ARCHIVE: I believe religion to be obsolete
- Thread starter prodigal
- Start date
"Jimmy likes Elaine.":freak:
It was about time for some comic relief. :thumb:
Hilston:
That doesn't seem to be a very concise premise. Is your "premise A" a way of saying that you accept that you can't trust your senses?? Because, if you don't trust your senses, you are completely at a loss to claim that there is indeed an ancient book or an invisible God or much of anything, for that matter. If you believe your senses are capable of fooling you, you have no way to verify that the ancient book is a book and old, at that, or whether it is even really anything at all. For example, in premise B, you can't simple state that there is an ancient book, you would have to state that you think you may be perceiving something that may entirely be fooling your senses into interpretting it as an old book, while accepting that it may not even exist at all -- since you have no way of validating your senses. Try including that as a part of premise B and see how your argument proceeds from there. :chuckle:
If I've misconstrued what you've meant by premise A, please clarify what you mean by "cherished assumptions".
Combined reply to Gabriel and Talib:
Hilston previously posted concerning wickwoman's and prodigal's cherished assumptions and speaking in their behalf:
... Premise A: My own efforts to validate my cherished assumptions fail.
While we're at it, let's hear your method of validating your senses.
:freak:
Hilston asks Gabriel to elaborate. Hilston would like to see a specific example of what amuses Gabriel.
The Bible tells Hilston that "a merry heart does good like a medicine:"
Hilston previously posted concerning wickwoman's and prodigal's cherished assumptions and speaking in their behalf:
... Premise A: My own efforts to validate my cherished assumptions fail.
No, I was stating that in behalf of wickwoman and Prodigal. The latter admitted this.
Talib, you need to either (a) catch up to the discussion by going back and reading what preceded these recent posts, or (b) gird your loins for the public thrashing you will receive if you persist to mischaracterize the participants of this discussion.
Thanks for the epistemology lesson, David Hume. Please go back and read my posts before you waste your time and mine and in the process make an abject fool of yourself.
While we're at it, let's hear your method of validating your senses.
What you've misconstrued is that "premise A" belongs to me. It doesn't. I happen to believe that my senses and reasoning faculties are generally reliable, and I can validate that belief. Wickwoman and Prodigal are the ones who are up "Premise 'A' Creek" without a proverbial paddle. But you should have already known that to be my thesis before you even posted.
:freak:
brother Willi
New member
interesting
wickwoman
New member
Dear Hilston:
When I say "objective," you can put your own meaning and provide me with what you believe is objective proof. Otherwise, you can use the dictionary just as I did above.
The game is this Hilston: You tell prodigal he can't trust his own judgment and/or bodily senses. Fine then. By your own argument, he can't trust your judgment either. As a matter of fact, the argument you present tells him he can't trust the argument because you, a human being, have presented it to him.
And, he can't trust the Bible, because, if he used his own senses to read the Bible and his own judgment to interpret it, he would be right back where he started. Guess what, that's the only way he will be able to comprehend the Bible, by using his own eyes to see it and using his own brain to comprehend it.
This is the quandary of your "logic." If you doubt your human ability to understand, then you've basically obliviated the whole God concept, as it is a concept contrived by human beings. Aliens did not come down and hand us this idea of God. Human beings have been considering God since humans could consider. So, if we cannot use human reasoning and abilities to comprehend him, then we should all just throw in the towel about God and continue bumbling and stumbling around like a bunch of deaf, dumb and blind people.
How about this idea: God is powerful enough to reveal himself/herself in a way that Prodigal can understand. This is what I was suggesting to Prodigal when I suggested he enjoy a sunset once in a while. The way to discover God is inside him. He will never accept your God. He needs to discover God on his own. Why don't you trust that God is powerful enough to show Prodigal that he/she exists in a way the he can understand? I do.
wickwoman
New member
Jack, I'm not here to debate translations. My understanding is that the NIV is more accurate than KJV. It's not a new concept that I'm just making up. Sure you can dig up any theory on the KJV you want to dig up.
Besides the fact that you know I don't take the Bible literally, nor do I even believe that all the Bible is God inspired. When presented with a scripture that appeared to "damn" me (which was presented I might add in a rather angry, rude and disagreeable manner) I merely responded with a scripture that appears to ellaborate on the whole "broken" concept. Sometimes I have to speak a language that the person I'm conversing with understands.
One Eyed Jack
New member
I don't have to dig up any theories. We're dealing with known facts here. You should have done your research before you tried to bandy semantics.
Yeah, I know that. So?
What was so angry, rude, and disagreeable about the manner in which it was presented? When you ask your husband to do something, and he says "no problem," do you accuse him of being angry, rude, and disagreeable?
You responded with the very same Scripture that had just been presented to you (Luke 20:18). You weren't trying to elaborate on the whole 'broken' concept." You were trying to convince everybody that the verses Turbo and I had posted came from inaccurate translations.
Why not everytime instead of just sometimes?
Last edited:
You want "fair" and "impartial" proof? What kind of proof would that be? Give me an example. If I'm going to try to meet your requirements, I need to know what they mean, and on what grounds you stipulate said requirements. To me, that's objective. That's fair. That's impartial, according to my view of the terms. If you share that view, then let's hear your response.
To be more precise, I told him that he has no grounds on which to trust them. I believe he can, and I know why. He admits that he knows neither how, nor why, and is thus left with a blind faith commitment to their verity. I suspect you're in the same sinking boat.
On the contrary, I have sufficient grounds on which to trust my senses and reasoning.
That's exactly right. So he's in heap-big trouble when it comes to his epistemology, isn't he?
Of course. If he has no grounds on which to trust his senses or his reason, then anything he does employing those faculties is suspect. But I didn't say he can't trust them; I only said that he has no grounds on which to trust them; which means he has a blind faith, just as you do.
Of course, and I'm telling him, and you, that your eyes and brain are sufficiently trustworthy to read, comprehend and acknowledge the message of the Bible. I have grounds on which to say this; you and Prodigal do not.
On the contrary, it's your quandary, not mine. I have no doubt about this matter. But if you are willing to be consistent, you must admit doubt in your worldview.
I don't doubt my ability because I have a foundation on which to base it (a pou sto, in Archimedian parlance). You and prodigal do not.
Of course, and that is because humans have rational and sensory faculties that work. That doesn't mean everyone is able to justifiably validate those faculties, which is what I'm trying to communicate to you. If I didn't think you could understand and read what I'm saying, I wouldn't be wasting my time. But I do believe you can, and I believe that based on a solid epistemological footing, which you don't have.
If you were consistent with your own premises and presuppositions, that's exactly what you'd do. But that's the problem with irrational and godless worldviews: They cannot be consistent and function according to their own espoused tenets.
He is indeed. And Prodigal is without excuse. That's what the scripture says:
"... [T] hat which may be known of God is revealed in them; for God has shown it to them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
This is a description of you and prodigal. "Vain in their imaginations" and "foolish heart was darkened" is the 17th-century way of saying "emataiothesan en tois dialogismois auton kai eskotisthe 'e asunetos auton kardia," which means the unbeliever becomes empty in his/her reasoning faculties and his/her irrational thinking results in a darkening of his/her heart. This is what is happening to you and prodigal.
Who says?
I do, too; in fact the Bible says God already has sufficiently shown you and Prodigal that he/she exists in a way that you both can understand. But you suppress that knowledge in sinful unrighteousness. It's my job to show that you that you can't have God on your own terms. That's why Prodigal got scared when the light shot through. He started to like what he was hearing, but then realized that he couldn't have God on any terms but God's. And Prodigal doesn't like that. Neither do you.
Pr 16:25 There is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Hilston is amused and curious about why Gabriel is a visual person. Hilston wants to know if and how Gabriel is sure that Gabriel's visual faculties comport with reality, or is Gabriel not concerned about whether or not this is the case?
As Hilston indicated earlier, Hilston is interested in seeing the twists and turns of pretzel, too. Hilston requests a specific example regarding his logic that fits Gabriel's visualization.
Hilston urges Gabriel to think a little more carefully, because this does not represent Hilston's thesis. Hilston does not disallow questions based on a deficit of sense-calibration, but rather on the questioner's own stipulated requirements. The questioner demands a certain kind of proof for Hilston's view, yet the questioner does not apply the same rules to questioner's own method of evaluation. Hilston finds hypocrisy repugnant.
Hilston,
(No, I'm merely informing you of the only way to validate your senses.)
The only way of validating my senses is to play your game. You're claiming victory before the battle has been fought. I don't think your exhortation for the validation of my senses is necessary. I think it's a clever tool to make an argument end with, you know, asking someone to do something that you know they won't but telling them that it's necessary. Nice trick, Hilston, but maybe you aren't as smart as I thought you were.
(You're still left with an irrational worldview on which you have no basis to prove, test or validate your own faculties, knowledge or beliefs, and no basis to expect proof or validation from others about their beliefs.)
Like I said above, I don't have to validate anything. Your sensory validation trick is almost as good as Clete's biblical worldview. You can talk about your secret weapons all day long, but in the end all you have are words and empty ideas.
(Why should we admit that to you when you can't even justify your standards of proof, let alone your own ability to assess whatever proof is presented? Did you forget that part?)
You're just trying to take the attention off of yourselves, Hilston. Trying to discredit my senses is just a way for you and other christians to claim the pot without showing your cards.
(And you agreed, remember? Didn't you admit "there's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there"? Don't be a hypocrite, Prodigal.)
Actually I was just asking you a question when I said that, I admitted to nothing.
(But you cannot have any certainty about anything in your experience, and you never will until you submit your thinking to the only One who exhaustively knows everything)
I do have certainty. And I don't have to validate anything. Call me a hypocrite, call me whatever you want but the burden of proof is on you, Hilston, and everyone else who claims to worship the one who "exhaustively knows everything".
(I can prove it.)
Than do it! That's all I'm asking for.
(I don't deny that you can make predictions and make proofs. My point is that you must be arbitrary in doing so.)
Not necessarily.
(That's called self-delusion. Crazy people talk like that, Prodigal. They're always the first ones to tell you that they're not crazy)
You're the one who worships a zombie messiah, believes in demons, believes in hell, believes in an ancient book, etc. You're calling me crazy?
(Without certainty about predication and logic (which you admit you cannot validate) and without certainty about your sensory faculties (which you admit you cannot validate), you have no certainty about your proof of anything.)
I do have certainty. The quest to validate one's senses is a quest that cannot be resolved, especially if resolution means bowing to an invisible deity, the only evidence for which rests in a 2,000 year old book.
(You've completely missed the point. It doesn't have to turn red for you own admission to be true. Remember when you recognized this?: "[T]here's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there.")
Once again, you're taking my quotes out of context. That was not an admission of anything, it was me clarifying your point.
(Seeing it with what? Your eyes, whose verity you cannot validate? Your visual cortex, whose proper function you cannot validate?)
Listen, just because you can't prove what you believe and I can doesn't mean you have to get all bitter and try to discredit my eye sight. It's just dandy, thank you, 20/20 in point of fact. My eye sight is just fine, Hilston, the burden of proof is on you.
(I admit I had hope for you. Maybe not in "converting" you, but at least in your acknowledging the epistemological dilemma that emerges when one is willing to ask the tough philosophical questions)
You've created the dilemma, Hilston. When confronted, when cornered, when the burden of proof is thrown so heavily in the face of your kind you get hostile and you create "epistemological dilemmas". If you can create enough gridlock, if you can create enough dilemmas, than the attention comes off of you and onto problems you've created that can't be solved. Like I said, it's a nice trick, but I've fallen for nothing.
(But human self-delusion is rather powerful thing. So powerful that it send scores of people to hell every day.)
I can't believe you mentioned human self-delusion AND hell in the same thought. Are you kidding me? You wanna talk about human self-delusion? You believe that I'm going to die and go to a fiery pit and burn for the rest of eternity, Hilston, what were you saying about human self-delusion?
Clete,
(prodigal has already admitted that his world view is in as a bad a position as he is claiming that Christianity is in, that's step one.)
I admitted nothing to that effect. Although my memory isn't quite what it used to be. Oh, and Clete, I thought you were letting Hilston fight your battles for you?
Lighthouse,
(That's just sad that you believe that. Who gave you your breath, by the way?)
My parents. Don't you know where babies come from LH?
(You've missed it all, because you refuse to see it for what it is. It's staring you in the face, and you claim it's something other than what it is)
If it were so pure and beautiful in it's truth and visibility, how is it that I can't see it? Must not be as grand as you think it is.
(You do too think that. You expect somethign from Him, and think that He at least owes you proof of His existence.)
AHA!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN READ MINDS!!!!!!! I don't think god owes me anything, if I thought that I'd still believe in it. I think I owes me something, and I think I can make good on that debt to myself. That's I believe in myself.
At least I can prove that I exist.
Oh, Hilston, I think you're right about "unfazed". I wasn't sure when I wrote it, but I figured it didn't really matter that much how I spelled it, just as long as everyone understood what I meant. You are right, I was a little shaken, but not stirred.
I remain, as always, unfazed.
Prodigal
(No, I'm merely informing you of the only way to validate your senses.)
The only way of validating my senses is to play your game. You're claiming victory before the battle has been fought. I don't think your exhortation for the validation of my senses is necessary. I think it's a clever tool to make an argument end with, you know, asking someone to do something that you know they won't but telling them that it's necessary. Nice trick, Hilston, but maybe you aren't as smart as I thought you were.
(You're still left with an irrational worldview on which you have no basis to prove, test or validate your own faculties, knowledge or beliefs, and no basis to expect proof or validation from others about their beliefs.)
Like I said above, I don't have to validate anything. Your sensory validation trick is almost as good as Clete's biblical worldview. You can talk about your secret weapons all day long, but in the end all you have are words and empty ideas.
(Why should we admit that to you when you can't even justify your standards of proof, let alone your own ability to assess whatever proof is presented? Did you forget that part?)
You're just trying to take the attention off of yourselves, Hilston. Trying to discredit my senses is just a way for you and other christians to claim the pot without showing your cards.
(And you agreed, remember? Didn't you admit "there's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there"? Don't be a hypocrite, Prodigal.)
Actually I was just asking you a question when I said that, I admitted to nothing.
(But you cannot have any certainty about anything in your experience, and you never will until you submit your thinking to the only One who exhaustively knows everything)
I do have certainty. And I don't have to validate anything. Call me a hypocrite, call me whatever you want but the burden of proof is on you, Hilston, and everyone else who claims to worship the one who "exhaustively knows everything".
(I can prove it.)
Than do it! That's all I'm asking for.
(I don't deny that you can make predictions and make proofs. My point is that you must be arbitrary in doing so.)
Not necessarily.
(That's called self-delusion. Crazy people talk like that, Prodigal. They're always the first ones to tell you that they're not crazy)
You're the one who worships a zombie messiah, believes in demons, believes in hell, believes in an ancient book, etc. You're calling me crazy?
(Without certainty about predication and logic (which you admit you cannot validate) and without certainty about your sensory faculties (which you admit you cannot validate), you have no certainty about your proof of anything.)
I do have certainty. The quest to validate one's senses is a quest that cannot be resolved, especially if resolution means bowing to an invisible deity, the only evidence for which rests in a 2,000 year old book.
(You've completely missed the point. It doesn't have to turn red for you own admission to be true. Remember when you recognized this?: "[T]here's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there.")
Once again, you're taking my quotes out of context. That was not an admission of anything, it was me clarifying your point.
(Seeing it with what? Your eyes, whose verity you cannot validate? Your visual cortex, whose proper function you cannot validate?)
Listen, just because you can't prove what you believe and I can doesn't mean you have to get all bitter and try to discredit my eye sight. It's just dandy, thank you, 20/20 in point of fact. My eye sight is just fine, Hilston, the burden of proof is on you.
(I admit I had hope for you. Maybe not in "converting" you, but at least in your acknowledging the epistemological dilemma that emerges when one is willing to ask the tough philosophical questions)
You've created the dilemma, Hilston. When confronted, when cornered, when the burden of proof is thrown so heavily in the face of your kind you get hostile and you create "epistemological dilemmas". If you can create enough gridlock, if you can create enough dilemmas, than the attention comes off of you and onto problems you've created that can't be solved. Like I said, it's a nice trick, but I've fallen for nothing.
(But human self-delusion is rather powerful thing. So powerful that it send scores of people to hell every day.)
I can't believe you mentioned human self-delusion AND hell in the same thought. Are you kidding me? You wanna talk about human self-delusion? You believe that I'm going to die and go to a fiery pit and burn for the rest of eternity, Hilston, what were you saying about human self-delusion?
Clete,
(prodigal has already admitted that his world view is in as a bad a position as he is claiming that Christianity is in, that's step one.)
I admitted nothing to that effect. Although my memory isn't quite what it used to be. Oh, and Clete, I thought you were letting Hilston fight your battles for you?
Lighthouse,
(That's just sad that you believe that. Who gave you your breath, by the way?)
My parents. Don't you know where babies come from LH?
(You've missed it all, because you refuse to see it for what it is. It's staring you in the face, and you claim it's something other than what it is)
If it were so pure and beautiful in it's truth and visibility, how is it that I can't see it? Must not be as grand as you think it is.
(You do too think that. You expect somethign from Him, and think that He at least owes you proof of His existence.)
AHA!!!!!!!!! YOU CAN READ MINDS!!!!!!! I don't think god owes me anything, if I thought that I'd still believe in it. I think I owes me something, and I think I can make good on that debt to myself. That's I believe in myself.
At least I can prove that I exist.
Oh, Hilston, I think you're right about "unfazed". I wasn't sure when I wrote it, but I figured it didn't really matter that much how I spelled it, just as long as everyone understood what I meant. You are right, I was a little shaken, but not stirred.
I remain, as always, unfazed.
Prodigal
Do you hear yourself? To say in one moment "The only way of validating my senses ..." and then to say in the next moment "... is to play your game" is quite ridiculous, isn't it? I mean, you take one of the most fundamental assumptions of human experience and admit you have no validation, then turn right around and say that validating them is a "game." Another horse led to water.
You're right. But it's not because of my unwillingness to fight it. It's because you have no weapons, Prodigal.
It has nothing to do with smarts, Prodigal, but of logical necessity. Since you've all but admitted to having an irrational worldview, such terms as "argument" and "clever" really shouldn't matter to you, let alone erroneously calling me "smart." I'm not that smart. Ask my wife. Ask my boss.
Hilston wrote:
You're still left with an irrational worldview on which you have no basis to prove, test or validate your own faculties, knowledge or beliefs, and no basis to expect proof or validation from others about their beliefs.
Then neither do I. Stop being a hypocrite by demanding that other people validate their claims. Stop boasting about how you deny "claims that have no proof to verify their validity." Those were your words, remember?
What would you have said if I called your challenge at "trick" when you demanded "proof to verify [the] validity" of my claims? It's not a "trick" Prodigal. It is fundamental, which you yourself recognized in your initial challenge. Now you conveniently call it a "trick."
Nice trick, Prodigal, calling you own demand for "proof to verify their validity" empty ideas.
I've shown you my cards. It's not that complicated. Explain what you don't understand I'll elaborate.
Hilston wrote:
And you agreed, remember? Didn't you admit "there's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there"? Don't be a hypocrite, Prodigal.
OK, fine. What was this then?: "The only way of validating my senses is to play your game." Were you just asking a question when you said that?
And you're not crazy either, are you?
Then neither do I. You need to remove the following phrase and its cognates from your thinking: "I deny outrageous claims that have no proof to verify their validity."
The burden of proof is on everyone, Prodigal. Anyone who makes a claim must prove it. I've proven that you cannot validate your senses or reasoning. You've admitted as much.
I only need to know three things:
(a) What do you want me to prove?
(b) What would consider to be sufficient proof?
(c) How do you validate your stipulated requirement in (b) above?
Hilston wrote:
I don't deny that you can make predictions and make proofs. My point is that you must be arbitrary in doing so.
Then show me how you can make predictions and proofs without being arbitrary. If you can't, then you need to shut. up.
Hilston wrote:
That's called self-delusion. Crazy people talk like that, Prodigal. They're always the first ones to tell you that they're not crazy
I'm not calling you crazy. I'm calling you self-deluded. You're the one who admitted that you cannot validate your senses and claim that you don't have to. :kookoo:
Hilston wrote:
Without certainty about predication and logic (which you admit you cannot validate) and without certainty about your sensory faculties (which you admit you cannot validate), you have no certainty about your proof of anything.
And you're not self-deluded either, right?
Notice the form of Prodigal's reasoning here:
Premise A: Validation of X depends on Y.
Premise B: I don't like Y.
Conclusion: Validation of X cannot be resolved.
Hilston wrote:
You've completely missed the point. It doesn't have to turn red for you own admission to be true. Remember when you recognized this?: "[T]here's no way anything can be proven so long as there's the possibility that our eyes are actually seeing something that isn't there."
Fine. Then what is this if not an admission?: "The only way of validating my senses is to play your game."
Hilston wrote: Seeing it with what? Your eyes, whose verity you cannot validate? Your visual cortex, whose proper function you cannot validate?
Notice Prodigal's form of reasoning:
Premise A: I can't validate my senses unless I play Hilston's game
Premise B: I don't like Hilston's game.
Conclusion: Hilston is bitter.
On the contrary, Prodigal, YOU started this by demanding proof and verification to validate claims. Remember? I've simply used your own stipulations on you. And now you don't like it. You tacitly claim to have the ability to evaluate "proof and verification." So I challenged your claim using your own requirements. The burden of proof was thrown heavily in YOUR face, Prodigal. Furthermore, I recognize that no one likes to be shown they're wrong. I also understand that whenever someone is shown to be wrong, the messenger is always viewed as hostile, bitter, and a big meanie. So it comes as no surprise that you respond this way. If anything, if proves that you're more than "fazed." You've been shaken and stirred, Prodigal, and now everyone sees it.
Hilston—
I would like to disagree with you on a few points, though I fear in jumping into the middle of a parlay I might be opening myself up to something already covered. This argument seems to be working on the premise that and understanding of God is somehow necessary to understand anything, or that not believing in Him is enough to satisfy one's existance, yes?
In this last post you made a couple of If X, then Y statements, wherein you juxtaposed your own interpretations of what it is that you believe prodigal meant. That's fallacious arguing as I think you're intelligent enough to know. In particular: X is derived from Y/ I don't like Y/ Thus X cannot be resolved. In any argument of religion, it is only in the theistic individual's worldview that X is derived from Y. Thus if one is to have an objective argument (as much as anything can be called objective in a world that is entirely subjective), one must dismiss the premise one is attempting to prove, and not use it in arguing. You can't use a premise to prove itself.
I would like to disagree with you on a few points, though I fear in jumping into the middle of a parlay I might be opening myself up to something already covered. This argument seems to be working on the premise that and understanding of God is somehow necessary to understand anything, or that not believing in Him is enough to satisfy one's existance, yes?
In this last post you made a couple of If X, then Y statements, wherein you juxtaposed your own interpretations of what it is that you believe prodigal meant. That's fallacious arguing as I think you're intelligent enough to know. In particular: X is derived from Y/ I don't like Y/ Thus X cannot be resolved. In any argument of religion, it is only in the theistic individual's worldview that X is derived from Y. Thus if one is to have an objective argument (as much as anything can be called objective in a world that is entirely subjective), one must dismiss the premise one is attempting to prove, and not use it in arguing. You can't use a premise to prove itself.
Last edited:
Originally posted by lighthouse
You obviously didn't read my post, previous to the one in which I posted the quote you used.
Because somebody has to say it.
Zakath-
They were never Christians.
...which is known, of course, as the No True Scotsman fallacy (no expecting you to take time to look that up). It's an escape hatch, Brandon; a phony way of deflecting attention.
No. Atheists and anti-Christians understand things. I don't deny that. Neither does the Bible. What I (and the Bible) deny them is the ability to account for what they understand, and the means by which they understand.
No, you're not following the point. Remember that Prodigal said the following: "The only way of validating my senses is to play your game. "
Prodigal later complained:
"The quest to validate one's senses is a quest that cannot be resolved, especially if resolution means bowing to an invisible deity, the only evidence for which rests in a 2,000 year old book." [Emphases added by Hilston]
So here is what I wrote:
Premise A: Validation of X depends on Y [Which Prodigal admits; this is not merely my own interpretation]
Premise B: [Prodigal] do[es]n't like Y. [No dispute on this point, right?]
Prodigal's conclusion: Validation of X cannot be resolved.
On the contrary, Prodigal admitted this. I was not putting words in his mouth. Here again is what he said: "The only way of validating my senses is to play your game." In other words, one does not have to be a "theist" to acknowledge that the validation of one's senses depends on the existence of the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible. His own words and actions prove this to you, NavyDude. That's why Prodigal was so determined to dismiss the need for validation, because he refuses to surrender to the God of the Bible. And by so doing, he admits that he recognizes that he cannot have one without the other. He doesn't want the God of the Bible, so he's willing to sacrifice his rationality in order to dismiss Him.
NavyDude, is that statement entirely subjective, or objectively true?
That's true, and that's precisely why the Judeo-Christian worldview is uniquely able to account for all predication and human experience.
I'm certainly not going to lead an argument for Atheism (I'm Catholic), but it seems to me (and I very well could be wrong, as often I am when attempting to ascertain unwritten meaning from Internet text) that (given the subject's prediliction to argue and instigate a rucus for his own amusement) prodigal was most likely speaking (or rather, typing, unless he has one of those neat little Talk Type headsets) facetiously (I hope I spelled that right; if not, it's supposed to be a word similar in meaning to sarcastically, and of the same word type) and/or condescendingly. But even if he wasn't, he could (for the sake of argument) have been referring to ANY text which has existed for at least two millennia. By that qualification alone, he could have been referring to Homer's Illiad. But you and I both know that this is not the case; however, due to your level of nit-picking, you create for most readers the view that you are being overly analytical and it is indeed possible that you sometimes (in your literal analysis of typed (or possibly spoken) words) miss (either by failure or design) the unspoken meaning.
I'm with you.
Here's where we go astray. I would be willing to argue that one may be a "theist" without even knowing of the Judeo-Christian deity. Why there was a talk just last month by our local priest who was saying that the Native Americans were most likely not in Hell for having not known of Christ. He proposes that everyone who wishes to live a good and Godly life is capable of doing so, even in complete ignorance of Christ's coming and dying for us and for our sins. He further proposes that many spiritualities are able to conceive of the goodness of God, without knowing of God as we know Him. In such a case, one would have met all the requisites of being a Theist, even a Judeo-Christian Theist, without knowing of the Judeo-Christian deity.
That depends entirely on the quantum flux at any given moment. But let's just call it objective and hope no one notices, eh?
You'll have to explain to me why exactly Judeo-Christian belief is required to account for the validation of human experience and consciousness. I'm pretty sure many of those people who lived some several thousand years before the Bible is dated probably knew how to see, even though they knew nothing of Yahweh.