A conversation

Original OP

My initial response, CF never responded but SP did. (Edited in some parts for length only)

My attempt at trying to pin SP to a position. Really struggled as he tried the superiority play.

Had to refresh memory on discourse analysis. (Discourse analysis is sometimes defined as the analysis of language 'beyond the sentence'. This contrasts with types of analysis more typical of modern linguistics, which are chiefly concerned with the study of grammar: the study of smaller bits of language, such as sounds (phonetics and phonology), parts of words (morphology), meaning (semantics), and the order of words in sentences (syntax). Discourse analysts study larger chunks of language as they flow together.) The issue I have with SP's use is that he may be using it improperly.  While I am going back 20 yrs to what was learned in my biblical hermeneutics class, what he describes further along in or discussion doesn't jive with me.  After the conclusion of discussion I realized while he may be sincere thinking he was driving home a point it was a typical red-herring.

Again tried to pin SP down to a position concerning "science".

BINGO,,, got what I wanted, denial of science.  Newton's 3rd Law has not been refuted, refined maybe but not refuted.  Remember I am trying to keep things simple as I don't want my argument to get sidetracked into mumbo-jumbo.

GL makes a good point of SP's use of special pleading.

Notice that SP did not address my point directly concerning a GOTG.


GL put into words something I was thinking but could grasp at the moment.  Something SP sates that needs further digging into.

SP:: some things either happen for no reason, or because there is a will for them to happen
Me:: "a will"  = GOD

SP:: we don't know, therefore God did it vs  there is a meaningful message, therefore there might be a messenger."

Me:: your assuming that there is a message (some random incident) and then continuing to suppose the message has meaning therefore supposes a messenger, therefore god. Your making the assumption of "therefore god" by stating the possibility of a message therefore a messenger.

That is how I see his argument,,,

A point I come back to later in the discussion.

SP broaches discourse analysis again and this shows why I believe he is misapplying  such. First you have to demonstrate there is a message, something SP cannot do beyond a subjective experience.  He even admits, "first we need to know if there is, in fact, a message" and then leaps to "methodologies for study do exist." Dude, you haven't even demonstrated a message exist yet.

And here comes another red-herring, which I wanted to avoid as this gets into presuppositional hell which I wanted to avoid.  One because I find the presup argument silly; a pointless pursuit and I actively avoid conversations. And, two, TBH I am not that strong in my counters.

Again he is assuming there is a message being communicated and this demonstrates god,,,

SP does not understand what a "revelation" is and by making it something it is not does not make him correct.  As usual, what I find with theist, the predilection to define words as they see fit.  Kent Hovind is a master at this with his "6 types or definitions of evolution".

SP then delves in to some insane analogy encompassing the book and movie "The Hunt for Red October".

And yes, I am referring to the Thomas Paine definition of revelation from "Age of Reason".

The rest of our discussion is pretty self explanatory. His presuppositions are not allowing him to see past them.

All that to find out  SP has no viable counter to my claim "if God exists, it would then make it possible that Newton's Third Law of Motion (every action has an equal and opposite reaction) has exceptions. But it doesn't, which is why it's a scientific law, rather than laymans' guesswork."  Or put simply, god's actions are testable if you claim he interacts with the goings on of the planet (more on that in a later post).

Oh,,,and SP, I don't give a flying fuck if you have a degree when you outright deny science, "no, I must again say, that I do not. some things either happen for no reason, or because there is a will for them to happen. not every action has a reaction, and not every reaction results from an action. most do, but not all. it is in the spaces between causalities, that we find God."

No person versed in the sciences would ever make such a statement! (H/T DFoda)