Chew on this one, my athe...oops, agnostic friends! (page 3)

gumby

Too late Rex....ya went and hurt my feelings and I'm forgettin about it now.

Here.....read this

http://members.tripod.com/~quick_geelong/Vantil/Vantil03.html

Gumby

AlmostAtheist

Van Til's arguments have given some of the most intelligent of the skeptics fits.

WHAT?!?

Is "Van Til" the guy that wrote that 14-page description of his lifetime of indoctrination? The link you pointed out in the beginning?

I saw NO arguments in his entire diatribe. None. No skeptic can respond to it with any substantial answer because there were no points raised. (Or were they raised, and I missed them? Feel free to pull them out and post them, but I assure you I read every word.)

Summary: "I was raised in a house where the Bible was read every day, I slept in a barn once, and I went to seminary college. But you STILL don't believe in God, do you? You pitiful, lost soul."

What in any of that is any "skeptic" supposed to respond to, much less have "fits" over?

Dave

FMZ

Dave / Atheist... a cigarette? Oh man, I'm disappointed.

I find it an interesting coincidence that just about 5 minutes ago, I wrote in a post the exact phrase he used to end his article. "Life is chaos". We see it differently... he is scared of the chaos of a life without God... I say God IS the chaos.

Life is chaos, chaos is reality, God is the ultimate reality. Kinda beautiful actually. I know some of the most inspiring views I have ever seen is either a chaotic thunderstorm or the chaos that is a single wave breaking on the beach.

FMZ

gumby

You ain't high again are ya FMZ?

Gumby

FMZ

lol Gumbo... no actually. I ran out just yesterday. I think I am anti-high in fact... lol. Maybe anti-high is good for a while... makes the actual high even better ;)

FMZ

AlmostAtheist

I know some of the most inspiring views I have ever seen is either a chaotic thunderstorm or the chaos that is a single wave breaking on the beach.

If we're callin' that God, then you can call me a believer, Brother!

FMZ

Dave, seems like our belief systems are similar.

Yep, I believe that IS God. Not some big dude on a golden throne way up high.... not someone who hears a prayer and decides to do or not do something to help out. If that is what God really was, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened, neither would the tsunamis or hurricanes.

Let me describe something to you and see what you think...

I control everything
I am heartless
You were all created through me
Those that really know me say I can be seen in everything
You can ask me to do something, but I won't do it until you make the first step to make it so.

It's the God that apparently rules this world! OR... wait... is it reality? One could almost say physics. Physics is nothing but the explanation of reality, and how it works. Just remember, we can't explain everything yet ;)

FMZ

AlmostAtheist

FMZ, you might enjoy Scott Adams' book "God's Debris". It presents a view of God that matches your pretty closely. But there's enough new thought to keep you interested.

Me, I'm just not buying a god in all of that. I love it, but I see it all as a natural result of natural forces. A fancy equivalent of a ball rolling down a hill.

Dave

FMZ

All good mate.... thanks for the book recommendation.

And I agree. A ball rolling down a hill is just that. ;)

FMZ

funkyderek

Shining One:

Hmmmm, the comments that I expected of course.

Of course. But as I pointed out, that's built into the argument.

Not too much of substance, though a couple of you seem to have read it through.

That's a little insulting. Several people took the time to read it and comment on it in some detail. If you are simply going to dismiss their comments, then you will doubtless find fewer people who will waste their time on your threads in future.

To the rest who just skimmed and missed the writer's points:

Perhaps you can summarise the author's argument. To me, the point seems to be that he believes in God because he was indoctrinated to do so, and therefore you should believe too. If I'm wrong please summarise it in a way that you think more accurately reflects the author's view.

Van Til's arguments have given some of the most intelligent of the skeptics fits.

I don't doubt it. I was exasperated and baffled the first time I read his work. I had to read it several times to make sure he was saying what he appeared to be saying, which didn't give me a fit but did produce a headache. I thought maybe there was a rational argument hiding in there somewhere. But there wasn't. Just a pathetic, tedious circular argument. The only original thing about it is that he essentially admits his argument is circular and knows that people will point this out. The whole thing is very hard for a skeptic to process because there's no attempt made anywhere at any kind of logic. It's so bad an argument, it's not even wrong.

I guess my raft of fellow-ex'dubs are just of a higher level than the rest......

I doubt that - in the real world - you'll find anyone who's swayed by the silly and childish ramblings of Cornelius Van Til. But then, he doesn't expect to sway anyone, just to give people who already believe some sense of certainty in their belief system which they cannot get through the application of reason.

Chew on this one, my athe...oops, agnostic friends!

Share this