A Futile Debate with a God-Botherer…

Phil

Sure. It’s not because it’s a book. Don’t you know that?

Metaphysician

So, your argument for how we know you cannot prove anything is because A Book Says So. But that is the book presupposing that you cannot know anything without God.

So, your argument reduces to “I know you cannot prove anything without God, because I assume you cannot prove anything without God.”

Phil

Because God says.

Metaphysician

So, you don’t know that you cannot prove anything without God and that is an empty claim.

Dwayne, me, says God is wrong. And therefore, since I do have a book, it is true. Sorry, I win. Because I have a book.

Phil

You don’t listen.

Metaphysician

My Books Says a Thing, I win. No, I do listen, this is exactly what you are saying.

Phil

That’s not what the Bible says.

Metaphysician

I am just sarcastically paraphrasing.

No, no you said that the reason we know you cannot prove anything without God is because the Bible says so.

So, your “proof” for the fact that you cannot say anything without God is because a Book Said So.

Phil

Yeah, because the Bible is God’s world not because it’s a book, Sir.

Metaphysician

That is what you said.

How do you know it is God’s word? I know, because the Book Said So.

Phil

Without God I can’t proof anything.

Metaphysician

Why? Because the Book said so? See how stupidly circular this is?

Circular reasoning does not work. Not even if your circle starts with “God Said So”,

Phil

You don’t listen, I even gave you the answer for that.

Metaphysician

Then tell me again.

Phil

Any claim to ultimate authority must be self-authorizing.

Metaphysician

You know you cannot prove anything because it says in the Bible. And that is God’s Word. But how do you know it is God’s word? Because the Book said so?

What do you mean by self-authorizing? Explain that to me.

Phil

But why I should? You have to say consistent to your worldview. But you aren’t.

Metaphysician

Explain it.

Phil

How can you know anything?

Metaphysician

No. Answer me.

Phil

I want to.

Metaphysician

Then do it.

Phil

Can you answer?

Metaphysician

How can I know anything? I believe I told you, by looking at the world and using reason and science. Logic. And no, logic does not come from God, do not go there.

Now, I answered your question. Answer me.

Phil

Ehm, there are problems with it.

Metaphysician

Answer my question. We are not talking about those problems now.

Phil

Yes, we do.

Metaphysician

Not that I believe that they actually exist.

No, we are not.

Phil

I will not let you borrow from God’s worldview. I’m sorry.

Metaphysician

Then we are done.

Phil

Alright.

Metaphysician

Answer the question or this is over.

But no, I do not borrow from the worldview of liars and charlatans.

You have to, if you want to win any argument. Not that I believe you have ever won any.

Phil

Knowledge claims all the time, but you don’t want to go into it.

Metaphysician

Yes. At least I don’t have “Because A Book Says A Thing” as my argument.

Here is a book that said a lot of things. Oh, you don’t like this one? Strange…

Or claim that we know the book is right because the book somehow proves it without offering any evidence.

Phil

That is not my argument, even that I told you its not because it is a book.

You are rude and mad.

You better take a break and come later.

Metaphysician

It’s the Word of God, I know. But what you really have is a book. That is all you have.

I am not mad. I am passionately opposed to dishonest people such as you.

Phil

Well again, it’s a truth claim.

Metaphysician

The book is a truth claim? Well yeah…

But it cannot validate itself.

Phil

Again, truth claims.

Metaphysician

Again, you have nothing.

Phil

Again, a truth claim.

Metaphysician

You giant hypocritical liar.

Phil

But you won’t go into, listen I don’t want you to be mad.

If you don’t want to go into it, okay.

Its fine have a good day.

Metaphysician

Let’s go into it then. What did you want to ask me? Maybe I will hear a new, ridiculous bald-faced lie.

Phil

How can you know anything?

Metaphysician

Again, I went over this. Things are what they are. We have senses, we can observe reality and our senses are reliable. People can see what is. We have logic and reason and we can identify the facts of reality, through careful study and by using reason.

How many times must I answer this question?

Phil

So, with reasoning then?

Metaphysician

Now, proceed to show that you do not understand reason.

Phil

Could you answer with yes or no?

Metaphysician

With reasoning? Yes, that is what I said like six times.

Phil

How do you know your reasoning is valid?

Metaphysician

Because I do not claim certainty about things that I cannot prove. There are, of course, things I am not certain about. But I do not claim certainty without evidence. But I know my reasoning is valid when I can prove it to be so.

Of course, you don’t seem to think reality is real, so you are going to attack the validity of proof. Am I correct?

Leave a comment