Thursday, December 19, 2013


Be very careful when someone tells you they have the absolute truth (most specifically if you think your problem is that you lack the absolute truth) because the danger is that you're very likely to believe what they say, and next thing you know, you're under the control of the man or woman who claims to have the answers. In religion you can look forward to a future of being told what to do (which is precisely where devotion leads).

The reason the world has so many problems is not because there is a lack of archaic religion, but because we are altogether too dogmatic! Religion is part of the problem, and as such, cannot be the solution!

What I have found is that most people reach for religion because they're too afraid to live with uncertainty [as though religion can really provide certainty??]... they reach for religion because they're desperate for some kind of power, and religion seems to offer them that power in the form of knowledge-assertions about themselves and the world. This is a quick, but superficial fix. It will not solve the real problem (which is the insecure and desperate self), and can make no contact with the true source of pain.

There are over 30,000 Christian denominations in the world and thousands upon thousands of different Gods, so let's be honest, what's the chance that your Church is the one true Church and your God the one true God? Right, all the other Churches and Gods are false, but you just happen to find the right one! And to think, what are the odds?

Be careful; I only say this because I care [not a stupid man here.] Religion will waste your life by wasting the greatest potential of yourself. I only say this because I care. There are better and more legitimate ways to obtain power; religion does not constitute a knowledge of the world, it constitutes a knowledge of an eccentric creed from one of many divergent sects. 

kindly yours,
Jersey Flight

Tuesday, November 26, 2013


"It is the Christian's contention that all non-Christian worldviews are beset with internal contradictions, as well as with beliefs which do not render logic, science or ethics intelligible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview (taken from God's self-revelation in Scripture) demands our intellectual commitment because it does provide the preconditions of intelligibility for man's reasoning, experience, and dignity." [i]

Then clearly Christianity is at no point, and in no way, beset with internal contradictions?  And of course, it is only the assertions of Christianity which render logic, science and ethics intelligible.

Which Christianity we are not told?

And how exactly does this vague Christianity provide the preconditions for intelligibility? The Christian assumes that statements in the Bible are authoritative. (And of course, this is a far more rational way than actually trying to provide preconditions). Why do philosophy when you can simply rely on assertions?

It is a bit misleading to say that the Christian merely assumes that statements of the Bible are authoritative, when in fact, he boldly asserts the supremacy of his interpretation of the Bible as being authoritative. [The Christian is always giving us an interpretation of the Bible he is never giving us the universal teaching of the Bible.]

According to presuppositional standards, in order for a philosophy to be true, it must meet a strict set of criteria in relation to logic, science and ethics. However, this criteria is not in itself authoritative. This is an old maneuver: demand the highest level of certainty in relation to a claim, and every claim which fails to meet this standard "must be false." Hence, Christianity is true in that the opposition cannot meet the standards of certainty. Behold the argument from silence!

But what happens if we level this same criticism against Christianity? Can the Protestant Canon be established with absolute certainty? If not, how can it provide the preconditions of intelligibility? Presuppositionalism, along with every other mock attempt to justify Christianity, relies on the same fallacy, that of special pleading.

The very odd thing regarding Presuppositionalism is that it levels a violent critique against rational and empirical systems, only to fall back on something which is worse---- justification on the basis of prejudicial assertion. (Not to mention it relies on the very precepts it seeks to reject). 

Clearly the Christian Presuppositionalist would not accept the declarations of the Koran as a suitable foundation for knowledge. Once again--- special pleading!

"In various forms, the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist is that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. When the perspective of God's revelation is rejected, then the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience. To put it another way: the proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to prove anything." Ibid.

But here the Muslim could simply parrot the means of justification:

 "In various forms, the fundamental argument advanced by the Muslim apologist is that the Muslim worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. When the perspective of Allah's revelation is rejected, then the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience. To put it another way: the proof that Islam is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to prove anything."

We are not so much interested in the claim of what fails as we are in what succeeds. So how does Christianity do what no other philosophy has been able to do? Are the preconditions of intelligibility really established by emphasizing a specific interpretation of the text? It would seem theology is more important than philosophy. 

The stupidity of presuppositionalism, is not criticism per se, but its failure to realize the unphilosophical nature of its own claims [means of justification]. To see its own maneuver in the syllogism of another is to see the maneuver for what it really is (prejudicial authoritarian assertion), hence it denies the legitimacy of this maneuver to everyone except itself... reserves the right of this maneuver to itself as being the only possible context in which this maneuver can be correct.  

What this means is that prejudicial-self-assertion is a poor foundation for the preconditions of knowledge.       


[i] The Heart of the Matter, Greg Bahnsen, The Biblical Worldview (VII:1; Jan.,1991)   




Thursday, November 14, 2013


As it seems to me there is a cry abroad... not something illegitimate but something contextual: what is the point of philosophy?

...a way of answering this question without answering it: we speak of the subject of "practical philosophy."

If we assert that philosophy must be practical, then what is the most practical subject of philosophy? Surely it is that which pertains to life? But there is no such thing as a solitary existence; every existence is contingent, hence, the most practical subject of philosophy is that of community---- how to organize and structure a stable society. [But how strange that those who cry out for the need of practical philosophy are so quick to abandon the line of political thought.] Every major system flies in our face: capitalism, communism, socialism---- but which system is best?

I submit that a human being has two options; to become conscious of political systems or to become the victim of political systems. Every patron of life... the philosopher... the artist... the doctor, all operate within the structure of an ideology... and this ideology [economic, social] determines the nature of life. Hence, the artist who struggles may never learn the source of his struggle because he may never become conscious of his system---- something implicit, and at times a given, though undetected, force. Men who were born in the desert may never question the conditions of the desert. [I submit to you there may be a better system under which we might thrive.] But if we never learn to evaluate our condition, which means the nature of the precepts that control our condition, then we may never transcend our condition, or in the best case, learn that we should fight to retain our condition. One will merely suffer under the environment and conditions of the desert, when in fact, there may be better environments with better conditions.

Politics can only be thrown aside by the man who doesn't care whether or not he becomes a slave!

Friday, November 8, 2013



Sye's Response Upon reading This Paper:

FLIGHT: I fancy your own sect would knock you down a notch; Frame and Poythress both know better than to engage in your sophistical antics. This is what it looks like to have your ass handed to you.

SYE: I thank you for this paper and hope that many refer to it when they engage me.  If you know of any mature Skeptic who wishes to engage me with your "argument," I would be happy to do so.  I suspect that the immaturity you display in your writing is a defense mechanism to avoid actually having to engage your opponents.

FLIGHT: But this is the very point in writing the paper: so people can simply refer to it and move past the rushing Bruggencate, ever imposing his authoritarian will, antiquated moral piety, theistic fascism, (there is no need to repeat what has already been said; you have already been "engaged"). The case is closed! Your little gimmicky maneuvers have been exposed and shattered. You have nothing but empty self-assertion; you have nothing but the feeling of being right without the substance to prove it. This means you lose, which means you are, a l-o-s-e-r!

Don't strike at me unless you want a second circumcision.
Confidently yours,
Jersey Flight

SYE: Just as I figured, you don't know any mature people who wish to engage me with your "argument."


There is no logic to the method of Sye Ten Bruggencate, but only a kind of insecure authoritarianism.

"...Let's get back to the key point... The one question that I asked you was if everyone's reasoning is valid (and you admitted that there are some people whose reasoning was invalid), and I asked you how do you know that you're not one of those people and you said that you do not know that. So logically it follows that you can not know that your reason is valid... can you know for certain that your reason is valid?"[i]

The only thing this proves is how small Mr. Burger's brain is.

[This is the same question he always asks, and the problem with it is that he means something specific by the term know (something he never explains to his listeners). So we might ask; what does it mean to know something for certain? This would immediately shift the burden of proof back to where it needs to be. For without explaining this, the question he is asking is not just a simple, innocent question; the question he is asking is a complex, loaded question. For here the possibility of knowledge, is contingent on the way he defines the term. And of course, for Mr. Burger, the only way to know something for sure is to know that it proceeds from the Word of God.[ii] Hence, the question is loaded in such a way that the conclusion will always end in Mr. Burger’s favor. The moment we challenge, why this is the only acceptable standard, is the moment this standard gets exposed for what it really is: an empty declaration based on groundless, authoritarian assertions. If knowing something for certain means it proceeds from the Word of God, and if, in order to know something we must know it for certain, then it logically follows, that everything that does not proceed from the Word of God, cannot be known, because it cannot be known for certain. But clearly Mr. Burger would never accept this standard in the case of the Koran!]
"The question I asked was whether or not everyone's reasoning was valid?"

Perhaps Mr. Burger can give us an example, of valid reasoning, before he proceeds to apply this idea to our knowledge of everyone?

[It is important to note that Sye’s use of the term, valid, is confused. When he asks if a person’s reasoning is valid, what he is really asking is whether or not a person’s reason is true. This is a misuse of the term valid, which makes the question ignorant and confused. (see endnotes)] 

Valid Reasoning:

i) All men are mortal
ii) Socrates was a man
iii) Therefore, Socrates was mortal.

Invalid Reasoning:
i) The Koran says Allah exists,
ii) The Koran exists
iii) Therefore, whatever the Koran says is true.  

So how do I know I'm not one of these invalid people? I check the syllogism to see whether or not the conclusion logically follows from the premise, that is to say, I adhere to the form of the argument (as logical validity is a property that has to do with form). But if I ask the real question Sye is asking, which has to do with the truth of my conclusion, the answer is that I check the syllogism by examining the truth of its premise!

How do we spot false reasoning? We examine the nature of the premises, as well as the logic of the form! Further, a true argument is not based on premises which are certain, but on premises which are uncontroversial, or authoritative (this means both parties, for whatever reason, affirm the truth of the premises).  

Of course, Mr. Burger is free to dispute our example of valid and invalid, true and false, but in so doing he must realize that he will be required to establish his own.

Of course, we could push this position closer to home: how do we know that our reason is true, when it comes to Mr. Burger's Christianity being false? Because the premises of his arguments, which are nothing more than authoritarian assertions, are false. His conclusion (justification of Christianity) is based on a weak appeal to authority. (Of course, we don't expect Mr. Burger to comprehend the epistemological nature of this word weak). Authority is a concept and property of degree.

Can arguments from authority be true; most certainly, but not when they are as weak and subjective as the ones being made by Mr. Burger. (The irony here is that he actually agrees with us, hence he denies arguments based on the authority of the Koran)! Can arguments from authority be true? Not if the criterion of truth is stacked so high that no amount of evidence or reason can reach it. Whether we like it or not probability has its place. [iii]

Mr. Burger’s tactic is not only simple, but juvenile... the man honestly needs help, by which we mean, tutoring. He thinks he can prove his position by noting that other people's beliefs do not obtain the status of certainty (this is properly called an argument from silence, or an argument from ignorance), and of course, his position is true, not because he passed the skeptical tests he so vigorously requires of others, but because he exempts himself from these tests on the basis of assertion, on the basis of his reference to God, which is to say, on the basis of special pleading.

From his view every position that cannot meet the standards of certainty cannot be true [because his requirement is absolute!] However, when it comes to the validity and truth of his own claims; does he really possess absolute knowledge, or is he merely claiming that he possesses absolute knowledge, via his reference to God, which is nothing more than an empty assertion?

What is required in order for a belief to achieve the status of certainty? (If Sye, will demand a standard of certainty, then he must establish this standard of certainty). Further, once this standard has been established (and not arbitrarily we might add) Sye must be able to meet it himself, or else fall prey to his own criticism. The problem is that his standard of certainty is clearly bent in favor of his theism. In order for a belief to be certain, it must be established by the “Word of God,” by which Sye means the 66 books of the Protestant Canon (which really means he is referring to a council of men [for it was a council of men that compiled the canon]; which really means he is referring to a certain arbitrary, theological hermeneutic, associated with the interpretation of these books). The criterion of certainty, put forth by Sye, is arbitrary. Is it true, that beliefs based on the assertions of the Bible, legitimately obtain the status of certainty? [We don’t expect Mr. Burger to understand all these things. He is a very limited and simple person. Of course, this does not stop him from running his mouth, as simplicity has never stopped any idiot, from running his mouth.]

In exchange with Botten:

Botten: “Do you believe Adam lived to be nine hundred and thirty years old?”

Sye: “Yes.”

Botten: “What evidence do you have of that?”

Sye: “Scripture.”

Botten: “Do you have any external evidence?”

Sye: “I don’t need any.”[iv]

[If the solution is to deny that external evidence is needed beyond the mere act of self-assertion, then how can a man like Mr. Burger reject this method in the opposite case? We are entitled to the same resolution; to the same procedure of justification. Again, we don’t expect Mr. Burger to follow this line of reason.]

Refuting Mr. Burger is certainly something one should not boast about; for this is no accomplishment, it is rather a waste of life. Would one compliment themselves for correcting a child that had no comprehension of geometrical axioms?  What is there to boast about; for Mr. Burger’s dialectic methodology, is a gross manifestation of epistemological ignorance! What philosopher in his right mind, would demand that the claims of knowledge be certain in order to qualify as knowledge? As has been pointed out to Mr. Burger, many times before, this would require omniscience (which is exactly what Mr. Burger must be claiming for himself, in order to escape his own criticism)!

Sye's secret is to authoritatively demand a standard of justification which is absolute, and all we have to do, to expose this miserable charlatan's sophistical-gimmick, is to ask him how he knows that the justification of knowledge, in order to be authoritative, must be absolute? How does he arrive at his standard of justification? His is a retardation, incompetence and ignorance when it comes to the nature of justification itself. Further, this conversation of justification has nothing to do with Christian theism. [If Mr. Burger believes it does then he bears the burden of proof to show its correlation.] For if he fails to prove his standard absolutely, then how can his standard be absolute? So before we simply fall in line, with his arbitrary standards, we demand that he connect the dots. We will not assume for him, or with him, that knowledge claims, in order to be authoritative, must be absolute. If this were the case, then perhaps he can give us an example of a claim that actually meets this criterion? And even more so; we demand him to prove that propositions derived from the assertions of the Bible, are in fact, absolutely true.    

At the end of the day, if Mr. Burger ever arrives at and completes Philosophy 101, he will come to realize, that reasoning by analogy is not something we can escape. When we ask the question, “what do we mean,” how shall we answer it without making reference to the physical world… which is of course, a much better and more productive question than any of the ones posed by Mr. Burger.

The best thing I can advise, for not ending up like Mr. Burger, is not to stake one’s belief on gimmicky maneuvers in logic, maneuvers, which are literally adolescent. We might call these maneuvers, theistic-word-games, sophistical-devices. And once the student is caught in this sophistical trap (as Mr. Burger is, as I once was); once the listener succumbs to this juvenile ploy, the apologist tries to swiftly fill the gap with his disconnected worldview, which is to say, his authoritarian proclamations. How many times must we explain to the theist that his conclusion does not follow from his disconnected premise? How many times must we cry out, non-sequitur! The insinuation is: “because we have established that truth exists, on a basic and general level, we have also established that truth exists, on a sophisticated and specific level; namely, that my own personal belief is the very nature and identity of truth itself!” I have seen this fallacy utilized a thousand times different times, from a thousand different sects. The wise thinker is advised to note it, and distance himself from it.

Mark my words; there is more to the story than simply affirming the law of noncontradiction. This is only the beginning. As any competent thinker would tell you; the problem with truth is not its possibility, but actually being able to mark-out and define, identify what it is. If Mr. Burger has done this, then we are anxious to hear what he has to say, in order to learn the nature of what he claims to have proved. But merely arguing that truth, as a general and vague principle, must exist, is very far from proving the identity of truth itself.   

"How do I know that my reason is valid,” by which Mr. Burger means, how do I know that my reason is true? The same way I know if any argument is true, by whether or not its premise is true; by whether or not the conclusion logically follows from the premise.[v] Hence, when Mr. Burger says the Protestant Canon is true, because the Protestant Canon says the Protestant Canon is true, I know this is false, because the conclusion is based on a false premise, that is to say, “whatever the Protestant Canon says is true,” is itself, a premise, which is false. Now Mr. Burger can contest this all he wants, but if his argument is true, then clearly his position must be false, because the Koran says that the Protestant Canon is not true, therefore the Protestant Canon must be false, if Mr. Burger's argument is true. (Of course, we don't expect Mr. Burger to comprehend his special pleading).

WHAT SYE WOULD SAY: In order to account for anything, I am doing in my critique, I would have no choice but to borrow from his worldview (what he conveniently calls Christian presuppositions). In fact, the very fact that I have written this paper proves that Sye’s worldview is not merely correct, but epistemologically necessary. My use of logic, to refute Sye, is proof that his worldview must be true, precisely because I cannot account for the existence of logic from my worldview! In order to do that I need the God of Christianity. This is stupid (what other word should we use)? The premise, that the God of Christianity is required to account for the existence of logic, is patently absurd. Neither is this our premise to prove (on this we do not bear the burden of proof). The God of Christianity has nothing to do with the formation or conclusion of my syllogisms. God is not required for logic, but logic is required for God. There is nothing more to say. [For a more comprehensive treatment of this point, see Michael Martin, “Does Logic Presuppose the Existence of the Christian God?”]

My summation of Mr. Burger is that he has confidence without content; is boastful of a narrative, which he believes to have absolute-power, but when critically examined, is found to be wanting.

If you ever encounter this man; if you correspond with him, simply reference him to this paper. Nothing more needs to be said. This is a closed case; an intellectual beating, from which Mr. Burger, will not recover! 

NOTES ------------------------------------------------------

[i] Fundamentally Flawed: Sye Ten Bruggencate vs. Alex Botten, October 24th 2011. [Mr. Burger has asked a confused question; it is possible to have a valid argument with false premises. When Mr. Burger asks about, "valid reason," he is actually asking about the truth of propositions. It is actually confused to speak, of valid reasoning, when one really means, true reasoning, (which means a valid conclusion drawn from true premises). The question that Mr. Burger is asking is how we know that our reasoning is true (we can easily prove the validity of an argument by showing that the conclusion is derived from the premises, but this will not prove that the conclusion is true).]

"To say that an argument is deductively valid is, by definition, to say that it would be impossible to assert its premise, or premises, while denying its conclusion, or conclusions, without thereby contradicting yourself. That is what deduction is. argument may be valid, notwithstanding that both its premise, or premises, and its conclusion, or conclusions, are false. Similarly an argument may be invalid, notwithstanding that both its premise, or premises, and its conclusion, or conclusions, are true." Thinking Straight, Antony Flew, pg.12, 1977      

[ii] “Everybody wants a method… a methodology for his apologetics, and I say, well I’ll give you a method, its the two-move-check-mate; no matter what the person says that disagrees with scripture, first move, that’s not what the Bible says.” Sye, from “How to Answer the Fool.”

[iii] It should be noted that when we speak of arguments from authority, we are referring to arguments which contain authoritative premises, which is to say, though such arguments are not certain, they are compelling because it is very hard to deny their premises, without thwarting essential aspects of existence, or without denying necessary existential commitments. We are not, referring to arguments based on the mere assertion that (X) is authoritative; therefore whatever (X) says is true, we are instead, referring to arguments based on premises which are very hard to deny. Even if those premises can be challenged in a logical sense, they cannot be denied in an existential sense.     

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Mr. Burger would like to seize on the fact that I spoke of truth in relation to premises; his cock is probably hard, he is probably raging to ask me how I can justify this claim? “How can I account for truth on the basis of my Naturalistic Presuppositions?” After all, “there is no such thing as truth from the basis of my worldview!” I have news for Mr. Burger’s little hard-on; time to deflate the anticipation, in what we can only describe as an anti-climax (he must retain his holy fluid). Saying your position is true, because your position is based on declarations, assertions of truth, is not proof that you have established the truth of your position [if this was the case then he would no longer have any reason to object]! This is not rocket-science! Pointing out that truth, on the basis of Naturalism is difficult, does not exempt one from Naturalism! If Mr. Burger can say; “I know (p) is absolutely true, because this is my interpretation of the declaration made in document (x),” then anyone can say, that (p) is true according to this same standard of justification; on the basis of interpretive-declarations. By god how could Mr. Burger logically object? How do we know what constitutes the nature of a true premise? We examine a premise we know to be true, such as, unsupported stones fall. The problem here is that Mr. Burger will claim 1) this can only be true if his god exists (and because we admit its true) we are already presupposing the existence of his god. 2) We can only know this because his god exists, if his god did not exist, then we could never know this, but the very fact, that we claim to know this, is proof that Mr. Burger’s god exists. Hence, Mr. Burger goes from, without God you can’t know anything, to, you only know that because my god exists. Either way those who do not agree with him must lose; whatever the verdict, Mr. Burger will interpret it, in favor of his theism. The tactic is to take note of what is; that is to say, strong propositions on the basis of existence, propositions which are affirmed and enforced by experience, and then attribute these (to claim that we only have these) because of the existence of god.

[vi] “When a person says they could be wrong, about everything they claim to know, they’ve relinquished knowledge. And I’ll explain [this] to you. If you ask me the height of that building, I say its 90 feet, but I could be wrong, do I know it? Not if I could be wrong!” Mr. Burger preaching at the University of Pennsylvania

Is it true, that when a person says they could be wrong about everything they claim to know, they relinquish knowledge? Of course not! The problem with this claim is that it stacks the deck against the possibility of knowledge, by imposing an absolute standard of knowing. The possibility of being wrong is not proof that one is wrong! The fact that I could be wrong, about a stone falling to the ground, does not mean I am wrong, about a stone falling to the ground. This stupid, juvenile, simplistic frolic, is set up to snare the simple and unsuspecting. It preys on the man or woman who is not critical enough, or perhaps lacks the skills, to challenge the authoritarian premise.

Ladies and gentleman, there is nothing left to the apologetics of Mr. Burger. I have shattered the heart of his thesis. In order to recover, from this beating, he must be able to overcome the fallacy of special pleading; he must be able to prove, that his position can overcome the skepticism, he so conveniently assumes only applies to others, where he seeks to fallaciously exempt himself. And of course, this is something he brought upon himself, by claiming that his worldview was certain. The only question one needs to ask, in order to expose the frailty of Mr. Burger’s position, is how he escapes the problems he raises for others, as those problems relate to his own position? His answer is always the same: there is something epistemologically magical about the assertions of the Bible. (Of course, were Mr. Burger a Muslim, he would say nothing about the Koran). Other propositions must fall, but these assertions get a free pass, because, as Mr. Burger might put it, they come from the Triune God. And with that, my eager friends, we have the presuppositional solution, to all the problems of philosophy.  

Friday, November 1, 2013


The following is a short exchange between Jersey Flight and Mr. Bruggencate.

The reason this exchange is significant is because Sye, in an exchange with Atheist David Silverman, asked Silverman whether or not it was possible he “could be wrong about everything he claimed to know.” I posed a similar question to Mr. Burger. Where Silverman, realizing the epistemological extent of the question, humbly said “yes”; Sye, when asked this same question, ignorantly said “no.” The man is a fucking flat-earth fideist! But he is more than this; he is a bully and a power-hungry authoritarian, overall a coward, a moral fascist, vastly insecure (which is also why he is so controlling). He is exactly what a Christian should strive not to be. The world has seen many men like him before and will see many men like him again; men who believe that conviction qualifies as proof. People are advised to simply walk by him on the street. He can do no harm; his assertions carry no weight. They are empty adages of a desperate and fanatical mind altogether juvenile and incompetent. Ask yourself this question, is he the kind of man that would be worth having as a friend? Outside of Christianity he is a miserable person (literally a loser) and inside Christianity he is still miserable, but from within he finds a framework, an ideology by which to moralize his tyranny, even as his god is a god of tyranny!



“Proof that God [by which you mean the Trinity] exists.” This is so funny. ...I suppose I should introduce myself first, I am Jersey Flight, a former Christian theist from the Presuppositional School of thought. Oh how titanic, oh how invincible Presuppositionalism [is not!]

I have two options for you. We can schedule a debate or we can simply have an exchange? (I really just want to make an example of you). There are far better things to talk about than theism. But I am willing to waste my time in order to display your fanaticism before the people. I think this is good for society. 

I presume you believe that your worldview is ever so profound; is ever so fortified/ invincible?

Perhaps we can do a short test in order to establish my premise?

---Is it possible that what the Bible says is false?

I love asking this question to happy Reformed people like you.

Confidently yours, 

Jersey Flight

----- SYE: "No."


Intinctione vestra faciem in vestra sua merda

So in this case, if your belief (b) [that what the Bible says cannot be false], is actually false, how would you know?

If (b) is false how would you know? For you have already claimed that (f) is impossible in the case of (b).

Suppose we swap your Canon for the Koran. How would you reply to the Muslim who claimed that it was impossible for the Koran to be false?

So if the Koran did say something that was false how would the Muslim know?

"Does absolute truth exist" you ask? (Of course, any wise person would demand an explanation as to what you mean by Absolute Truth)? [In your case this is clearly a loaded question.]

Does (a) exist? Simon says no, in which case he affirms that there is at least one (a), namely the (a) which says there is no such thing as (a), which proves that (a) does exist! [which all intelligent people know; proves that god exists!]

[In order to qualify for a debate with me you must first demonstrate that you understand the fallacy of Non-Sequitur. ...Ah never mind this predilection I only aim to display your ignorance.] FANATICS FOR JESUS ARE THE BEST FANATICS OF ALL!

I was wondering if you could connect the dots for me [(LNC)= Proof that God Exists]? I can understand Aristotle's Metaphysics (see Book IV), but why would you equate the Trinity with the law of non-contradiction?

"The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything."

This is so funny. You're silly. :)

The proof that (g) has the property of (e) is that (g) is required for (p) [which I'm pretty sure you would say qualifies as a form of knowledge (k)]. Every person claims to know something, therefore, (g) must exist insofar as it is required for (k). Or we could say, every person tries to prove at least one thing, which proves that (g) must exist insofar as (g) is required for (p). The existence of (p) is actually proof of (g)! If (k) exists (and we all agree it does) then (g) exists! {yeah, yeah, and Van til spoke in powerful parables, and we'll never crack that nut, blah, blah, blah.}

Of course, you are not interested in talking about the nature of (g) or (e); neither are you interested in talking about the nature of proof, or the nature of knowledge, but what you are interested in is asserting that (k) requires (g), which is to say, you are interested in assuming that (g) somehow (though we don't know because you never say) provides the necessary conditions of (k).

So what is it about (g) that provides the necessary conditions of (k) in such a way that it escapes the criticism of all other failed attempts? [not sure you grasp the last part of this sentence: in other words, if I tried to prove that I know (s) without (g) you would say that (s) fails to obtain the status of (k). [---though mark my words, you could never sustain this!---]

I roll with a hearty chuckle at men like you. Instead of admitting that you are in over your head; instead of admitting that you have never considered these questions before, you manifest the greatest religious uniformity of all----> ignorance and arrogance/ arrogant-ignorance! Boast in your stupidity as Paul taught; squawk like a chicken and flap your wings, most of us find this movement to be hilarious (theists are taught to walk in single file, heads bobbing back and forth dogmatically).

Clearly the example I set out to make has already been made!

Should you speak Mr. Burger I anticipate funny things. Oh do say something about the necessary, three-person/one-person god! I do know a sophist club that is in desperate need of a president, and you have clearly shown your colors, either way let me know...

Confidently yours,
Jersey Flight

-----SYE: TL;DR [Too long, I didn't read it.]

[Clearly the answer to Sye’s question as to how to answer the fool is to assume that he's not and everyone who disagrees with him is.]

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

ON G-O-D: Jersey Flight

"The genuine refutation must penetrate the opponent's stronghold and meet him on his own ground; no advantage is gained by attacking him somewhere else and defeating him where he is not." Hegel's Science of Logic, A. V. Miller (George Allen and Unwin, London, Humanities Press, New York, 1969), p.581  

[Think.  Think.  Think…] Of course, this is precisely what we cannot do without an object or topic upon which to think. So how then, can we discourse on god without a clear definition of god? This is the whole problem with theism. This is the summation of the strongest refutation of theism. All the difficulty surrounding theism arises precisely at the point one tries to mark out a clear definition of god. And even if one establishes a definition one does not stick to what they proclaim; the idea of god is an idea of metamorphosis; it is an idea of vague shadow; it is an idea without a constant. The theist has no choice but alter the use of god in relation to the emphasis of his evidence (the nature of his so-called proof)… different proof is liable to prove different gods.
What is the proper definition of god and is this definition determined from the evidence or does the nature of god determine the nature of evidence to be used? 

Men start with god long before they start with evidence. And perhaps one can tell us this: the theist is ever so fond of speaking in terms of universals; of the necessity of objectivity, then let him begin with his notion of god; it is only fair to ask (since he requires absolute consistency in the case of the opposite view): what is the universal, authoritative and true definition of god? Until this has been established how shall we rightfully discuss the idea of god? 

And how great is the burden of this proof considering the variables, the sheer violent diversity surrounding the term god? Make no mistake; the ontology of G-O-D is the central issue of G-O-D itself!                

Thursday, October 24, 2013


The student should be bothered by the teacher who isolates him, who seeks to control him,
forbids him to use his mind and manifests insecurity at the sight of opposition. A strong theory should be able to withstand criticism, and will often earn greater respect under the knife. However, those who are afraid to ask questions are often afraid because their systems are threatened by reason. Essentially, the Christian admits, though not directly, that he is forced to suppress reason as a necessary sacrifice by which to retain his Christianity.   
By ‘dialogue’ people mean that you must not have the old wranglings we used to have,
but you must come and exchange opinions and try to see the other person’s point of
view… But where our friends of the ecumenical movement go so wrong is that they
encourage dialogue with Roman Catholics, for instance, or with people who deny the
very elements of the Christian faith. And my reply is that you must not, and you cannot,
have a dialogue with people who either deny the faith altogether or so add to it that
they deny it.[1]

If the atheist was to suggest a similar approach to reason, it would look something like
By ‘dialogue’ people mean that you must not have the old wranglings we used to have,
but you must come and exchange opinions and try to see the other person’s point of
view… But where our atheist friends go so wrong is that they encourage dialogue with
Christians, for instance, or with people who deny the very elements of atheism. And my
reply is that you must not, and you cannot, have a dialogue with people who either deny
atheism altogether or so add to it that they deny it.
Indeed, the above is an example, of precisely how an atheist, or any thinker for that matter, should not reason.   
The Christian must prohibit counterfactual thinking because it remains antithetical to the content of his system; for he has been told, since the earliest stages of his emotional conversion, to avoid dialogue with non-believers, with those who fail to affirm his creed. And this is precisely because Christianity cannot withstand the legitimate assault of reason:
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create
obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
Romans 16:17 ESV
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your
house or give him any greeting…” 2 John 1:10 ESV
The disciple is not encouraged to ask the skeptic why he rejects his dogma, but is simply told to avoid those who do not believe. This is backwards; it does not take mankind forward, but holds him captive to a mindless creed; a system he is never permitted to question. For religious leaders the risk is simply too great, they cannot afford to expose their followers to the benefits of reason, and this is because reason brings with it the danger of apostasy, and for those with power, could mean the painful loss of that power.
The deeper we probe the darker the light of religion becomes, for on the basis of its own principles Christianity cannot even justify a conversation with itself. The disciple remains confined by the teacher’s dogma; for he is not only commanded to keep away from non- believers, but is also commanded to keep away from non-corresponding-believers, away from all those who fail to affirm his creed. Hence, consistent Christianity, or at least the kind taught by Paul, must proceed against itself as a kind of suicidal solipsism. The question then, is how those who follow the dogma of Paul can logically follow the dogma of James, when the dogma of Paul is set against the dogma of James? And to those who reject the tension between Paul and James, I tell you, these men are only metaphors for the scope of Christianity!
Perhaps the point is that it is always dangerous to join a sect, which is so certain of the truth, that it admonishes its disciples to avoid reason. For a man who is taught to reject reason can made to believe anything. The Christian must control the mind precisely because he cannot convince it by reason, and hence, intelligent dialogue is forbidden.  In the end, all religious converts, in one way or another, are warned against, prohibited to engage in, counterfactual thinking because it leads away from their sect.
With Christianity, what is often called darkness is really light and what is often called light is really darkness. We did not say always, but that this most often seems to be the case.


[1] Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “Romans, Exposition of Chapter 14:1-17, Liberty and Conscious.” Published
by, The Banner of Truth Trust 2003, pg.30-31

Thursday, September 26, 2013


 What Mark Shea Was Afraid To Post:
Mr. Shea, in your hastiness it seems you proceeded to debate my assistant. Did the person you spoke with ever introduce themselves as Jersey Flight? Then on what grounds did you assume this? My assistant was contacting you (on my behalf) to schedule a debate. [I hope you find this as amusing as I do?]  

If your post is fair would you not figure in my reply? [One must also thank you for the excellent press.]
Indeed, do you not have a high view of yourself? It is no surprise that a man who worships the Pope would speak as though he were himself a kind of Pope. 

A question was asked to which you responded in the negative. You spoke as though my assistant made a declarative statement! This was not the case, he asked you a question: are you afraid to engage in debate with me?
Again, you offered an altogether hasty reply.

I have no pity for your busyness; for what is the nature of your busyness after all? Producing more literature to corrupt the minds of youth! Intense concentration in archaic sophistry! You ought to be pulled away; you ought to be called out! Cease from error; leave our children alone! If you desire to waste your own life this is one thing, but to indoctrinate children with your rubbish, this brings you before men like me.
The point of debating is not to convert the audience but to prove, that people like yourself, are intellectual charlatans; to reshape the consensus of culture. To prove that men like you merely exist by way of posture.

You have a Phantom; you have a Trinity; you pledge allegiance to the Pope.

[in all truth (P) and (T) are the same thing.]

There is no need to debate a man like you, when any detailed exposition of your beliefs, would prove that your beliefs refute themselves! Clearly your beliefs are fantastic! Behold the field of theological diversity!

"Let them first agree and consent together that God is of such and such a nature, and then, when they have sketched out for us that nature, let them require that we should form a conception of God." Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Book III, Chap.III 

Instead of thrusting your anger and agitation at not being able to manage your schedule (as if you were the only one who is busy); perhaps you could simply reply as the adult you claim to be, by saying you don't have time? This is much more mature on your part. But then again, believing in a Trinity as you do, I highly doubt you care about the nature of the maturity of your belief? 

It matters not. You have merely left the conversation to the future; to a generation which does not share your values. This is a prime example of the Churches' forced retreat [into theological obscurity to avoid the reality of public scrutiny.]

In one generation I predict your sect will become culturally obsolete.

Anyone can strike a man in the face and run away, which is precisely what you have done by the insinuation of your post. Try supporting the claims of your piety. I wonder how many people you have bullied with your rhetoric? [Perhaps you can reference your argument for the truth of the Trinity?] 
Leave my assistant alone. If you have issues with me then step up to the plate or forever hold your peace.  

I have already won the exchange by the very fact that you refuse to have it.

Confidently yours,
Jersey Flight