CADRE Comments

Pixie has a major misconception about the version if thenirakargunet tahtI use. due to the nature of certain arguments this became important in several ways in discussision with Pixie. The Major point is he doens't understand which is my moral argument. He has the wrong one conquenctly he has not disproved mine.

Joe: you must answer his idea of morality as just one example, science cannot tell us that,

Pix:
If he can prove his idea of morality is true, then I will concede the point. But not until then.

Direct experience and Truth
By Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) - September 14, 2020
Dialouge betwe

comments:
https://www.blogger.com/comment.gblogID=6363362&postID=2330342897145644583&isPopup=true

Pixie says:
Of course the reality is that what you have is a circular argument.

1. There are objective moral truths
2. Therefore God exists
3. Therefore there are objective moral truths

You moral argument is sets 1 and 2. Your argument here is 2 and 3. As long as you k…

"But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption." (1 Corinthians 1:30)        Jesus Christ is the fountainhead of salvation and all graces that follow from therein. He is the outward manifestation of God's love and mercy.
        He imparts to us wisdom regarding salvation, which is demonstrated through His work on the cross.
        We receive a righteous standing before God on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness.
        Sanctification is progressive. Redemption refers to our future glorification where we will be made perfect as Christ Himself is perfect.
        In the Old Testament, the Law is called wisdom and righteousness (Deuteronomy 4:6; 6:25). Christ is our wisdom and righteousness.
        Following are comments by Matthew Olliffe in light of objections to 1 Corinthians 1:30 being cited as a supporting text for imputed righteousness:
        "The LXX (or Septua…

Dialouge between Pixie and myselfon Metacrock's blog, the comment section of the threat: "Counterimg Scoentism" (Sept. 6, 2020)

https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2020/09/countering-scientism.html

anonymous said... Joe: That confirms exactly the criticism I made of your approach, you make everything into a little version of science, as tough science is the only way to think.

Pix: I have never said "science is the only way to think", that is just your usual tired straw man.
Joe:you basically have. You clearly assert that the only reliable knowledge is scientifically verifiable.

Pix

What I have said is that besides direct experience, science is the only methodology that gives us reliable knowledge.
Joe:I have direct experience of God

Do you not understand the difference?

that is just bull shit. you are arbitrarily deciding what makes something reliable.

Joe: I disproved that, as does Jim.

That is just delusional! Here i what i said it to:"science is our only rel…

Adoption is the act of God by which He considers us to be members of His eternal family. We are deemed His children by faith. Adoption is a legal term, figure of speech used to describe a change in our standing before Him. Like justification, it is an undeserved, unmerited favor of God:

        "But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13)

        It is not by physical descent or by human efforts that one becomes a child of God, but by faith. He took action to redeem us by sending God the Son into this world. We obtain an inheritance in heaven that cannot perish or fade away.

        Interestingly, the New American Bible Revised Edition has this footnote on a manuscript variant reading of John 1:13:

        "...The variant “he who was begotten,” asserting Jesus’ virginal conception, is weakly atte…

What follows is one of the most challenging subjects you will ever hear about. It is the best way to get a head ache, but I think it proves the existence of God. The problem is it requires a very specialized background to understand it. First you have to understand modal logic.

Modal Logic is so called because it turns upon the use of so called "modal operators." It's called "modal" because it is the logic of modes of being. "modes" as in what type of existence something exits in, weather it is dependent upon other things, weather it can cease or fail to exist and so forth. The modal operators are "necessity," "contingency" "impossibly," "possibility."

Necessity and contingency lie at the base of our modern understanding of cause and effect. They come from scholastic notions of logic, but the distinction between the notion our modern notions of c/e and the scholastic ones in the middle ages is not that great. …

The English word “was” is about as bland a term as you can find. Yet in Greek, it is most expressive. The Greeks were quite concerned about being able to express subtleties in regard not only to when something happened, but how it happened as well. Our little word “was” is poorly suited to handle the depth of the Greek at this point. John’s choice of words is deliberate and, quite honestly, beautiful.

Throughout the prologue of the Gospel of John, the author balances between two verbs. When speaking of the Logos as He existed in eternity past, John uses the Greek word rlv, en (a form of eimi). The tense’ of the word expresses continuous action in the past. Compare this with the verb he chooses to use when speaking of everything else-found, for example, in verse 3: “All things carne into being through Him,” eyeve ro, egeneto. This verb contains the very element missing from the other: a point of origin. The term, when used in contexts of creation and origin, speaks of a time when some…

http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-counter-apologiost-attacks-moral.html

I know nothing about this guy, who calls himself "counter apologist:" (I'll call him CA) except that he is a philosophy student somewhere in the US.I don't know graduate or undergraduate, I will say this for him, he's a good student. He is arguing against the moral argument for the existence of God as it is ran by William Lane Craig, so it is a modified version of divine command theory. The basic argument says:

(1) if God exists, there are objective moral values

(2) there are objective moral values

(3) therefore God exists.

This is a lousy argument. I will say it up front. I never argue this it's just a bad expression of a moral argument that I have to wonder if he isn't making straw man hat is except it is a version WLC uses. I can't fault the guy but one does wonder why he doesn't take on Kant's moral argument? My contention is that this argument is invalid b…

And so he was lifted up upon a tree and an inscription was attached indicating who was being killed. Who was it? It is a grievous thing to tell, but a most fearful thing to refrain from telling. But listen, as you tremble before him on whose account the earth trembled! He who hung the earth in place is hanged. He who fixed the heavens in place is fixed in place. He who made all things fast is made fast on a tree. The Sovereign is insulted. God is murdered. The King of Israel is destroyed by an Israelite hand. This is the One who made the heavens and the earth, and formed mankind in the beginning, The One proclaimed by the Law and the Prophets, the One enfleshed in a virgin, the One hanged on a tree, the One buried in the earth, the One raised from the dead and who went up into the heights of heaven, the One sitting at the right hand of the Father, the One having all authority to judge and save, through Whom the Father made the things which exist from the beginning of time. This One i…

Here is where the graphic should be. See the look of he book and order it on amazon.

Arguments for God from religious experience have always been considered a secondary level of argument. It's always been assumed that their subjective nature makes them weak arguments. The atheist is scared to death of subjectivity. This work, compiling empirical scientific studies that show that religious experience is not the result of emotional instability but are actually good for one psychologically, constitutes a ground breaking work that places religious experiences on a higher level.

The Trace of God is an exposition (445 pages) employing both philosophical investigation and social science research. The book analyzes and discusses a huge body of empirical research that has up to this point been primarily known only in circles of psychology of religion, and has been over looked by theology, apologetics, Philosophy of religion and more general discipline of psychology. This body of work n…