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.]