Atheism, Gospel, salvation, TAG, Vincent Lancon

My Plea by Vincent Lancon

My Plea

Let me just start with this, you will die someday, so will I, and so will everyone you know, love them or hate them. This is the undeniable truth every single living person is facing. It’s like a cliff we are all walking towards, one you will be forced to fall off some day. There are different ways people deal with this knowledge. The two main groups that have answers for this are Atheists and the Religious.

I come from the religious side, specifically Christianity and this will be my plea to every other group out there to please hear me out. I will start with the unbelieving side and then touch on the religious views of the believing groups. When it comes to atheists and their ilk, we have been discussing for years different arguments back and forth. I could sit here all day long convincing you about the transcendental arguments for God. The discussion can turn to the fine tuning of the universe or We could spend hours discussing the irreducibly complex nature of vital functions within a living organism that could not arise by chance. I could argue about morality and its grounding. Show how information never arises from non information. We could discuss how things always entropy from complex to less complex over time.

While all these arguments provide hours of entertainment for both sides involved, I have come to the simple realization… that’s not how you convince someone to come to faith, that’s not how God in the bible tells us how to do it. It’s our own arrogance and pride that blind us to thinking we can use our intellects as means to bring people to faith and yes God can indeed use it as a means if He so wills it.

What’s important here is the method we are supposed to use. So what does God, Himself, tell us on how to bring people to faith? It’s simple, faith comes by hearing, hearing the Word of God. That is Romans 10:17. We are told to have answers and to be wise, but if all that intellect and smarts only bring us to academic discussions and not to the Gospel backed by the Word of God, then we are nothing more than clanging cymbals for there is no love in the interaction, no light to shine the way, no hope offered in the argument.

As for other religions, I would simply like to refer to how Greg Bahnsen referenced them, they fall into one of two groups: the random arbitrary ones such as Confucianism and Buddhism that refute themselves as providing no rational basis for science or logic which the Christian view does, and the other group is religions who are committed to the Bible as an authority and thus easily argued against based on scripture.

So here is my plea to you: Everyone will die, you will be judged and no amount of good works will save you for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We cannot stand before the almighty God clothed in our own righteousness, they are filthy rags before Him. So what is the answer?

God has provided it for us in the person of Jesus Christ, son of God, who died on a cross for our sins, was buried and three days later rose from that grave and sits alive today at the side of the Father making intercessions for us. We come to faith by believing the Gospel of Jesus knowing that all who call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. That way when we stand before God, we will be clothed in Christ’s righteousness and not our own. He is a God that saves, follow Him… no other will do. Be of good cheer for He has overcome the world! Rest assured in the completed works of Christ.

-Vincent Lancon 2/25/26

30 thoughts on “My Plea by Vincent Lancon”

  1. And unsurprsingly, you can’t show your god merely exists and your end times nonsense is similarly baseless. I have read the bible and, as has often been said, that’s a very quick way to becme an atheist. Christianity has no logic within it, since it repeatedly contradicts itself, and christians themselves can’t agree on which version is the right one. Science shows that christianity is false since stars aren’t little lights on a solid dome that can be knocked off and disease doesn’t come from a cranky deity.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. I’m sure you would and this would be yet another example of how prayers fail miserably, despite the promises in the bible. I’ve had hundreds of christians of all versions praying for me to agree with them over the last 30+ years, and you’ve all failed.

        The bible says that true followers of Christ will be able to get any prayer answered, wiht what is asked for and answered quickly. Why do you fail at that, Vincent? Is it that your god loves me as I am and ignores you?

        Is it because it doesn’t consider you to be a true follower?

        or is it because it is imaginary?

        Your impotent threats are the same ones that have failed for 2000+ years. I’m not impressed. And since christians themselves can’t agree on their hell, or heaven, it’s just another example of how the cult fails.

        Like

    2. “And unsurprsingly, you can’t show your god merely exists and your end times nonsense is similarly baseless. I have read the bible and, as has often been said, that’s a very quick way to becme an atheist. “

      Frankly, nobody cares. I maintain we can prove Christianity is true, and that the alternatives are incoherent. Atheism can’t account for logic, science, objective ethics, and more. Thanks for sharing.

      “Christianity has no logic within it, since it repeatedly contradicts itself, and christians themselves can’t agree on which version is the right one. Science shows that christianity is false since stars aren’t little lights on a solid dome that can be knocked off and disease doesn’t come from a cranky deity.”

      I’ve heard the “flat earth” and “iron dome firmament” claims. They’re disputed, and you’re presenting them like settled facts. You should read Weeks, Poythress, and Beale on how these passages work—especially questions of genre, accommodation, and theological intent—before talking as if anyone who disagrees is ignorant.

      Also, I don’t buy the claim that God can’t cause disease. That’s question-begging unless you argue for it. At minimum, the biblical text often depicts God as sending or permitting disease and plague, so you’ll need more than an assertion.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Unsurprsingly, more than a few people care, and your continued inability to show your god exists is notable. Baseless assertions are worthless.

        Do show how the “alternatives are incoherent”. Again, just another baseless assertion. Your cult can’t account for your god, and nothing shows it is responsible for logic, science, ethics or anything else. You also can’t show that objective morality exists or that your god wants any particular morality since christains can’t agree on what it wants.
        You also can’t show that your bible doesn’t say that the earth is flat since it repeatedly describes it that way. Per the bible, the earth is like clay under a seal, e.g. flat. The sky is a “tent” above it. If the authors of the bible though it was a sphere, then there would be no “above” it but “around” it. The new testament has that being on a high enough mountain, one could see the entire earth. That claim only works if the earth is flat.

        The only ones who dispute what the bible literally claims are those Christians who need to pretend that the bible wasn’t written by ignorant humans. Your religion depends on the bible being written/inspired by your god and if your god is as ignorant as humans, you have quite a problem. Those passages work as I have shown, and nothing changes that your bible says that the sky is a solid vault and stars are little lights on it. The authors of the bible had no idea that they were massive balls of fusing hydrogen.

        The claims of genre, accommodation and theological intent are common excuses by Christians who need to claim that their bible is something other than what it is. Christains themselves can’t agree on what genre these books are, much less on if there is any accommodation, or what the “intent” was behind them. Plenty of Christians are literalists, and you can’t show that your version of this nonsense is any better than theirs. All Christians claim ridiculous things are true, so when you pick and choose, you simply show how you have nothing to support your claims. One can use your arguments of genre, accommodation and theological intent to show that the resurrection is simply metaphor, and isn’t any more true than the nonsense in genesis.
        If your god can, and does, cause disease then it is not what you claim when you claim it is all-loving. You are stuck with your god harming people.

        Like

      2. “Unsurprsingly, more than a few people care, and your continued inability to show your god exists is notable. Baseless assertions are worthless.”

        This pretty much means most of your comments aren’t worth much. I doubt anyone cares what you have to say, and given your beliefs, I don’t think we should trust or value your perspective. The joys of being an atheist.

        “Do show how the “alternatives are incoherent”. Again, just another baseless assertion. Your cult can’t account for your god, and nothing shows it is responsible for logic, science, ethics or anything else. You also can’t show that objective morality exists or that your god wants any particular morality since christains can’t agree on what it wants.”

        Let’s start with your view. What is logic, and how do you know it’s truth-tracking? If you think your worldview can account for science, then explain how it solves the problem of induction.

        You also allude to an argument from disagreement, but that runs into a familiar postmodern problem: people disagree about virtually every facet of reality. On your own reasoning, that would seem to undermine objective truth altogether—but that conclusion is self-defeating.

        I think moral realism is true because God has revealed moral truths (for example, in biblical moral commands). And more broadly, arguments against moral norms often end up functioning as arguments against epistemic norms as well.

        “You also can’t show that your bible doesn’t say that the earth is flat since it repeatedly describes it that way. Per the bible, the earth is like clay under a seal, e.g. flat. The sky is a “tent” above it. If the authors of the bible though it was a sphere, then there would be no “above” it but “around” it. The new testament has that being on a high enough mountain, one could see the entire earth. That claim only works if the earth is flat.”

        The cited passages are best read as poetic and phenomenological rather than as explicit cosmological claims. They employ observational and metaphorical language (“tent,” “seal,” etc.) to communicate theological or experiential points, not to offer a geometrical description of the earth.

        I’m not arguing that the biblical authors explicitly affirmed a spherical earth. Rather, my claim is that Scripture does not teach a flat-earth cosmology as doctrine. Moreover, by the New Testament period the spherical-earth view was widely disseminated in the Greco-Roman intellectual milieu, which weakens the assumption that such language would necessarily be intended as literal flat-earth model.

        “The only ones who dispute what the bible literally claims are those Christians who need to pretend that the bible wasn’t written by ignorant humans. Your religion depends on the bible being written/inspired by your god and if your god is as ignorant as humans, you have quite a problem. Those passages work as I have shown, and nothing changes that your bible says that the sky is a solid vault and stars are little lights on it. The authors of the bible had no idea that they were massive balls of fusing hydrogen.”

        That’s not accurate. Disagreement over how these passages should be read isn’t limited to “Christians trying to avoid an uncomfortable conclusion.” Secular scholars also debate whether particular texts are literal description, poetic imagery, conventional ancient metaphor, or part of a wider textual/genre context—and they disagree with each other on questions like contradiction, cosmology, and theories of composition and redaction.

        Also, my view doesn’t require that divinely inspired authors were omniscient. Inspiration (as traditionally understood) is compatible with ordinary human limitations: the Bible can communicate theological truth using the language, perspective, and literary conventions of its time without functioning as a modern science textbook. The claim that “if God inspired it, it must contain modern astrophysics” is your added requirement, not one demanded by the biblical worldview itself.

        “The claims of genre, accommodation and theological intent are common excuses by Christians who need to claim that their bible is something other than what it is. Christains themselves can’t agree on what genre these books are, much less on if there is any accommodation, or what the “intent” was behind them. Plenty of Christians are literalists, and you can’t show that your version of this nonsense is any better than theirs. All Christians claim ridiculous things are true, so when you pick and choose, you simply show how you have nothing to support your claims. One can use your arguments of genre, accommodation and theological intent to show that the resurrection is simply metaphor, and isn’t any more true than the nonsense in genesis.
        If your god can, and does, cause disease then it is not what you claim when you claim it is all-loving. You are stuck with your god harming people.”

        Genre, accommodation, and authorial intent are basic tools used in all serious textual interpretation, including in secular scholarship. If you want to rule them out, you’ll need an argument for why those categories are illegitimate in principle (and not just because using them makes certain readings less convenient). Otherwise you’re just assuming your conclusion.

        And the fact that Christians disagree about genre doesn’t mean genre can’t be identified. Disagreement exists in every field—history, law, and science included—yet we don’t conclude that interpretation is impossible. Your argument is basically: “People debate how to read texts, therefore there is no responsible way to read texts.” That doesn’t follow.

        Also, the “you can make the resurrection a metaphor too” move ignores the actual markers that distinguish genres and authorial aims. The resurrection narratives are presented in a context that purports to be historical testimony (names, places, sequence, witnesses, public claims), whereas Genesis contains obvious signals of highly stylized storytelling. You may reject the resurrection on other grounds, but flattening everything into “it’s all metaphor if you want” is not an argument

        I’m a theological determinist: everything that happens is under God’s sovereign will, yet God isn’t morally culpable in the way creatures within creation are. Within Christian theology, death and suffering aren’t merely “natural consequences” of physics or biology—they’re also judicial realities within a moral order.

        And to be clear, I’m not claiming a strict one-to-one mapping between suffering and a particular sin you personally committed (a karma-style view). Rather, death and suffering enter the human condition as part of the judgment associated with the Edenic/Adamic covenant—the fall introduces a disordered condition that affects humanity as a whole. So the claim isn’t “you got sick because you did X,” but “we live in a fallen world where suffering and death are part of the condition humanity is under after Eden.”

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Since I don’t have baseless assertions, your claim is false and fails.   It’s hilarious how you try to claim no one cares abut what I say, a claim you can’t support and it’s even more fun when you try to claim tht I’m unstrustworthy if I don’t worship the god that you can’t produce.  You trust people like me every day, so your bigotry is simply nonsense.   And yes, there are joys in being an atheist. Why wouldn’t there be?

        Logic describes reality.  Nothing shows it requires your imaginary friend.  Logic can be used and end up with a wrong answer if the premises are wrong.  Induction depends on experience, again no god needed.  Us humans have the ability to teach each other and record our findings so experience can be extended to others.  There is no problem with it, it simply isn’t the best answer in all situations. 

        Unsurpsingly, no people don’t disagree about virtually ever facet of reality.  You have to make that nonsense up to try to excuse why Christians, who each claim to have the one and only “truth” can’t agree.  You each follow different commands from the bible and you cannot agree on which of you has the right list.

        You may think moral realism is true but until you can show it is true, your opinion is worthless.  You can’t show your god merely exists, much less reveals anything.  Every Christian claims revelation for their version, and again, not one of you can show your version to be any better than the rest.   Do show these “moral norms”, and how they function as arguments against “epistemic norms”.  

        Objective truth exists.  I know that if I stick my hand into molten steel that hand will burn.  You have no truths at all. 

        I guess I can just read the claims about the resurrection as “poetic” and “phenomenological” then, if you can claim that other parts of the bible, which are offered literaly are now no more than metaphors.  Yes, they do use observation and to an ignorant human, the earth is flat, and thus the god that they invented also thinks it is flat. 

        Yes, the Greeks and other learned people knew the earth was a sphere.  That dose not say that ignorant theists who never contributed anything to the world agreed with them.  And yes, you have claimed that the bible authors knew the earth was around.  The bible does teach a flat earth cosmology, and I do note that you try to move the goalposts by saying it wasn’t taught as “doctrine”.  It doesn’t have to be; the bible says the earth is flat.

        Christians cannot agree on what their god actually meant.  It is Christians trying to avoid an uncomfortable conclusion that their religion wasn’t from some god but from humans.   Secular scholars do indeed debate that and they require evidence to show what is what.  Christians simply declare anything inconvenient as metaphor, hyperbole, exaggeration, etc.  

        That you must try to claim that divinely inspired authors weren’t omniscient is amusing since that would mean that your god intentionally made things incoherent, which it would know, being omniscient, would cause Christians to murder each other.  If god inspired it, then it should be clear, unless your god is dependent on ignorance and deceit.  Is it?  BTW, there is no one biblical worldview, since again, Christians don’t agree on what that is. 

        yes, genre, etc are used in serios analysis.  Your problem is that Christians can’t agree what parts of heir bible are what, and not one can show that their vesion is the right one.  They are illegitimate since there is no consensus.   If a phrase is claimed as literal by one Christian and as metaphor by another, there is no reason to believe either unless they have additional evidence.  Not one of you has that.

        The resurrection claims are presented like all myths, as stories of what happened in the past.  They are not historical testimony just like Homer’s Odessey isn’t historical testimony.  Genesis is no different in writing or style, since it also makes claims that these events happened in the past.  You baselessly claim “highly stylized story telling” and cannot support that claim.   Claims of the ridiculous and unbelievable are presented in both.

        You are a typical Christian, insisting that everything is god’s will, but you need to exclude your god from the morals you claim it has given humans.  This makes morality subjective, dependent on who someone is rather than applying to everyone and thing.  Your god murders children for things others do, and again, that destroys any claims of justice or fairness from your religion. 

        I know you don’t claim a one to one mapping between suffering and sin.  You can’t since that fails when your religion says that children deserve to die horribly.  The supposed convenant is hilarious since your god can’t decide if it does punish people for the actions of others or not.  Which is the truth, Ezekiel 18 or your god taking tantrum and cursing everyone for the actions of two people?  

        “The word of the Lord came to me: 2 What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, “The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge”? 3 As I live, says the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. 4 Know that all lives are mine; the life of the parent as well as the life of the child is mine: it is only the person who sins that shall die.”

        Your god is quite a fraud.

        Like

      4. Since I don’t have baseless assertions, your claim is false and fails. It’s hilarious how you try to claim no one cares abut what I say, a claim you can’t support and it’s even more fun when you try to claim tht I’m unstrustworthy if I don’t worship the god that you can’t produce. You trust people like me every day, so your bigotry is simply nonsense. And yes, there are joys in being an atheist. Why wouldn’t there be?

        It still has not been shown that your claims are anything more than baseless assertions. Given the repeated weak arguments and unsupported claims, there is no good reason to take your conclusions seriously. You can play the role of the rude “village atheist” if you want, but that is not a substitute for an argument.

        And your point about trust is confused. Of course I trust atheists in ordinary, practical matters, just as I trust countless people every day. That does not mean I should adopt their worldview without sufficient justification. Trusting someone to change my oil is not the same as trusting them on metaphysics, morality, or the existence of God.

        Logic describes reality. Nothing shows it requires your imaginary friend. Logic can be used and end up with a wrong answer if the premises are wrong. Induction depends on experience, again no god needed. Us humans have the ability to teach each other and record our findings so experience can be extended to others. There is no problem with it, it simply isn’t the best answer in all situations.

        Simply invoking the distinction between validity and soundness does not answer the deeper question: what exactly is logic, and what grounds it?

        When you say logic “describes reality,” that immediately raises further problems. Which features of reality does it describe, and how do you know that? What in reality, for example, grounds modal truths? What distinguishes a dialetheist account of reality from a bivalent one? Those are not questions that can be settled by casually appealing to experience.

        That is because experience is limited, contingent, and particular. You do not have access to all minds, all times, or all possible conditions of reasoning. So what, on your view, are the laws of logic? Are they merely habits of your own mind, common features of human cognition, or universal norms governing all rational beings? Unless you can explain that, your account remains shallow.

        The problem becomes sharper once you see that logical laws are usually treated as necessary, not as regularities noticed so far. But experience gives you only contingent observations. No amount of observing how things happen can by itself establish how they must be, still less what must hold in every possible case. You do not get necessity from accumulated instances.

        Nor is logic merely descriptive. People reason badly all the time. Logic is normative: it tells us how we ought to reason, not merely how we in fact reason. So how, exactly, do you derive normativity from raw experience? A description of thought is not yet a standard for thought.

        Your appeal to experience also fails to explain the universality of logic. Even if human beings commonly reason in certain ways, why should that show those principles govern all rational agents rather than merely reflecting contingent features of human psychology? You need an argument that moves from local human habits to universal rational norms, and you have not supplied one.

        There is also the problem of epistemic access. If the laws of logic are abstract, necessary, and universal, how are they known through finite sensory experience at all? Sensory experience seems poorly suited to ground knowledge of truths that supposedly hold in every case, rather than only in the cases you have happened to observe.

        And your appeal to “logic” is too vague to do the work you want it to do. There is not just one uncontested logical system. Classical, intuitionistic, paraconsistent, and modal logics do not all make the same claims or rest on the same assumptions. So which logic is reality supposedly “describing,” and by what standard do you select among them without already relying on deeper metaphysical commitments?

        At that point, your view risks collapsing into psychologism. If logic is grounded in how humans think, then logical laws become facts about psychology rather than standards by which psychological processes are judged. But logic cannot simply be psychology, because people can and do think in ways that are invalid. Logic must be able to correct thought, not merely report it.

        The same problem appears in your account of induction. Saying induction works because experience teaches us is not an explanation; it assumes the reliability of experience, memory, and inferential practice precisely where those things are under dispute. In other words, it begs the question. It does not solve the problem of induction; it presupposes the solution. And if that level of circularity is acceptable, then I could simply assert, “You are wrong,” and treat the assertion as justified. Obviously, that would not be a serious argument, and neither is your account of induction as it stands.

        Unsurpsingly, no people don’t disagree about virtually ever facet of reality. You have to make that nonsense up to try to excuse why Christians, who each claim to have the one and only “truth” can’t agree. You each follow different commands from the bible and you cannot agree on which of you has the right list. You may think moral realism is true but until you can show it is true, your opinion is worthless. You can’t show your god merely exists, much less reveals anything. Every Christian claims revelation for their version, and again, not one of you can show your version to be any better than the rest. Do show these “moral norms”, and how they function as arguments against “epistemic norms

        People disagree about virtually everything. Some deny the external world, some deny other minds, some deny moral facts, and some deny truth itself. So mere disagreement proves very little. If disagreement were enough to discredit a position, then your own view would collapse along with everyone else’s. The fact that Christians disagree on some matters does not show Christianity is false; it shows that people can disagree, misinterpret, or err. That is true in every area of thought.

        As for moral norms, the point is not that moral norms and epistemic norms are identical in every respect. The point is that both are normative. Moral norms concern how one ought to act; epistemic norms concern how one ought to think, infer, and believe. Once you start treating one category of norms as suspect or unintelligible, you need to explain why the same skepticism does not apply to the other. Otherwise you are selectively attacking morality while quietly assuming the legitimacy of rational standards you have not grounded.

        And your appeal to “objective truth” is too shallow to help you. Of course there are ordinary empirical truths, such as the fact that putting your hand into molten steel will burn it. No one is denying that. The issue is deeper: what grounds the universal and normative truths you rely on every time you argue? What makes logical laws binding rather than merely useful habits? What makes epistemic norms authoritative rather than optional? Pointing to a physical consequence does not answer any of that. For Moral realism, I’ve recommended to you in the past:

        Like

      5. I’m still waiting for you to show any baseless assertions I’ve supposedly made. Where are these weak and unsupported arguments?

        Unsurpsingly, my point about trust isn’t confused. It shows how you are a hypocrite. If I am unstrustworthy when it comes to morality, etc, “doubt anyone cares what you have to say, and given your beliefs, I don’t think we should trust or value your perspective. “ then why trust me with anything? As is typical, you ignore your bigotry when it is inconvenient for you.
        Again, logic is a description of reality. We don’t know what grounds reality. What we do know is that there is no evidence for your imaginary friend nor any other imaginary friends. ROFL. What features of reality does it describe? The relationship of facts. There are no “modal truths”, just the nonsense philosophers try to claim. Again, we don’t know what grounds reality, but you sure have nothing that does. It’s hilarious how you use rather silly terms like dialethist when nothing shows that contradictions are true. They can be settled by experience since, again, you can’t show a contradiction to be true.
        Experisnce is indeed limited. I do not need access to all minds at all times to know how logic works. Again, logic describes reality. Until you can show your imaginary friend is true, you have no account at all.
        Observations can be contingent until enough of them are made to show that they are true. Curious how you theists have nothing but contingent observations for your claims about gods and you have yet to agree on your claims.
        Yes, people use logic badly. That doesn’t mean that logic isn’t descriptive. Reality is universal so logic is universal.
        I always love when Christians try to claim that we can’t know anything without their imaginary friend. Why shouldn’t laws of logic be known through finite sensory experience? You simply assume that they cannot be to find a job for your imaginary friend. Your claims about sensory experience are also baseless, insisting that they are supposedly “poorly suited” when you have nothing to support that claim. We don’t just have immediate sensory experience, dear. We have knowledge that humans can record and pass along.

        As is typical, your cult has to veer into solipsism to try to make room for your imaginary friend.

        No, my appeal ot logic isn’t too vague at all, you only claim that and again without evidence. You can’t show that all of those supposed forms of logic are equal or true. That you have to retreat to nonsense made up by philosophers is typical.

        Unsurpsingly, I am no where near psychologism at all, but nice try. Logic is grounded in reality, and is not dependent on how humans thing. Your nonsense fails yet again.
        Experience is reliable. Theist must clam that it is not to, again, have room for their imaginary friend. No question begging since your nonsense is yet more baseless assertions.
        Again, you try to lie about people disagreeing about virtually everything. That is notably not true, and you simply make that baseless assertion to excuse why christins can’t agree on their one and only “Truth”. You claim people deny truth and yet you can’t even present any. You have disagreement and the utter inability to show your claims are true. Your position is discredited since there is no evidence to support your claims. You assume that Christainity must be true and nothing, including logic, supports that claim.

        That christians can’t show that their claims are true or that anyone is erring is yet again evidence that you all simply have baseless opinions. Why is it that not one of you can show that the others are misinterpreting?
        You have yet to show that morality is objective. There are common morals but nothing says they are “normal”. Again, you make another baseless assetion that moral norms and epistemic norms are identical. They are not. But do show how they supposedly are.

        Finally, you again claim an appeal is “too shallow” and you can’t even explain what that even means. There are objective truths, and your cult has none. Reality grounds those truths. You again try to wedge your imaginary friend into reality, and again fail to show it is needed.

        your moral realism video is still the same set of baseless assertions as before. Again, dear, where are those objective morals? Which morals are objective?

        Like

      6. You say logic is “grounded in reality,” but in the same breath you say “we don’t know what grounds reality.” That is already a concession. If you do not know what grounds reality, then you do not know what grounds logic on your own account. Saying “reality grounds it” is not an explanation. It is just pushing the question back a step and then refusing to answer it.

        You also say there are no modal truths. But that collapses your own position. The moment you say contradictions cannot be true, that logic is universal, and that experience can settle these matters, you are already making claims that go beyond a bare report of particular observations. Laws of logic are not claims about what has merely happened so far. They are taken to govern every case. That is exactly why your appeal to repeated observation does not work. No number of contingent observations yields necessity.

        Your denial of modal truth is self-refuting. If it is necessarily true that there are no modal truths, then you have just stated a modal truth. If it is only contingently true, then it is possible that modal truths exist, which already concedes modality. So your position either contradicts itself or destroys its own universality. And since claims like “contradictions cannot be true” and “logic is universal” are themselves modal claims, you are relying on the very thing you deny.

        Your induction point fails for the same reason. Saying “experience is reliable” is not a solution to the problem; it is the very assumption under dispute. You are assuming the trustworthiness of experience, memory, and inference in order to prove the trustworthiness of experience, memory, and inference. That is circular.

        Your claim that “reality is universal, so logic is universal” is also just a non sequitur. Reality contains particular facts as well. You still have not shown why logic is necessary, universal, and normative rather than a contingent pattern you happen to notice. And if it is merely descriptive, then it cannot correct bad reasoning; it can only report how people in fact reason. But logic plainly functions normatively. It tells us how we ought to reason, not just how we do reason.

        The same problem shows up in your moral comments. You keep accusing Christians of lying, bigotry, hypocrisy, fraud, and error. Those are norm-laden judgments. So you are not living as though normativity is a fiction. You are constantly appealing to it. The question is what grounds those norms and why they are binding rather than merely your preferences.

        And disagreement among Christians does not do the work you want it to do. Disagreement does not refute truth. There is disagreement in philosophy, science, politics, and ethics as well. If disagreement discredited a worldview, then your own position would be discredited by the many atheists and philosophers who disagree with you.

        So the dilemma remains: either logic is necessary, universal, and normative, in which case your appeal to finite sensory experience does not explain it, or logic is just a contingent description of how things happen to go, in which case it cannot bind thought, rule out contrary possibilities, or ground your universal claims. Repeating “logic describes reality” does not escape that dilemma.

        Like

      7. Yep, I did and again, nothing wrong with that. You have yet to show your imaginary friend exists at all. We know reality does.

        You are quite a typical theist fraud. No modal truths and contradictiosn can’t be true. You try to make baseless assertions yet again. You can’t show observations are wrong and as usual, you can’t show that logic doesn’t hold. You must claim such nonsense since your religion does not work with logic. A miracle can’t happen if logic works.

        Nothing shows necessity of your god, so do explain how this “No number of contingent observations yields necessity.” works, dear.
        Again, no modal truths, and no, I have no stated one. But do explain how I have. Surely you can, right? And my induction point is perfectly fine. Experince is reliable is a solution to the problem. You can’t show that it is not. You simply assert it isn’t. Experienec, memory and inference can be trusted most of the time in most circumstances. You have to claim they are not for your god to have any chance to exist.

        It’s not a non sequitur, but that’s no surprise that you don’t know what one is. Reality is fact. Logic is how reality is described so claiming it is “necessary” is indeed a non sequitur. It can and often does correct bad reasoning. It does not report on how people reason it *is* how people reason. It does not “tell” us anything.
        Again, still failing with moral claims, aren’t you? Chrsitains do lie, are bigots, are hypocrites, are frauds and are riddled with errors. They are not norm laden judgements, whatever those are. They are dependent on facts. You try to claim that your god is behind these supposed “norms”. Again, where is it? This is no more than you trying to make the same old argument from morality again, and since you can’t show your god merely exist, you literally have nothing.
        The disagreement between christains does indeed do the works that I want it to do. Disagreemnt does refute truth since there is no requirement for any of you to have any truth at all in any version of the cult. You simply assume that one of you must be right, and it must be you.

        It’s notable how you can’t cite a single atheist or philosopher who disagrees with me about atheism. Again, you assume that there must be one “right” answer, when none is required.

        So your dilemma doesn’t exist and you are still a theist with no god.

        Like

      9. Again, no ad hominems. Ad hominems are when someone introduces something irrelevant to the conversation to discredit an opponent. All of my points are relevant here.

        Why whine about this rather than showing how morality is objective, your god exists, and what morals your god actually wants?

        Like

      11. yep, you can’t show that I did what you claimed and now are trying to claim “indirect ad hominems”. Thanks for showing how a christian chooses to lie, Vincent. No wonder you can’t do what jesus promises to his true followers when you ignore your god when you feel it’s convenient.

        Like

      17. I’ve actually succeeded in my goal. All I am called to do is be a watchmen… you have been given the truth. It will either be to your benefit or it will be held against you in the end.

        Like

      18. ROFL. That’s always great when christians try to rewrite their bible and claim they are only called to be “watchmen”. It’s hilarious how you are called to defend your nonsense and you have failed miserably.

        You area typical christian who can’t show his version to be the right one and can’t do what jesus promised to his true followers. All you have are impotent threats.

        Like

  2. clubs, You seem to be jumbling up a lot of what you claim in your head is some monolithic “christian” thing. God is love, but He is more than that. He is not one single attribute that overpowers His other attributes such as His righteousness, holiness, and justness. You can try and insult us away as ignorant but if you have been around our group for any amount of time you would see that we have sound and just arguments, whereas your side can do nothing but insult and claim outrage while not even realizing you could not ground that very outrage in your own worldview and have to borrow ours to ground it.

    Like

    Reply

    1. ROFL. Your god isn’t love since love isn’t about eternal torture for anyone who doesn’t agree with you. It’s always curious how you claim your god is just and yet, it kills a child for what a man did. Would you find it just if you were killed for something I did?

      I suspect not.

      I can point out that your group has made up what it wants like every other set of christians. And since I was a christian and have been around christians for my entire life, your prediction that I would agree with you is sadly wrong.

      Then you have the typical lie that I have to borrow a worldview from christians who can’t agree on a worldview amongst themselves. The ideas of morality, rights etc were around far longer than your cult has been. One can see that and know that, if you didn’t directly borrow the ideas from the Sumerians, etc you certainly didn’t originate them.

      Like

      Reply

  3. 1 Cor 1:18 -24

    18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

    19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

    20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

    Like

    Reply

      1. You are a fallen sinner, you face the eternal wrath of God. All I can do is warn you, don’t be caught outside the grace of Jesus. That is what will truly be sad.

        Like

      4. Vincent, per your own bible, it’s your god that does the hardening, and as expected, you can’t show I’m wrong.

        Pray hard since I’ve literally had hundreds of christains of all versions praying for me to agree wtih them over the last 30+ years. Despite the promises in the bible, you’ve all been complete failures. Why is that? Is it because your god loves me as I am? Your god doesn’t think any of you are true followers? or is it because your god doesn’t exist?

        your choice.

        Like

Leave a reply to vincentlancon Cancel reply