In a post responding to Osareya, Howard8984 writes:

Why should you not?? Can you refute Osareya’s propositions? You haven’t yet. If you think you have refuted Osareya’s propositions, please tell us what your standard of refutation is, and exactly where in the Bible you find the principles by which you inform your standard, if in fact the Bible is your epistemological standard. (I would love to see this!!)

Are you speaking for yourself here, Howard? Is this observation you make an objective fact? Why should anyone accept your personal-subjective statement here as truth? Again, can you cite the reference in your Bible which states what you are saying above? OR, is this merely one of your famous ‘inferences’? Can you answer any of these questions for us??

If your epistemological standard is found in the Bible, where does the Bible state this? I have never read it. Can you explain what you mean by ‘conditioning control’ in this statement? Can you explain why anyone should accept your personal-subjective opinion here? Is not interpretation an epistemological matter? What specifically is meant by "metaphysics of interpretation" and how do one's "axioms and conditioning control" the metaphysical?

Perhaps that is because your eyes have been effectively closed by such scriptural passages as II Corinthians 5:7, where Paul writes: "... we walk by faith, not by sight." I would infer from this passage and by your own declared allegiance to biblical doctrine that you do not use your eyes (the organ of sight, which the New Testament apparently despises), and therefore you probably have not seen anything anyone has written - hence your constant insertion of words into other people’s mouths. Can you explain why anyone should accept your personal-relative statement??

Can you explain how you arrived at the certain conclusion you present here that Osareya does not have certainty of his implication that the past is like the present? It seems in order to arrive at this conclusion of yours, Howard, that you would have to know everything that Osareya has ever thought, studied and known. If this is not the case, can you explain why anyone should accept your personal-relative statement?

How does a Christian who takes his religion seriously learn to tie his shoes?

Can you explain, Howard, why anyone should accept your personal-subjective opinions as truth? Can you explain how the concept ‘absolute uniformity’ is impossible? Do you think it would first enter thy swollen head to first define what is meant by the term ‘absolute uniformity’ before one begins discharging statements that such a thing is possible or that such a thing is impossible? Can you explain why anyone should accept your personal-relative-subjective-arbitrary-whimsicle-nonsensical-outlandish-comedic-absurd-desparate-idiotic-disingenuous-obtuse-inane and internally vacuous opinion as anything even remotely resembling truth??

Can you define for us the term ‘destroy’? Whoever ‘destroyed’ Jerusalem in AD 70 apparently did not do a very thorough job of it, for it stands even today, 1928 years later as one of the world’s most important capitols (my ‘subjective’ opinion here, folx!). Again, Howard, can you tell me why anyone should accept your personal-relative-laxative-deprived opinions as truth?

You’re right, Howie-boy!! I thought having triplets was unusual! But when my wife gave birth to a 200-lb. bouncing elephant last week, I’m quite convinced that your ‘worldview’ - complete with that solid belief in miracles - is the only ‘rational’ worldview to have!! I’m sold!!! Where do I sign up for tickets to see God???

Heaven forbid that anyone claim that they possess any knowledge whatsoever about the nature of reality!! Whosoever dare that he know the factor of existence shall bear the mark of scorn on his forehead!! Damned be he who inquires into reality!! Blessed be he who reads the books of the Old and New Testaments and surrenders his mind to his superior priestly elites, and declares simply, humbly, and steadfastly: "I believe!!" Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is knowledge. Weakness is strength. Love is fear. Fear is love. Those who hunger SHALL be filled!! Those who dare question Howard SHALL be met with the question: "Why should I buy your personal opinion of the matter?" Those who dare assert a statement of certainty to Howard shall be met with the question: "Why should I buy your personal opinion of the matter?"

And by some miracle you are going to explain this statement?

Are you saying that there are individuals who are participating in this forum who do not know "the entire past or the future"? Can you demonstrate for the group how you have arrived at this certainty? Would you also argue that it is impossible for anyone to possess knowledge of "the entire past or the future"? Can you explain how you arrived at this opinion? Can you explain why anyone should accept your personal-relative opinion?

Is that all unbelievers or some unbelievers? Can you explain how you come to this opinion? Can you explain how lotteries are parallel in this context to reincarnation, ‘wonders of crystals’, ‘pyramids’ or even the ‘miracles’ told in the tales of the Bible? After all, there will eventually be a winner in any state lottery. That is a fact, and identification of this fact is based on reason, not on faith. Can you tell if any of the participants of the debate play the lottery? If so, can you tell us the difference between you and any two-bit psychic charlatan? Can you explain to us why we should accept your personal-subjective opinion as truth?

Have you heard about the latest miracle? God got caught in the Oval office last week funneling embezzled funds to the democratic White House a la John Huang. Believe it! For as Howard says, in order "to deny a miracle would require a complete analysis of every claim of miracles and a complete explanation of every other event that has ever occurred in the universe". Get ready to begin your analysis, folx!! You’ve just been presented with a claim of a miracle!! According to Howard’s personal standard of ‘miracle-refutation’, in order to refute my claim of the miracle I report above, anyone so inclined to attack its merits will now have to engage himself in a lifelong and eternally inconclusive but ‘complete analysis of every claim of miracles...’ AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT ALSO a ‘complete explanation of EVERY other event that has EVER occurred in the universe!!" No, do not ask for evidence! My miracle is true UNTIL proven false!! After all, this knowledge has been REVEALED to me by God Himself (just after I got out of the shower this afternoon!!). Now, who can argue with that?

(Basically, Howard’s ‘standard’ above means that one can NEVER deny the report of an alleged miracle, no matter what the source. After all, Howard said it!)

And STILL Howard has not explained to us WHY ANYONE should accept his personal-subjective opinions as truth.

Christians are symbolically dead anyway, so what are you complaining about? Get a life!

There are new oxymorons coined everyday!!

Again, Howard must be speaking for himself here.

But.... but..... but.....??? Finish the sentence, Howard.

Why should I buy your personal opinion of the matter?

Which are equally unclear....

So does God decide to ‘use the means of slow self-destruction...’, and if so how? Does God’s decision mean he’s changed in some way? If God hasn’t used the ‘slow self-destruction’ technique for, say, 200,000 years, and then decides it’s time to use it again, doesn’t that mean that there is some tiny little change going on with the ‘Big Guy’ in the clouds there?? You are the one who said that ‘God does not change...’ I suppose you must know. After all, you are Howard.

Howard, do you think your statement here can be construed as an ‘ad hominem’?? You’re right! Perish the thought!

The moral of today’s story: You ask stupid questions, you get stupid answers!

Feeling punchy after a successful week at work!! Have a good weekend one and all!

Tindrbox

_________________________________