A murderer would be denying a man the right to exist for his own sake. A child molester would be causing harm. Therefore it is immoral. If you read "A" you will see that this is in fact consistent and is not self refuting.
"Living according to MY VALUES in the pursuit of happiness is moral. Not allowing a man to exist and choose HIS VALUES for his own sake is immoral." This statement has an internal contradiction. If you cannot see that, it's not because the statement is sound, it's because your thinking is not. You say it is immoral to restrict my values, and then you restrict my values by not permitting my pursuit of happiness which to me may be murder and molestation. That is contradictory.
@DPMosteller "You say it is immoral to restrict my values, and then you restrict my values by not permitting my pursuit of happiness which to me may be murder and molestation." Incorrect. If one is committing murder and molestation, the murderer/molester would be denying man the right to exist and choose for his own sake. So again, he would be contradicting "A". "A" does not contradict itself. If I live by "allowing man to exist for his own sake" I cant murder bc I would deny his existence.
@DPMosteller mankind always "chooses his values." Mankind is in bondage to sin; therefore, always chooses sin. As Jonathan Edwards remarked in "The Freedom of the Will," we always choose what seems best to us at that time, specifically all we have the ability is to choose sin. Your pursuit of what you deem "happiness," is in reality rebellion against God. Anytime man chooses to deny the Sovereign Lord, he functions in what he thinks to be autonomy, or self government.
I agree with both Edwards, and Luther (Bondage Of The Will) on this point, we only have a choice of whatever sin appeals to us most at the time, whether going into ministry for personal reasons, or producing pornography. My statement was a hypothetical to show an internal contradiction. However, I'm not sure what you mean by your next statement. Are you addressing me with: "Your pursuit of what you deem "happiness," is in reality rebellion against God" or, was that meant for another?
@DPMosteller My humble apology, I misinterpreted your latter remarks, while at the same time it is highly applicable for those who "seem" to be seeking happiness but in reality are deserting the LORD in heaven. Their mode of operation consists in running from God trying to find happiness where it cannot be found. They reject the truth in their wickedness.
Very well said Tom. One of my concerns, is how pulpits present finding happiness in marriage, life, work and the pursuit of happiness in general. Some advocating very carnal ways of finding happiness. I believe God often uses the trials and disappointments in marriage and family relationships to wound, and break, and crush a man of God to teach him Christlike selflessness and sacrifice more than almost anything else. It often comes at a heartbreaking cost, but the lesson is necessary.
A = Not allowing a man to exist and choose his values for his own sake is immoral. Living according to my values in the pursuit of happiness is moral. Reason and logic are the compass of morality. Not the bible. Causing physical harm or violating another's right to exist and choose for his own sake contradicts A and is therefore immoral.
If: "Living according to my values in the pursuit of happiness is moral." Then how can we convict a child molester, or murderer if those are their values in their pursuit of happiness, which you just defined as moral? There's a couple of words for that type of thinking: anarchy and insane.
"it sounds like you might want to consider some of that education stuff someday, it might come in handy. "
If all that I studied was Bahnsen and Vantil I could understand a statement like this. I'm "educated" enough to know that presuppositionalism is a fallacy. It is you who has resorted to name calling without any reason as to why you would say something like that. I enjoy debate. So did Van Til and Bahnsen. Maybe its you who needs an education on these two. my mistake.
Truth is the product of the recognition of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth contd.
If that's truth (comports with reality) and if you honestly believe that; then look at your shoe, if it exists, it compellingly, conclusively proves God exists. Because if there was a time when there was absolutely nothing, then, that's all there would be now. Time, matter, motion, and space had a beginning (big bang) outside of itself. The origin had to be very powerful, very intelligent with the ability to create out of nothing but Himself. We call Him God. That's the truth.
There was never absolutely nothing. Existence is eternal. I have never said "something came out of nothing". Also, god could not have created existence, since a realm had to exist where god existed it would be impossible for god to create it. There is no way around this.
Van Til and Bahnsen are intellectual, dishonest predators who prey on the weak minded and Dawson Bethrick has exposed the lies and fallacies that they barfed into the minds of mystics like the one above
Thanks for making their point so vividly for all of us in our right mind. You know, it sounds like you might want to consider some of that education stuff someday, it might come in handy.
777 views.nice.
gf4rce 3 months ago
A murderer would be denying a man the right to exist for his own sake. A child molester would be causing harm. Therefore it is immoral. If you read "A" you will see that this is in fact consistent and is not self refuting.
actionjackson864 6 months ago
@actionjackson864
"Living according to MY VALUES in the pursuit of happiness is moral. Not allowing a man to exist and choose HIS VALUES for his own sake is immoral." This statement has an internal contradiction. If you cannot see that, it's not because the statement is sound, it's because your thinking is not. You say it is immoral to restrict my values, and then you restrict my values by not permitting my pursuit of happiness which to me may be murder and molestation. That is contradictory.
DPMosteller 6 months ago
@DPMosteller "You say it is immoral to restrict my values, and then you restrict my values by not permitting my pursuit of happiness which to me may be murder and molestation." Incorrect. If one is committing murder and molestation, the murderer/molester would be denying man the right to exist and choose for his own sake. So again, he would be contradicting "A". "A" does not contradict itself. If I live by "allowing man to exist for his own sake" I cant murder bc I would deny his existence.
actionjackson864 6 months ago
@actionjackson864
You might want to consider a sports channel. This is material is obviously over your head.
DPMosteller 6 months ago
@DPMosteller mankind always "chooses his values." Mankind is in bondage to sin; therefore, always chooses sin. As Jonathan Edwards remarked in "The Freedom of the Will," we always choose what seems best to us at that time, specifically all we have the ability is to choose sin. Your pursuit of what you deem "happiness," is in reality rebellion against God. Anytime man chooses to deny the Sovereign Lord, he functions in what he thinks to be autonomy, or self government.
TomOwenM 6 months ago
@TomOwenM
I agree with both Edwards, and Luther (Bondage Of The Will) on this point, we only have a choice of whatever sin appeals to us most at the time, whether going into ministry for personal reasons, or producing pornography. My statement was a hypothetical to show an internal contradiction. However, I'm not sure what you mean by your next statement. Are you addressing me with: "Your pursuit of what you deem "happiness," is in reality rebellion against God" or, was that meant for another?
DPMosteller 6 months ago
@DPMosteller My humble apology, I misinterpreted your latter remarks, while at the same time it is highly applicable for those who "seem" to be seeking happiness but in reality are deserting the LORD in heaven. Their mode of operation consists in running from God trying to find happiness where it cannot be found. They reject the truth in their wickedness.
TomOwenM 5 months ago
@TomOwenM
Very well said Tom. One of my concerns, is how pulpits present finding happiness in marriage, life, work and the pursuit of happiness in general. Some advocating very carnal ways of finding happiness. I believe God often uses the trials and disappointments in marriage and family relationships to wound, and break, and crush a man of God to teach him Christlike selflessness and sacrifice more than almost anything else. It often comes at a heartbreaking cost, but the lesson is necessary.
DPMosteller 5 months ago
"Then how can we convict a child molester, or murderer if those are their values in their pursuit of happiness, which you just defined as moral? "
This contradicts A and is therefore immoral.
actionjackson864 6 months ago
@actionjackson864
Your position is self-refuting. That means it contradicts itself, and is therefore invalid.
DPMosteller 6 months ago
@DPMosteller " Your position is self-refuting. That means it contradicts itself, and is therefore invalid."
If this is true, why don't you show me how it's self refuting instead of just asserting that it is. It is not self refuting.
actionjackson864 6 months ago
A = Not allowing a man to exist and choose his values for his own sake is immoral. Living according to my values in the pursuit of happiness is moral. Reason and logic are the compass of morality. Not the bible. Causing physical harm or violating another's right to exist and choose for his own sake contradicts A and is therefore immoral.
actionjackson864 7 months ago
@actionjackson864
If: "Living according to my values in the pursuit of happiness is moral." Then how can we convict a child molester, or murderer if those are their values in their pursuit of happiness, which you just defined as moral? There's a couple of words for that type of thinking: anarchy and insane.
DPMosteller 6 months ago
"it sounds like you might want to consider some of that education stuff someday, it might come in handy. "
If all that I studied was Bahnsen and Vantil I could understand a statement like this. I'm "educated" enough to know that presuppositionalism is a fallacy. It is you who has resorted to name calling without any reason as to why you would say something like that. I enjoy debate. So did Van Til and Bahnsen. Maybe its you who needs an education on these two. my mistake.
actionjackson864 7 months ago
@actionjackson864
Define Truth. Define Right and Wrong.
DPMosteller 7 months ago
@DPMosteller
Truth is the product of the recognition of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth contd.
actionjackson864 7 months ago
@actionjackson864
If that's truth (comports with reality) and if you honestly believe that; then look at your shoe, if it exists, it compellingly, conclusively proves God exists. Because if there was a time when there was absolutely nothing, then, that's all there would be now. Time, matter, motion, and space had a beginning (big bang) outside of itself. The origin had to be very powerful, very intelligent with the ability to create out of nothing but Himself. We call Him God. That's the truth.
DPMosteller 6 months ago
@DPMosteller
There was never absolutely nothing. Existence is eternal. I have never said "something came out of nothing". Also, god could not have created existence, since a realm had to exist where god existed it would be impossible for god to create it. There is no way around this.
actionjackson864 6 months ago
@actionjackson864
This material is beyond you intellectual ability to handle it properly.
Have a nice life! Because you're in for the surprise of your life.
DPMosteller 6 months ago
Van Til and Bahnsen are intellectual, dishonest predators who prey on the weak minded and Dawson Bethrick has exposed the lies and fallacies that they barfed into the minds of mystics like the one above
actionjackson864 7 months ago
@actionjackson864
Thanks for making their point so vividly for all of us in our right mind. You know, it sounds like you might want to consider some of that education stuff someday, it might come in handy.
DPMosteller 7 months ago
Great explanation for why we use presuppositionalism.
AFightWithDepravity 9 months ago
Good video!
RbnHd123456 1 year ago