Discussion about a discussion about “Refuting SUPPOSED BIBLE Contradictions” ft. SJ Thomason, G Man & Vekl

answering atheism, true freethinker.jpg

The following discussions took place during the livestream video Refuting SUPPOSED BIBLE Contradictions with G Man and Vekl which took place on SJ Thomason’s channel.

A livestream discussion is like Twitter on meth: the character limit is 200 and the discussion happens live so it is fast plus, once the stream ends so ends the chat—as you will see below when I discerned we were getting to the end.

In my typical fashion, I thought to take a meta approach to the contextual issue and commented
Since Atheists have no premise upon which to hold anyone to logical standards then they cannot reject the Bible due to (supposed) contradictions.

A certain “Irish With Some Sun” replied
Ken Ammi even if that were true (it’s not) Atheists can do an internal critique. If Christians claim that there is no contradiction in their texts.

Ken Ammi
An Atheist cannot begin by stating “if that were true” since they have not premise upon which to hold anyone to the standard of truth.

Irish With Some Sun
that’s not how internal criticism works. Because even how if Atheism was false it wouldn’t make Christianity true. So the internal criticism can still be valid if atheism is false

Ken Ammi
Not the point. Atheists have no premise for truth or logic and so they fail before they even begin.

Irish With Some Sun
It absolutely is the point because you said their internal criticism would be invalid. But that’s not true. The criticisms validity does not depend on the veracity of their beliefs

Ken Ammi
They claim truth & logic are accidental, as is our ability to discern them & there’s no universal imperative to adhere to them nor for demanding others do so.

Pause: thus far I was writing in terms such as “they” since I knew not Irish’s worldview.

Irish With Some Sun
all this shows is an insecurity in Christian belief that you are trying to avoid having an internal criticism by attacking the one holding it. It shows the a weakness not strength

Ken Ammi
You are moving the goalpost.

Irish With Some Sun
if you read back you’ll see I never did. I’ve been saying the same thing. You are the one trying to invalidate an internal criticism based on the belief of the holder. Not how it works

Irish posted again straight away thusly
Just Christian insecurities

Ken Ammi
The issue is Atheists’ lack of premise and you attempted to move the goalpost to Christian insecurities, etc.

Irish With Some Sun
I didn’t move it all . Moving the goal posts has to do with moving the premises of an argument. I moved no premises. All I said was this is why you are arguing as you are arguing

Irish again
I didn’t change my actual argument

Ken Ammi
Then you are playing mind reader as a distraction from the issue.

Irish With Some Sun
I did not at all since I keep saying my Same point “this is not how internal criticism works”. I just add on why you’re behaving as you are. It’s and insecurity

Ken Ammi
You said “this is why you are arguing as you are arguing” whilst not possessing evidence of what my motivations are.

Irish With Some Sun
My focus is on why your argument is bad. My speculation about why you are making a bad argument is not the same my criticism of your bad argument.

Irish again
At the end of the day you think an internal criticism is invalid depending on the belief of the holder which is a bad argument. Apart from that I just say you are making this out of insecurity

Ken Ammi
If you’re an Atheist then you can only express subjective personal preferences about what I said, but you cannot hold me to standards of truth or logic since you have none.

Irish With Some Sun
Again with this bad argument. I suggest that you actually learn how arguments work before harping about Atheists lol.

Ken Ammi
Very well then: please provide your premise for holding me to logical standards.

Irish With Some Sun
At the same time Ken Ammi I think it’s probably better that you stay as you are since you’ll only help to push people away from Christianity 😉

Irish again
Ken Ammi doesn’t know how an internal criticism works

Pause: so, this was clearly over at this point.

Ken Ammi
Moving the goalpost to childish taunting as a band-aid to cover up an inability to back one’s assertions aka Atheism 101.

Irish With Some Sun
I think everyone will be able to see Ken Ammi which one of us actually knows how argumentation works. But I suggest you keep what you’re doing and show people why not to be a Christian;)

Ken Ammi
Look friend, you failed in record time so you are now in full-blows Atheist talking points mode.

Irish With Some Sun
Uh huh. Sure thing friend. Keep making more atheists 😉

Ken Ammi
See what I mean: you ran out of substantive replies in record time.

Irish With Some Sun
Nope. Just not going to waste my time when nothing I said was addressed but you kept defaulting to your regurgitated talking point

Ken Ammi
Friend, you jumped to conclusions based on hidden assumptions, I attempted to get you to expose them, you seem to realize there’s nothing there so you gave up.

Irish With Some Sun
doing what he does best: making things up.

Ken Ammi
Friend, you may feel good about being childish but it’s just a band-aid for your fundamental failure.

Irish With Some Sun
you might feel as though you have the high ground here but it’s a veil for the insecurity of your faith. Just like your earlier deflection from criticism.

Irish again—playing mind-reader again
It’s okay that you’re insecure

Ken Ammi
Your criticism is based on hidden assumptions, you don’t want to expose them because you realize you’ve no premise so you’re finished before you begin.

Irish With Some Sun
“People refuse to rightly divide the word of truth” aka they refuse to take our assumptions

Ken Ammi
Firstly, you’ve no premise to demand arguments. Secondly, why not just reply?

Irish With Some Sun
I joke

Ken Ammi
Indeed, “joke” in order to cover up substancelessness.

And that was the end of my discussion with Irish. BTW: since Irish did not “@” me on the “I joke” statement, I know not if it was for me since, another thing about live chats, more than one person may reply to you and you have to decide which discussions to engage in since you can easily get overwhelmed as the chat rolls and rolls.

Note something interesting, Irish kept noting “internal criticism” and did so as a reply to my noting that he and/or she and/or it—:o)—had not premise, no basis, no foundation upon which to do a criticism, no premise upon which to condemn contradictions, logical fallacies, even if such is what they are.
What Irish was saying is the he and/or she and/or it simply bypassed the devastatingly worldview collapsing issue I raised about Atheism and just jumped to the conclusion of engaging in an “internal criticism” which, of course, means a criticism from within.
Thus, you consider a worldview and you use its own rules to critique it.
In a manner of speaking, I do that with Atheism all of the time (I did so in this case) but that is always ultimately based on my worldview’s premise as a starting point whilst Irish just jumped yet, without a springboard from which to do so.

In the meanwhile, a certain Werewolf King asked me
Are laws of logic dependent on the Christian god?

Ken Ammi
Ontologically, yes.

Pause: this is important since by “logic” or “laws of logic” some people mean logic/the laws themselves in their nature an essence/ontologically and some mean our description of those observed phenomena such as a list of those laws when we write them down such as “The law of non-contradiction,” etc.
This sometimes causes confusion when people claim humans invented the laws of logic—hopefully just meaning we formulated them in our language—but those formulation are based on phenomena that predated humans since, for instance, the universe did no both exist and not exist until human wrote the law of non-contradiction.

Werewolf King
Can the Christian god change the laws of logic?

Ken Ammi
I have no idea.

Pause: before you seek a firmer reply, you will see below why I replied this way—it has to do with definitions. Someone else replied to Werewolf something like that the laws/logic cannot change since they are based on God or reflect His nature, etc. which is true but see what I noted below about a possible correlation between issues of logic and miracles.

Werewolf King
If you don’t know, how can you say they truly depend on the Christian God rather than being necessary truths?

Ken Ammi
On Atheism there are no “necessary truths”

Werewolf King
What is the argument for that?

Ken Ammi
Does Atheism imply creation via design?

Werewolf King
You’re answering a question with a question.

Ken Ammi
And?

Werewolf King
You’re not giving an argument for why I can’t say the laws of logic are necessary truths.

As a general statement to someone else or about something said during the livestream, Werewolf King wrote
Jesus is Mothman.

Ken Ammi
That’s offensive: you should say “non gender specific moth personage” ;o)

Werewolf King
lol

Ken Ammi
Bottom line: Atheist begin with the universe & thus all it contains being accidental. Ergo, there are no necessary truths.

Werewolf King
A couple of faulty premises there buddy. First, accident assumes intent. There are laws of physics that are deterministic. Second, all of that is irrelevant because logic is different.

Ken Ammi
“laws of physics” before the universe came into being?

Werewolf King
all you’re giving me is an argument from incredulity.

Ken Ammi
You’ve yet to establish why such would be a problem–even if that is what I am doing.

Werewolf King
You’re asserting to me that I can’t say laws of logic are necessary when you dont know if the laws of logic depend on the Christian god

Ken Ammi
You didn’t answer another question. Now, you misrepresent our discussion: I said they ontologically depend on Him, see above.

Werewolf King
When I ask can the Christian god change them, you said you did not know. That’s a problem for you. How can you say you know this rather than the laws of logic being necessary truths?

Ken Ammi
You moved the goalpost but issue’s complex: if, for instance, we say miracles violate logic then He can change them. Lot of this depends on definitions, of course.

Ken Ammi
Looks like the chat will be shut down soon: you’ve only asserted necessary truths thus far.

Ken Ammi I affirmed they are ontologically dependent on Him.

Ken Ammi
On Atheism they are byproducts of when nothing or something exploded.

Ken Ammi
Also, our ability to discern logic was not created/designed but is just another byproduct.

Ken Ammi
And there’s no universal imperative to adhere to logic.

Ken Ammi
Sorry to post and post but we are down to the end……….the final countdown ;o)

Werewolf King Except the laws of logic don’t depend on the Christian god because it can’t change them. They are necessary truths.

Ken Ammi They are not necessary truths on Atheism. And how do you know God can’t change them?

Ken Ammi
Also, it’s a non sequitur to assert “the laws of logic don’t depend on the Christian god because it can’t change them.”

Werewolf King
you said you did not know if the Christian God can change the laws of logic. you’re just asserting that on atheism they’re cant to be necessary truths

I then posted this reply
Non sequitur. I didn’t just assert it, I noted on Atheism the universe and all it contains are whatever you want to call it such as byproducts of an explosion thus, not necessary

However, it looked grayed out and the system told me that chat closed down so, that was the end of that.

For more on supposedly alleged Bible contractions see my articles and by book Pop-Atheist Bible Expositors and my other books contra Atheism.

answering atheism, true freethinker.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites all which are available here.