change and doesn’t lie.//

      That's not true. It's clearly saying that God can deceive us, which is a form of lying - and which the bible clearly says is impossible.

      // Ned used the artist analogy in his video, where God is working on his final plan like a painter. He could erase parts that are just temporarily used to get the final results, like a painter who first makes sketches and later on removes lines he doesn’t need anymore.//

      God isn't a painter who "erases" people. It's total nonsense.

      //Or like a jeweler who has a plan for a new piece of jewellery, a plan which include creating a mold that will later be destroyed. The creation and later destruction of that mold is not a lie or a “change” in the plan. It is PART of the plan. The destruction of entire cities and almost all life on the planet could be part of the plan.//

      This is total hypothetical strawman nonsense. God doesn't and cannot do that.

      // So the NoPE argument is not a straw man. It actually represents the god that you represent very accurately.//

      How do you know that? Btw, if you can't capitalise God while writing on my blog I reserve the write to not publish any further comments that talk about the God I love with disrespect in this way.

      //But as a result of this, it LOGICLY FOLLOWS,//

      No it doesn't, and you haven't even spelled 'logically' correctly, which is forgivable but rather telling.

      // that you can not be sure that your whole existence is not erased from the plan at some point. Therefor you can never have absolute certainty about your existence.//

      How do you know that? You've not shown yet how you can know ANYTHING without God in your worldview.

      // As Ned pointed out, the Bible does mention individuals that will be destroyed in the future (2 Peter 3:10 & 1 Corinthians 3:17). And in Revelations 22:19 it says: “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” So God can take away individuals out of the book of life, as if they never have existed.//

      You're taking verses out of context and shoehorning them into your own fallacious ideas.

      I've just had a look back at the things you've said and realised that you've totally avoided most of my questions. So I'll ask them again? How do you know anything to be true in your worldview? Your answer to this was if the universe is real then you have a basis for knowing things. I asked you how you know which reality is real and you did not answer it - so I'll ask again - How do you know which reality is real? The Hindu reality? Hitler's reality? Even if you assume that the universe is real you have no way of knowing the nature of that reality to any degree within your worldview.

      **Any further comments that do not attempt to address these questions will not be published.

      Delete
  15. Hi Brendan,
    I apologize for any spelling errors I have made so far, and for all the others that I will surely be making. English is not my native language, I am from Europe.

    //so I'll ask again - How do you know which reality is real? The Hindu reality? Hitler's reality?//
    ‘The reality of the universe’ is just the assumption that if Hitler and Hinduism and the whole of humanity and even ANY form of life on planet Earth would never have been there, then the universe itself, with all off its billions of stars and galaxy’s, would still be there. If the universe is real, and humanity together with all other life forms on earth are part of it, we (and those other life forms) can experience it through our senses. By processing what we experience we form ideas about reality. But our senses are limited and often give us confusing input, and because we grow up in different environments our brains are fed with different information. That is why different people come to different ideas about reality. I hope this answers your question.

    //Even if you assume that the universe is real you have no way of knowing the nature of that reality to any degree within your worldview.//
    Point taken. The NoPE argument though postulates God as the ultimate reality, so for discussing the NoPE argument it is not relevant.

    // There is no "clear" knowledge possible in your worldview.//
    I agree with you. But again, the NoPE argument postulates God as the ultimate reality, so for discussing the NoPE argument it is not relevant.

    //And even if there were you probably haven't taken the time to check out the original Hebrew and look online at ways to reconcile contradictions//
    Actually I have. And it couldn’t provide me with satisfying answers. But maybe you can. For instance Genesis 6 where it says: “And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.”
    Now that sounds very much like ‘changing your mind’ to me. Maybe you can explain to me the context in which this is not ‘changing your mind’.
    And the thing about Hebrew… weren’t it the Jews, who’s native language was Hebrew 2000 years ago, that denied that Jezus was the Messiah? And as still Hebrew speaking people still deny it? That doesn’t make the claim that studying Hebrew is gonna clear up things very convincing.

    //-//But as a result of this, it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS,//-//
    //No it doesn't//
    Could you explain then what the logical error is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bas. Thank you for capitlising God and for attempting to answer my questions. The thing is that you've made the NoPE argument into some kind of infallible revelation, which is the kind of absurd length people have to go to in order to deny God. I urge you to repent, and stop sinning against the God you know exists but are suppressing because of your sin. Most Jews reject Jesus for the same reason you do - they love their sin and ignore the Hebrew Scriptures in favour of their own tradition. I've talked about that on my website www.godorabsurdity.com under the 'Other Religions' section. Your argument fails logically because it's based on a strawman misrepresentation of the God of the Bible that posits absurd things. As for Genesis 6 - again sorry but I don't do Bible studies with those who can't justify knowledge.

      You've attempted to answer the question about reality - however your answer is an example of question begging irrelevant thesis, as it doesn't explain how you can know anything to be true within your worldview. You can't even know if the universe exists without God. So what is one thing you know for certain and how you know it? If you don't know anything for certain then you don't really know anything.

      Delete
  16. Hi Brendan,
    Thanks again for answering.

    //The thing is that you've made the NoPE argument into some kind of infallible revelation//
    Explain this to me then. God as postulated in the NoPE argument has all the attributes that you say God has. He is all-powerfull, all-knowing, has a plan, doesn’t change his mind. These are all attributes that you claim God has. Also God as postulated in the NoPE argument doesn’t act in contradiction with the Bible. After all, the Bible tells us that at one point almost all of life on earth has been completely exterminated in a big flood, and according to the Bible individuals will be destroyed in the future. So the God as postulated in the NoPE argument seem to me a pretty accurate representation of the God you claim is the ultimate reality.

    //As for Genesis 6 - again sorry but I don't do Bible studies with those who can't justify knowledge.//
    I always get the feeling believers have something to hide if they don’t want to discuss Bible scripture.

    I have tried answering your questions as well as I could. Now there is one question from my side that you haven’t answered yet. That is if you would rate atheists students a D, and theists students an A, if they perform a simple educational command in which they need to use their logic and reason, and all of them come up with exactly the same result. It’s a simple question, so surely you can answer it. The answer though has quit some logical consequences, and if you don’t want to answer this question then again I feel like you have something to hide.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Bas

    //Hi Brendan, Thanks again for answering.//

    You are welcome. Sorry for the delayed response.

    ////The thing is that you've made the NoPE argument into some kind of infallible revelation// Explain this to me then. God as postulated in the NoPE argument has all the attributes that you say God has.//

    No, he doesn't have all the attributes my God has because the NoPE argument postulates that God can lie.

    // He is all-powerfull, all-knowing, has a plan, doesn’t change his mind. These are all attributes that you claim God has. Also God as postulated in the NoPE argument doesn’t act in contradiction with the Bible. After all, the Bible tells us that at one point almost all of life on earth has been completely exterminated in a big flood, and according to the Bible individuals will be destroyed in the future. So the God as postulated in the NoPE argument seem to me a pretty accurate representation of the God you claim is the ultimate reality.//

    God's actions in the Bible were never done in a deceptive way.

    ////As for Genesis 6 - again sorry but I don't do Bible studies with those who can't justify knowledge.// I always get the feeling believers have something to hide if they don’t want to discuss Bible scripture.//

    You can feel that if you like. Jesus also refused to answer people who couldn't justify the basis for their questions.

    //I have tried answering your questions as well as I could. Now there is one question from my side that you haven’t answered yet. That is if you would rate atheists students a D, and theists students an A, if they perform a simple educational command in which they need to use their logic and reason, and all of them come up with exactly the same result. It’s a simple question, so surely you can answer it. The answer though has quit some logical consequences, and if you don’t want to answer this question then again I feel like you have something to hide.//

    I answered this question indirectly with my analogy earlier, but to be clear presuppositionalists don't argue that professed unbelievers can't know anything - the issue is justify that knowledge. So in the test analogy they'd get an A whether they were an atheist or a Christian if they had the correct answer. But if the test was a theology test it would be a totally different story - which is what the issue is here on this blog post - does God exist or not and is the Bible true? The answer is yes, God does exist, the Bible is true, we are all sinners, and unless people repent of their denial of God they will perish. The only hiding or attempted hiding that's going on here is coming from those who try to hide from God and deny the Bible as you seem to be doing Bas. I'm assuming that you are a professed atheist, correct?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hi Brendan,
    Thanks again on coming back at my. I really appreciate your willingness to keep addressing my arguments.

    //God's actions in the Bible were never done in a deceptive way.//
    Nice statement, but could you give some arguments then on how the NoPE argument represents a god that lies?

    //So in the test analogy they'd get an A whether they were an atheist or a Christian if they had the correct answer.//
    I then take it that by doing so you agree that a line of argumentation, given by a human, that is from start to end logically consistent, doesn’t win or lose any logical validity due to the worldview of that human.
    Now the NoPE arguments is given by a human, it starts off with postulating God with the same attributes as you say God has (and as long as you hasn’t shown this not to be true by arguments I’ll hold on to this), it then follows a logically consistent path, and by doing so comes to the conclusion that with God you can’t have any absolute certainty about our own existence.

    //But if the test was a theology test it would be a totally different story - which is what the issue is here on this blog post - does God exist or not and is the Bible true?//
    I thought the issue on this blog post was de question if the NoPE argument holds.

    ReplyDelete
  19. //Nice statement, but could you give some arguments then on how the NoPE argument represents a god that lies?//

    Sigh. I don't know how many times I have to say it but positing a God than can deceptively erase people from existence without us knowing about it is equivalent to lying - and God by definition cannot lie.

    The issue on this blog isn't just whether or not the NoPE argument holds but whether or not the Bible is true in terms of everything it says about a God who cannot lie.

    I don't think I've asked you Bas, but could you be wrong about everything you claim to know? (If not then what is one thing you know for certain and how do you know it?) I also asked if you are an atheist but you didn't answer. I'd appreciate an answer on that, or if you'd prefer not to answer then a reason why you aren't wanting to be straight-up about it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Hi Brendan,
    I have a few definitions I'd like cleared up if you would be so kind. I have come to the understanding that as presuppositionalists you believe God gave everyone absolute certainty of his existence and then some suppress that knowledge of God. If that is wrong, could you redefine presuppositionalism for me? If that is right, could you then define absolute certainty?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Amoose136. That's correct. Everyone knows that God exists. The book of Romans explains this certain knowledge of God that everyone has... (absolute means true for all people everywhere at all times).

      Romans 1-18-20 “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the reply.
      Okay glad to hear I'm not completely getting it wrong. That established, you've provided a definition of absolute, now please define certainty. This is trivial and nit picky but I find it necessary.

      Delete
    3. Certainty - impossible to be wrong. The thing is that everybody does know that God exists, but they suppress the truth about that because they prefer their sin. This leads to a state of self-deception where people deny with their minds what they know in their hearts to be true. Nearly all atheists will admit that it's possible for God to exist, but they choose to focus on their doubts about God instead of acknowledging the truth of God in their hearts. This leads to contradictions between what they say the believe and how they actually live their lives. For example atheists say we are just stardust but live as if morality, human dignity and love are important.

      Delete
    4. Maybe so, I'm just establishing concrete definitions before drawing implications. So by that definition, how does the meaning change by sticking absolute in front of it? If I combine those two words or look at one by itself I see little difference. Absolutely certain I imagine means "It is true for all people everywhere at all times that it is impossible to be wrong about [A]" Just plain certain means "impossible to be wrong" but in order to be impossible I would think that already implies no scenario exists anywhere or anytime where [A] is false. Please clarify.

      Delete
    5. I'm sorry but it sounds like a semantic game and I don't really know what you are getting at. What does this have to do with either the NoPE argument or the truth of the Bible and why (I'm assuming) you reject it?

      Delete
    6. It is semantics but it's not a game. I'm being deathly serious. I find it necessary to agree on basic definitions before meaningful discussion can take place. Without this, I could agree to the same set of words but a completely different idea. Without agreement on definitions Bill could argue A -> B and Susan could argue A -> C and B and C could be mutually exclusive and both argument could be logically sound. This is a commonly reached scenario in miscommunications only possible when original definitions are not in near enough agreement. It it is increasingly apparent to me that I can not reconcile my definitions of words to make sense within your definitions without some explanations. For example, I now know I can seldom use the word "certain" in discussion with you because it does not mean what I would have intuitively assumed it meant. That's fine. I cannot say my definitions are better or worse. I just need to know how to communicate within the context of my audience or I will waste a lot of time. I actually have a third opinion on NoPE, but I can't get to it without some agreement on the basics.

      Delete
  21. One other question. Could your counterargument after these comments be restated thusly and still accurately represent your views? The NoPE argument as applied to Christian presuppositionalism implies the existence of the Christian God. This is A. The argument flows A->B where B is one of the multiple conclusions of the argument. During the the flow of the argument the natural conclusion is that God lies OR changes his mind. Both of these things are conflicting with the Christian definition of God and are therefore paradoxical making the entire argument akin to asking the question, "What if green were red?" because exploring that scenario changes the definition of green so it cannot be explored despite whether or not the argument might otherwise be valid. Likewise exploring the question "What if God could lie or change his mind?" is not useful because lying is not only outside the realm of possibility but also outside his definition. Is that a fair summary?

    ReplyDelete
  22. //The issue on this blog isn't just whether or not the NoPE argument holds but whether or not the Bible is true in terms of everything it says about a God who cannot lie.//
    You got me surprised a little here Brendan. The title of this blogpage is “Refutation of the NoPE Argument”, and right under it it says “This is my refutation to 'the NoPE Argument' by 'Negation of P' found in the video above. The NoPE argument attempts to refute Presuppositional apologetics”.
    Nothing there about whether or not the Bible is true. Using such an header and then announcing that this blog actually IS about whether or not the Bible is true after a long way in the discussion is a little deceptive isn’t it.

    //I don't think I've asked you Bas, but could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?//
    Apart from my conscious existing? The answer is yes.
    Now as far as I understood from the header, this blog is about refuting the NoPE argument. And the NoPE argument postulates God as the ultimate reality. I am defending that this logically leads to you not even being sure of your own existence. You refute that. For discussing the NoPE argument the question if I can be wrong about everything is not at all relevant. So you don’t need to ask me anymore.

    //If not then what is one thing you know for certain and how do you know it?//
    My consciousness exists. I know that since it is self-evident.
    But again, this blog is about refuting the NoPE argument. The NoPE argument postulates God as the ultimate reality. I am defending the argument, you are refuting it. The question if I know anything for certain is not relevant to that discussion. Therefor you don’t need to ask again.

    //I also asked if you are an atheist but you didn't answer. //
    My atheism is 6 otsoD.

    I have answered your answers openly and sincerely. Since none of them are relevant for defending or refuting the NoPE argument, which this blog is about according to your header and your two line introduction, do you now agree that you don’t need to ask them again anymore and that we can get back to the argument?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you mean by saying you atheism is 6 otsoD ? So you admit that you could be wrong about everything you claim to know (apart from knowing that you exist, which I dispute on my website www.godorabsurdity.com ). This is VERY relevant because by admitting you could be wrong about everything you admit that you have no basis for knowing whether or not the NoPE argument has any validity at all. As for the topic of my blog post - I've edited the introduction to point out that the NoPE argument is an attack on the authority of the Bible. The reason for this should be obvious.

      Delete
  23. //What do you mean by saying you atheism is 6 otsoD/
    6 on the scale of Dawkins. Richard Dawkins has put up a list from 1 to 7, 1 being absolute certain that god exists, 7 being absolute certain that no god exists. 6 says: very unlikely. I can not know for 100% sure, but I live my life with the assumption there are no gods. De facto atheist.

    //I've edited the introduction to point out that the NoPE argument is an attack on the authority of the Bible.//
    Can we expect more of those changes to the starting point halfway the discussion?

    //by admitting you could be wrong about everything you admit that you have no basis for knowing whether or not the NoPE argument has any validity at all//
    Maybe yes, maybe no, but you yourself already agreed with me that NoPE argument CAN have validiy. Remember the students? If an argument given by a human is from start to end logically consistent, then it doesn’t win or lose any logical validity due to the worldview of that human. So what difference does it make if I do or don’t have a basis (what my worldview is)?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I have not agreed at all that the NoPE argument has any validity at all because it contradicts what the Bible clearly says. So the student test analogy doesn't apply.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi Brendan,
    //I have not agreed at all that the NoPE argument has any validity//
    No, you have not agreed that the NoPE argument has validity, that is true. But stay sharp Brendan. I wrote that you have agreed that the NoPE argument CAN have validity. I even capitalized it. If an argument given by a human is from start to end logically consistent, then it doesn’t win or lose any logical validity due to the worldview of that human. That was why you would give both theist and atheist students the same rating if they start from the same point and get to the same result following a consistent logical path. The NoPE argument starts from the same point as you do, an all knowing omnipotent God that has a plan, and as long as it follows a consistent logical path it has validity.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I never agreed that the NoPE argument does or even can have validity. An argument cannot be valid if it is false / untrue. I'll make this the final comment I will publish from you here sorry, as it's clear you've got nothing more to bring to the table. Thanks for your comments. I pray that you'll come to repentance and stop denying the God you know exists.

    ReplyDelete