THE MOST INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT AGAINST THEISM

An Exchange Between Jersey Flight and former atheist Keith Rozumalski

 
-----FLIGHT to ROZUMALSKI-----

 
Do tell me confident fellow, are you the one who claims to be a former atheist?

 
-----ROZUMALSKI to FLIGHT-----

 
Yes, you found me. I grew up in an atheist family. I was an atheist and then an agnostic before converting to Christianity in college. As you can tell from my blog I am fascinated by philosophy of religion, especially of the Christian variety. It's been a while since I've posted an article, but I still comment on Christian and atheist/skeptic blogs from time-to-time.

Who are you?

Regards,
Keith

 
-----FLIGHT to ROZUMALSKI-----

 
"I was an atheist and then an agnostic before converting to Christianity in college."

So you are not simply a vague theist, but you believe in the existence of the Trinity? [God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit?]

This is quite fascinating: I wonder what could have possibly compelled you toward such an outlandish and idiosyncratic belief? [Here is a man that loves assertions from antiquity!]

Is there such a thing as a Trinity? How do you know this?

I think you are indeed a bold fellow. I am very curious to hear about your indoctrinating process into the corpus of Christianity.

Sing for me little bird, show me that you can sing a beautiful song, for I have no time for screeching owls.

"Who am I," you ask? That all depends on who is asking. To the theist I am a barbarian and viking, I am the enemy of all supernaturalism; I am he that shatters comfort with the hammer of reality.

eagerly yours,
Jersey Flight

 
-----ROZUMALSKI to FLIGHT-----

 
Hi Jersey,

You seem like a very bold and interesting fellow yourself. Are you a sort of street epistemologist?

My conversion has been an evolving process over many years. For as long as I remember I have been fascinated with finding meaning in life. While in high school I got into atheist existentialism; I read some Sartre and Camus. However, I became dissatisfied with a meaning that dies with me. I came to see that all of humanity are builders of sandcastles along the seashore, as time and entropy ultimately wipe out all of our projects. All traces that we ever existed will eventually be expunged as the universe becomes a dark, cold, and lifeless expanse. I identified with Macbeth when he said, "Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player/ That struts and frets his hour upon the stage/ And then is heard no more. It is a tale/ Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,/ Signifying nothing."

Another memorable, albeit, slight movement towards theism was learning about fine tuned nature of the physical constants in the universe in physics class. This knowledge made me slightly less close minded about the existence of God.

So, then I got to college and really not much happened fort a while. I remember one time an evangelist stopped me on the street and tried to talk me, but I was mildly hostile and was not really listening to what he said. Fast forward a bit, and then I met this guy on my floor who started talking to me. He invited me to Campus Crusade for Christ events. I eventually went to a CCC party out of curiosity and boredom. The people were very nice, albeit, a little strange. The guy gave me a book about Jesus' life and eventually witnessed to me. I was totally unfamiliar with the Gospel, but I thought about it for a while. Finally, I decided to become a Christian and got involved with CCC and a church near the campus. It was a sometimes baffling, but ultimately a good time in my life. I gained a lot of great friends and finally had found the hope and meaning that I had been searching for.

Over the years, my knowledge and understanding of Christianity, Christian philosophy and even atheist arguments has grown exponentially. These days, I take an inductive approach, as I see God as the best explanation for the existence of the universe, for objective morals; for why something exists rather than nothing, for the existence of objective morals; for fine tuning in the universe; for religious experiences; and for the uncanny applicability of mathematics in the universe.

As to the trinity, like most Christians, I believe in the trinity. This belief largely comes from divine revelation. Although, I do like the idea that a good Trinitarian God would be more likely to create other beings that he could be in relationship with and so that they could enjoy relationship with him and their fellow creatures, as this is a God who enjoys eternal relationship with the members of the Trinity. I imagine that you're going to counter with, "Don't you think that the trinity is an incoherent idea?!?!" Well, no I don't. The idea of Cerberus, the mythological dog that guards, seems plausible, as you have one dog with three different heads. With the trinity you have three members that make up one God.

OK, what's your story, Jersey? I gather that you're a naturalist, and as such you believe that some sort of eternal physical brute fact caused the observable universe to exist. How do you know that this brute fact exists? What reason do you have to believe in eternal physical brute facts when we see that everything around us is a finite, contingent object that has an explanation for how it came to be?

Regards,
Keith

 
-----FLIGHT to ROZUMALSKI-----

 
I thought for sure you would run away, as this seems to be the uniform response of fading apologists. How many of your comrades have scattered at the sight of my hammer? There are many cowards and pretenders among your flock. Of course, they never confess to be afraid, they merely say my dialectic is in poor taste (it is not noble enough for their armor)... but when did truth refrain itself for cause of taste? If you can crush me then do so!

"I see God as the best explanation for the existence of the universe, for objective morals; for why something exists rather than nothing..."

Clear translation: "I see the Trinity as the best explanation for the existence of the universe, for objective morals; for why something exists rather than nothing..."

And how exactly would you say the Trinity explains; how does the Trinity even qualify as an explanation? [We have not even begun and already you are guilty of equivocation. Nay, this cannot be true, for there is no greater jest than the Trinity! If only theologians knew they were comedians, they might give up the posture of theology altogether.]

A reference to the Trinity, articulated through the intensity of serious eyes; deadly serious, so serious one can nearly see the fires of hell, always gives me a good laugh! 

"...like most Christians, I believe in the trinity. This belief largely comes from divine revelation."

Then let us dispense with the Christian pretense of reason and evidence (as I had already anticipated): 'here is a man that loves assertions from antiquity!'

Once upon a time a man told me he had a letter from God, but I was too wise for the motions of this game, too intelligent to waste my time on such nonsense. For no sooner had I cleared myself of his company than I met another man who told me he to had a letter from God.

Apparently this tactic works on many stupid people. My defect is that I'm not stupid enough to believe such assertions.

Confidently yours,
Jersey Flight

 
-----ROZUMALSKI to FLIGHT-----

 
Me, run away? Naw! Beyond all your boasts about your fearsome "hammer" I think I spy someone who fancies them-self a modern day Socrates, with the snark and boldness of the Internet age. I imagine that you think of yourself as the philosopher king in Plato's allegory of the cave who sees the blinding light of truth and who has come back to unshackle a Christian prisoner stuck in the cave of illusions.

There was no equivocation on my part. God = the Trinity and the Trinity = God. How does the Trinity/God explain these things? Well, if there is an omnipotent, eternal, necessary, good who metaphysically grounds some of these things and decides to create the other things then these things can most likely be explained by the existence of God/the Trinity.

Now, you say that the Trinity is a "jest," but this is nothing more than the argument from ridicule. You have not presented any arguments, evidence or reasons why the concept of the Trinity is false.

You allude to the fact there have been many seemingly divine revelations. Now, I don't deny that you are smart to deny some of those "letters," but perhaps your sagacity has turned to foolishness when you deny all the "letters," as it doesn't follow that because some letters are false that all the letters are false. Say I have two friends: Fred and George. Fred sends me a letter telling me about an event. Then George sends me a letting about that same event, but some of the details contradict what Fred said. Should I conclude that both letters are false? Not necessarily. I do some research and find out that I can verify some of what George said while I can't do the same for Fred. I think about what each said and see that some of the things that Fred said don't make logical sense. I also know that Fred is given to telling tall tales. So, I come to the conclusion that I should reject Fred's letter but accept George's because most likely George's letter is closer to the truth.        

Jersey, my friend, I noticed that you didn't answer any of my questions. Why are you holding back on, me my man? In case you forgot what they were, I'll just paste them below:

OK, what's your story, Jersey? I gather that you're a naturalist, and as such you believe that some sort of eternal physical brute fact caused the observable universe to exist. How do you know that this brute fact exists? What reason do you have to believe in eternal physical brute facts when we see that everything around us is a finite, contingent object that has an explanation for how it came to be?

Regards,
Keith

 
-----FLIGHT to ROZUMALSKI-----

 
Am I obligated to explain my indifference to you? Does life itself not possess the highest criterion of authority? How much of my time should be given over to your assertions? By what authority do you ask me to waste what I am?

"There was no equivocation on my part. God = the Trinity and the Trinity = God. How does the Trinity/God explain these things? Well, if there is an omnipotent, eternal, necessary, good who metaphysically grounds some of these things and decides to create the other things then these things can most likely be explained by the existence of God/the Trinity."

My reference to equivocation was not a reference to your bait-and-switch use of the terms, God and Trinity, but to your use of the term, explanation.

How does saying that "things" are "grounded" by the Trinity qualify as an explanation? [Here, what you demand of mankind by way of explanation, apart from the special pleading of your assertions, cancels out your right to use this term as a criticism.] The theist can never rightly complain that something fails to explain!  

How did man come to exist? You say he was created by the Trinity? But what does this mean? How does this explain? Magic is nonsense! 

"Now, I don't deny that you are smart to deny some of those "letters," but perhaps your sagacity has turned to foolishness when you deny all the "letters," as it doesn't follow that because some letters are false that all the letters are false."

I have to nourish my body in a short space of time. You seem to be assuming that there is something I am obligated to do for you before I have the right to ignore you? But I must nourish my body!

You say I denied letters? I did no such thing; I ignored the stupidity of empty, worthless assertions. (Do you claim they are more than this?)

You seem to be assuming that you have a right to my time? Based on what authority!

Every time I walk away from the first man who tells me he has a letter from God, the second man (who also claims to have a letter from God) tells me I was wise. "But if I was really wise," he says, "then I would pay attention to his assertions." Is this a game I should play? I think not, but perhaps you can persuade me against the vital nourishment of my body? What does it mean that these assertive-devices do not work on me? Alas, you have already confessed to my wisdom!    

"Now, you say that the Trinity is a "jest," but this is nothing more than the argument from ridicule. You have not presented any arguments, evidence or reasons why the concept of the Trinity is false."

"This is nothing more than?" But I can think of no higher jest than that of the Trinity! Do tell me, what is it about the Trinity that is not a jest? Indeed, how could the Trinity be comical if it were true, and yet there is no greater jest than that of the Trinity! (Is this not an argument)? [One of us must be deluded?]  

I was not aware that I needed to present evidence for the non-existence of that which is unevidential, reason for that which defies reason? I was not aware that I needed to present arguments in order to have a right to my laughter? Who decreed this? From what sovereign magistrate does this imperative proceed? It would seem you have only increased my laughter with your presentation of the Trinity. How then can the Trinity be the greatest jest, when the truth is that men like you are the greatest jest!

"I noticed that you didn't answer any of my questions. Why are you holding back on, me my man?"

The theologian thinks he can pin me down with questions about reality; but how can any serious thinker ever discuss the nature of reality with those who believe in the Trinity? I say such people should be ignored and ridiculed in the name of life!

You want to ask me questions about being; about the nature of the universe? But if I ask you how we should proceed you end up refuting your own assertions! And if you are not aware of this then why should I confide in you as a fellow thinker? Are you a thinker at all? Can you even ask a question! What value do you have to me when it comes to probing the nature of reality? Even the asking of your questions is itself a form of jest!

When one needs a good laugh only then should one turn to theology; only then should one seek out the company of theologians!

"How does the Trinity/God explain these things?"

"Well, if there is [a Trinity]..."

It still would not explain!

Confidently yours,
Jersey Flight

 
-----ROZUMALSKI to FLIGHT-----

 
You're free to do with your time as you wish, but remember you're the one who went to the trouble of finding me and initiating this... dialogue. I could've declined to engage with you, but I chose to spend a significant amount of time obliging you. I opened up to you and I would hope that you would reciprocate. Besides, how am I going to see the blinding light of reality if you don't explain what you've seen? Just make sure that you've actually seen the sunlight and not the fire in our cave which is producing the shadows on the wall. 

"The theologian thinks he can pin me down with questions about reality..."

You can try to pin me down with questions about the Trinity, but I can't ask you questions about the eternal physical brute fact? What authority do you have to question me? If your case is air tight then why are you evading my questions? It's because we both know that the best you can do is say, "I don't have any arguments or evidence for the existence of an eternal physical brute fact or that this thing caused the universe to exist, but it's logically possible that it exists and caused the universe."

In regards to my use of the word explanation, recall that I was speaking of abduction--this is an inference to the best explanation. I'm saying that God/the Trinity is the best or most likely explanation for these things. Actually, in the case of objective morality and why there is something rather than nothing, I think God is really the only explanation for these things. The reason why most naturalists deny that objective morality exists is because it's not clear what would metaphysically ground objective morals in a naturalistic universe. On the other hand, objective morality could flow from the good nature of God. In the case of why there is something rather than nothing, naturalists must assume that is there some sort of physical brute fact that explains the existence of our contingent universe. So, the ultimate explanation has no explanation.      

"You say I denied letters? I did no such thing; I ignored the stupidity of empty, worthless assertions."

Ah, but you have denied letters. How do you know that God has not revealed who he is to some people? I don't see any reason to think that God couldn't reveal himself to people. It seems like you're just begging the question against divine revelations. Was my "revelation" to you about how I came to be a Christian just stupid, empty, worthless assertions? True, I could have been lying or you could be hallucinating that you're having this... dialogue, but you don't have a strong reason to think that these things are true.

"But I can think of no higher jest than that of the Trinity! Do tell me, what is it about the Trinity that is not a jest? Indeed, how could the Trinity be comical if it were true, and yet there is no greater jest than that of the Trinity! (Is this not an argument)?"

I don't see how the Trinity is a jest. You've just doubled-down on the argument from ridicule. Repeatedly saying that Trinity is a jest is not an argument--it's just a derisive assertion.

Regards,
Keith

 
-----FLIGHT to ROZUMALSKI-----

 
"...you're the one who went to the trouble of finding me and initiating... dialogue."

You assume I sought you out for something more than amusement.* You presume that I made contact with you to seek out serious conversation (and this is because you assume that your conversation is serious) but when have you been anything more to me than a jest? Surely I must amuse myself. Have I not found you to be utterly amusing? At what point have I taken you serious? Have you even provided me one incentive as to why you should be taken serious? All you say is that your assertions are serious, but what is the foundation of this seriousness; where is the substance? How can your questions be serious if I can deny their seriousness? Even you must nourish your body, which is an example of that which is serious: I dare you to deny it deluded man! Behold the power of my dialectic! I smash your authoritarian assertions by the superior authority of life!

"You're free to do with your time as you wish..."

And yet one could call me stupid if I was to refrain from nourishing my body.

"As I wish," you say? He that withholds his passion is a fool; sensual motion is the exercise of great philosophers and great machines. All of this comedy has aroused in me the most serious mood, God raises mountains of flesh, I am like a stone among flowers; I will indulge my passion unto the glory of your God. Of course, your God is free to stop me, if he can?

"It seems like you're just begging the question against divine revelations."

What is more likely, that a man says he has a letter from God or that a man actually has a letter from God?

Is it possible that I have disposed of you, that I have flown high above the pettiness of your dialectic?

[You seem to be ignorant of the argument I have already made. You demand that I assume the legitimacy of your assumption regarding the relevance of theism, but I have legitimately asked you to justify this claim. I do not bear the burden of proof for your claim. You are the one who claims that your theology is relevant to life. You want to be rational, then how can you say the theory of faeries is important, and when I ask you to justify this claim, merely reply by asserting that I need to assume it? It would seem, as with all theologians, you are a stranger to your own position.**]  

You have done nothing but cry out with the 'screeches' of your authoritarianism; you have not yet learned to sing a beautiful song; in ignorance you have manifested your own limitations, and thereby are you trapped clever man. I confess your morals are too high for me, nay, I should rather say, they are too small! Like a serpent you live in the dust and yet you pretend to stand on mountains! 

The existence of God is the easiest and most foolish of all games. It is a game for the amusement of small children. You have not yet become a man; you have not yet learned to ask questions because you think all questions begin and end with God.

"If your case is air tight then why are you evading my questions?"

Let us fallaciously assume that I have in fact evaded you; in the context of theism is this not an act of wisdom? Is your dialectic so strong that it should or could not be evaded? Perhaps a superior dialectician knows that your dialectic is irrelevant and therefore stupid? Would it not be an act of stupidity to engage a dialectic of stupidity? You seem to assume that your position is worthy of more than evasion, but where is the argument, where is the evidence that establishes the seriousness of your claims? Can your Trinity strike me down? What if I should demand that your Trinity lick the bottom of my shoe... would it then strike me down, nay, because like the Gods of old, your Trinity does not exist! By what authority do you deem your assertions to be worthy of engagement? You have not yet learned that I am a superior dialectician. You have not yet discovered when to be a disciple. I have evaded nothing, but must confess, if ever one should evade anything, if ever there were a justification for evasion, it would have to be the evasion of theism! Let no man seek out Trinities or the confusion of theological questions, unless he is in great need of laughter.

The universe hears my laughter and yet it does not condemn me, why therefore should I condemn myself?

Who then is evading? You demand that I assume your assertions have value. But if I ask you to establish your claim and you refuse, this is called evasion. I cannot rightly bare the burden of proof for your claim. Your error was in assuming 1) that the more primitive, unsupported assumption belonged to me and 2) that you are exempted, by means of special pleading, from your own criteria. When did you establish the value of your claims? By what authority am I obligated to assume your unsupported premise of value? Indeed, your tactic has been exposed: attempting to get me to affirm the existence of a value that does not exist! The only value theism has, in relation to life, is negative: theism is a negative value! I hereby demand that your Trinity lick the bottom of my shoe!   

"...we both know that the best you can do is say, "I don't have any arguments or evidence for the existence of an eternal physical brute fact or that this thing caused the universe to exist, but it's logically possible that it exists and caused the universe.""

??? Begins to argue with himself. Utter confusion: hereby would he claim to deduce God from the universe, and then explain the universe by the God he claimed to deduce from it. Somehow one eventually gets to the existence of a Trinity?? But one has already admitted the nature of the existence of the Trinity as not being contingent on the universe. 'Here is a man that loves the assertions of antiquity!' Nevertheless he is not content to hold his line: admitting that the Trinity has its origin in assertions, he now equally wants to claim that it is the conclusion of reason and evidence. Do these assertions explain the universe or are these assertions the conclusion of the universe? Foolish boy, someone told you there was such a thing as a Trinity and you believed them.      

I have no more time to amuse myself with your comedy, or assist in your education, I must nourish my body so that I may help those in need of nourishment.

Abundantly yours,
Jersey Flight


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

*In one sense this is true as I also sought out Mr. Rozumalski to make an example of the stupidity of Christian theism.

**For more on this see my lecture, The End of Theism, wherein I expound the concept of "Propositional Evaluation." In short, it is the pre-evaluation of that which is to be evaluated.


-----ROZUMALSKI to FLIGHT-----


"You assume I sought you out for something more than amusement."

Thanks for finally admitting what I've suspected all along: that you've been wasting my time.
 
"Have you even provided me one incentive as to why you should be taken serious?...Let us fallaciously assume that I have in fact evaded you; in the context of theism is this not an act of wisdom?...Who then is evading?...You have not yet become a man; you have not yet learned to ask questions because you think all questions begin and end with God."

Blah, blah, blah. You could make a fortune giving clinics to politicians on how to dodge and evade tough questions. You just spout a bunch of gibberish and talk in circles hoping that your audience has forgotten that you've been asked a question that you can't answer. Well, unfortunately for you, all that you've managed to  do is confirm my suspicion that you have no answer for my questions about the eternal physical brute fact.

"What is more likely, that a man says he has a letter from God or that a man actually has a letter from God?"

Well, that depends on whether there is a God. As I said before, I think God is the best explanation for the universe among many other things. Since God most likely exists, it's not inconceivable that God could and has communicated with humans. In fact, if that God is a Trinitarian God who is seeped in eternal relationship then it makes sense to think that this God would decide to create the universe and eventually humankind in order to have a relationship and communicate with his creations.        

At least I have an inductive argument for the existence of God/the Trinity and I can point to the possibility of divine revelation. You haven't even attempted to defend belief in the eternal physical brute fact.

"You seem to be ignorant of the argument I have already made."

You have made no arguments. The appeal to ridicule is a fallacy. You have given me no reasons to think that the concept of the Trinity is false.

"I thought for sure you would run away...I have no more time to amuse myself with your comedy, or assist in your education, I must nourish my body so that I may help those in need of nourishment...In one sense this is true as I also sought you out to make an example of the stupidity of Christian theism."

You thought I would cower and roll over after all your swaggering, and now you're the one running away with your tail between your legs after I've bitten back. The big, bad bully picked on the wrong Christian and got his nose bloodied. Yeah, take your plastic toy hammer and go home to mommy; have her clean that nose up.

Regards,
Keith


-----FLIGHT to ROZUMALSKI-----

 
"You just spout a bunch of gibberish and talk in circles hoping that your audience has forgotten that you've been asked a question that you can't answer."

I reject your unsupported assertion regarding the default value and obligation of your loaded questions. This is not something you have established. You say Mr. Flight has a duty to answer your questions because you insist that he must! When did you establish this premise? It would seem, in demanding something of me, you have imposed a formal obligation on yourself, but when it comes to fulfilling this obligation (which is an obligation you must fulfill if you would use this criterion in your favor) you say it only applies to me. Truly thou art a hypocrite! This is formally known as special pleading. But in shirking the burden of proof you have nullified your own criticism! If you have the right to justification, by means of special pleading; if you can shirk the burden of proof, then you cannot deny this same maneuver to those with whom you disagree. But how can I be guilty of shirking a burden that was never shifted in my direction? I have no need of special pleading! To affirm your standard is to prove that you reject your standard... If you were serious about this standard of justification, then you would be serious about the justification of your own assertions. Or we can say more accurately, you would be serious about justifying the assumptions that lie behind your assertions.

If what I say is false, then what is your complaint? If what you say is true, then why do you not refrain from hypocrisy?

"...each party in reasonable dialogue has the burden of proving his own thesis and defending his own position in the issue. If questioned to prove, clarify, or defend a proposition that he is clearly committed to, an answerer should directly respond. If the question presupposes propositions that he may not be committed to, an answerer should have a right to question the question... If a question is loaded, it makes an assertion, or at least creates an assertion for the respondent who must answer it. Therefore, it can be reasonable to place a burden of proof on the asker of the loaded question to justify his presupposition. And therefore, it is reasonable for the respondent of such a question to challenge the question by asking the questioner to meet the burden of proof he took on by asking the question." Informal Logic, Douglas Walton, Second Edition, Cambridge 2008 pg.77    

He that tarries long with theologians is a partaker of their stupidity, but he that nourishes his body is wise.

Gloriously do I ascend into the night,
Jersey Flight   


-----ROZUMALSKI to FLIGHT-----


Jersey, I thought you were done "wasting" time on me. Well, I don't think that I'll be the only person who reads this debate and wonders where this this intelligent argument against theism is because there isn't even an unintelligent argument against theism in this exchange. Your main non-argument was the appeal to ridicule fallacy, and the second was begging the question against divine revelation. You never explained why God couldn't reveal himself to humans or why I should necessarily reject the revelation in question.

You asked me about the Trinity and I:
1) Outlined an inductive argument for God's existence
2) Pointed to divine revelation about the Trinitarian nature of this God
3) Dealt with a common objection to the concept of the Trinity
4) Added an extra possible psychological motivation for creating and communicating with beings that a non-Trinitarian god would not have

I asked you about the eternal physical brute fact and you:
1) Have just repeatedly ducked and dodged the question

Why haven't you even attempted to answer my questions? Because I think it's fairly obvious that you can't. If you had some brilliant incite that goes beyond pointing to the logical possibility of an eternal physical brute fact then you would not have dodged my questions.

And then you have the temerity to say that I'm being hypocritical because I ask you some questions and ask you to defend your beliefs. This is so typical of atheists, you go on-and-on about how the arguments and evidence for God are not strong enough to support rational belief, but when it comes to the naturalistic alternative to God i.e. the eternal physical brute fact, all that's necessary is that it's logically possible even though our experience shows that contingent objects are finite and have explanations for their state/existence. So, even though the arguments and evidence I presented are far more compelling than your question dodging about your brute fact, I'm the stupid, irrational person in this dialogue. How in the world do you figure that? It makes no sense.

Regards,
Keith 
  

-----FLIGHT to ROZUMALSKI-----

 
"A sophistical refutation of an argument is a refutation that plausibly appears to be a successful refutation, but is not." Ibid. Walton, pg.16

Indeed, my dialectic runs deeper than the authority of logic itself, deeper than the game of shifting burdens, you will most likely never be able to comprehend what I have done in disposing of your thesis. As a blind man you have not only led yourself into a ditch, but you remain trapped there. I will tell you the way out: read over our exchange again and again until you comprehend what I have said. Only thus will you regain your sight; only thus can you find your way out of the ditch. He that does not first know how to be a disciple cannot be a teacher. You have need of being taught, and yet you would presume to teach. This is in large part your problem... or course, you are also confused because you do not know to whom you should be a disciple.

You think that where your questions are ignored, or remain unanswered, according to your hypocritical, impossible criteria, that there you have established the truth. Thus have you encased yourself within an ignorant dogma. Life is superior to your standard!

Your clash with me was an encounter of luck for you, but you are so ignorant and full of pride (a blind yearning for power) that you may never be able to see it.

Spaciously yours,
Jersey Flight


-----ROZUMALSKI to FLIGHT-----


"'A sophistical refutation of an argument is a refutation that plausibly appears to be a successful refutation, but is not.' Ibid. Walton, pg.16"

You're implying that you actually made an argument against the Trinity, and I don't think that you actually did so, but perhaps I'm not being fair. Maybe you actually did explicate some arguments and due to your great subtlety and/or to my profound daftness I just missed them. So, please clearly and succinctly  formulate the argument against theism that you advanced in this discussion.

"You think that where your questions are ignored, or remain unanswered, according to your hypocritical, impossible criteria, that there you have established the truth."

Why are you holding back, oh great Teacher? Please explain to me why a rational person should believe that an eternal physical brute fact exists. Open my eyes to your profound arguments and evidence for the existence of this mysterious and amazing thing!

Regards,
Keith
 

-----FLIGHT to ROZUMALSKI-----

 
"You're implying that you actually made an argument against the Trinity, and I don't think that you actually did so, but perhaps I'm not being fair."

In the first instance, this proves that you have not understood me. I at no point even attempted to make an argument against the stupidity of your Trinity claim. If you comprehend my position then you comprehend that I legitimately challenged the value of your claim! My position is a rejection of the presumption of value regarding any argumentation or conversation having to do with your position. That is to say, we never even got beyond the first stage of your claim. How can you speak of the moral imperative to make arguments against your Trinity, if you have not first established the value of doing this? You can only compel me toward the motions of your sophistry if you can justify the value of these motions. For not all motions contain value!  

"Maybe you actually did explicate some arguments and due to your great subtlety and/or to my profound daftness I just missed them."

Or perhaps it was due to your profound ignorance and presumptive reading?

"So, please clearly and succinctly formulate the argument against theism that you advanced in this discussion."

If you would have followed my dialectic, which is to say, if you would have paid attention to my questions, there would be no need for further explication. Once again, you demand that I do the work for you.

Listen slow one, I am not obligated to prove (or assume) the value of your claim. This is not my burden; until you can substantiate your assumption of value I am not obligated to do anything more than ignore your position. Theism is the antithesis of life, and as such, its default, ontological status, is that of negative value. You do not seem to understand that there is a hidden, unsupported premise behind your claim: you assume that your claim is worthy of the efforts of life, indeed, you seem to assume that life is obligated toward it!   

My argument can be called, The Argument Against Presumptive Value:

Clearly all claims do not have equal value. This means some claims should be ignored precisely because they lack value. If you told me you believed in the existence of the Jolly Green Giant (and that I was obligated to make an argument against this belief) I would be completely justified to simply ignore you... that is, unless you could prove the value of your claim, unless you could somehow substantiate this asserted-obligation? When did you do this?

I do not, and cannot, bear the burden of proof for your presumption of value! The claim that a conversation, on the existence of the Trinity, constitutes a conversation of value, is every bit as preposterous* as the claim that a conversation on the existence of the Jolly Green Giant, constitutes a conversation of value. You are not talking about the existence of trees and flowers, but the existence of some outlandish, Abstract Monstrosity that you seek to impose on life. But life is already free of such nonsense. Mankind has no need of your Trinity!

*[Here you want to say that I must prove my assertion regarding the preposterous nature of your claim to value, as though your claim should be respected by default... but I am far ahead of your stupidity. The charge of preposterousness is justified by lack of evidence and the extraordinary nature (and irrelevance) of the claim itself. The extraordinary does not rise to the status of the ordinary (nor that of relevance) simply because you assert it to be equal with trees and flowers. A preposterous claim, void of evidence, is simply a preposterous claim.]  

Am I obligated to waste my life investigating every outlandish claim that comes my way? Most certainly not! A wise man must evaluate the claims that come before him in order to intelligently direct his life. Hence, if you cannot provide a justification for your presumption of value then I am justified to simply ignore your claim. This is because life itself has the highest value!

Life, by default, is justified to ignore such stupid and juvenile claims as that of the Trinity, faeries and all other mythological monsters.

Intelligence not only needs to be aware of its hardware, but it needs to assess the value of the software it decides to run on its hardware. NOTHING IS MORE CRUCIAL TO THE CULTIVATION OF INTELLIGENCE!

You are fallaciously asking me to affirm your presumption of value without offering any kind of justification. That I must do this is nothing more than your assertion.

The power of this argument is that it leads to the death of theism. Before you even have the right to begin with your sophistical games, you must first prove that your games have value. If you cannot do this then life not only has a right, but a duty, conferred on it by intelligence, to walk away from your assertions!

This argument is about who bears the burden of proof, and whether or not the one who bears it can actually meet it. But do not mistake my clever friend, this is not an argument about who bears the burden of proof in relation to the existence of God (as this is a mere abstraction) but who bears the burden of proof in relation to the existence of value. If a claim does not have value toward life, then on what grounds can life be said to be compelled or obligated by it? Such false claims, made on life, must be rejected in the name of life! Life that has not yet figured this out betrays itself in the name of empty idealism.    
           
A wise person would simply ignore the stupidity of your Trinity. But what I have proven is that this inattention is not a fallacy, but a kind of justified indifference. Wisdom must play the part of indifference when it comes to the presumption of the value of theism, unless the theist can first substantiate his claim of value. The only reason I have chosen to contend with you is so I can make an example of you; hereby have I used you to manifest the power of this argument!

We need our scientists and scholars (all thinkers of the world) to focus on refining our understanding and control of the world; it is a loss to mankind if they are distracted by the wild and disconnected claims of theism. In order to dispose of theism mankind simply needs to challenge its presumption of value in relation to life. And because theism cannot justify this presumption, without succumbing to the most egregious fallacies, life is not obligated to do anything for or against it, mankind is best served to simply ignore it. Nay, wisdom demands that we must ignore it!* He that would be wise must not assume the value of that abstraction known as theism!

O ye foolish men, why do you study the assertions of theologians when there is yet a world to be mastered! Like a dog that is mortally wounded, let us ever so swiftly dispense with the theologian.  

From this day forth be it known that mankind is in no way obligated to assume the value of theism, but is totally justified to simply ignore it. Instead of wasting your life on theological abstraction my friends, move onto something that matters. Offer up the Argument Against Presumptive Value, and be on your way. The world is full of suffering, strive therefore to prevent that suffering! Educate yourself that you may assist in the education of others.


From him that is wiser, 
kinder, 
greater, 
and nobler than any God,
Jersey Flight


 
----------NOTES----------

 
*[A final word is in order regarding this act of indifference. This act is not simply an act of fallacious evasion, but actually constitutes the most intelligent form of refutation. We are not simply evading, emotively, but legitimately asking the theist to substantiate his unsupported premise of value. If he cannot do this then we have a right to ignore his claim. The reason it is important to clarify this is because the slow and ignorant theist will see it as though we have fallaciously walked away (or at least he will try to spin it this way in order to propagate his public image). The theist is bound to be both shocked and agitated by the swiftness and power of our dialectic (assuming that their position could not to be disposed of so quickly, "hence our argument must be false"). But these are merely groundless assumptions they use to prop up their ontological status (to make themselves feel better about being discarded so swiftly). We are not the one making an extraordinary claim; holding forth the unsupported premise that such a claim has value. My friends, life is free to walk away in the name of life itself! But we have not merely walked away, we have exposed the emptiness and inability of theism to substantiate its claim of value. Theism is not a contender, because theism, even if it were true, would still be irrelevant to the necessary motions of life. We do not bear the burden of proof for theism's presumption of value!] 


-