A Futile Debate with a God-Botherer…

Metaphysician

Do you know what a circular argument is?

A non-circular argument is one that is not that.

Phil

I ask you what do you mean by that.

To be sure.

Metaphysician

A circular argument is when you say something like “X is true because of Y. How do I know Y is true? Because X is true.” You see? You circle back to X all the time. Let me give an example.

“The Bible is the Word of God because God says so. How do I know? Because The Bible is the Word of God.”

Or something like this: “The Bible is the Word of God. How do I know? The Bible says so”. But that does not prove anything.

Your argument circles back and assumes your argument is true because of the premise, which you have not shown to be true.

Phil

Well, I can’t proof anything without God. That’s the point.

Metaphysician

”The news is fake, because so much of the news is fake”

But you don’t get it. How do you know that is true?

How do you know you cannot prove anything without God? Because you cannot prove anything without God?

Of course, so Newton only managed to do science because he believed in God? Er, no…

Phil

Well, it has to be valid, but you can’t refute it because you don’t know if your reason is valid.

Metaphysician

A is true because A is true?

Phil

That’s not what I am talking, I say to proof anything X must exists.

If not, I can’t proof anything.

X = God.

Metaphysician

The only proof that you cannot prove anything without God is because without him you can’t prove anything? That is stupidly circular.

But is that not what you said?

Phil

Well, you don’t know what because you don’t know if your reasoning is valid.

So, every time I could ask you is that absolute truth?

And consistent with your worldview, what you don’t want to be, you can’t.

Any claim to ultimate authority must be self-authorizing.

Got that?

Metaphysician

Explain what that means again. That an authority is only valid if it says it is valid?

X is valid because X is valid, right?

Phil

Don’t understand the question.

I did say that.

Metaphysician

I mean, I have to keep asking, because I do not think in the convoluted, circular why you and other devout people do.

It is hard to follow your maze of evasions.

Phil

Is that statement absolute truth?

Do you claim certainty?

Metaphysician

I am asking if “Any claim to ultimate authority must be self-authorizing.” amounts to “Any claim to ultimate authority must rest on the authority saying it is the ultimate authority”.

I have told you over a dozen times, yes, I claim certainty about things I can prove to be true.

But not about things I cannot show to be true.

Phil

But you don’t know if your reason is valid.

Ah, but I do. I use reasoning, not faith…

Metaphysician

It is not either-or. I can be certain about many things but not certain about some things. That is not an argument for or against my “worldview”. That just means I do not dishonestly claim certainty for no reason, like you do.

You keep asserting that I don’t. But that is an empty assertion.

Phil

Professing Atheist that I know deny absolute certainty.

You could debate them.

Metaphysician

I don’t know my reason is not valid because without God I cannot know that. How do I know that is true? Because without God you cannot be certain.

Phil

But you don’t know if it is.

Metaphysician

No, no, see, unlike you, I don’t pretend that only revelation is a path to knowledge. I understand that you can learn things without that.

Phil

You even don’t know that because you don’t know if your reason is valid.

Metaphysician

You cannot conceive of knowledge without revelation because you are cognitively impaired. That is not an insult. That is a fact. You are unable to grasp that revelation is not the only means of knowledge.

This is why I said that the devoutly religious are mentally impaired.

No, and that is not an ad hom. Don’t even try that.

Phil

No, I’m not.

Metaphysician

That is my conclusion from your own damn behaviour.

Phil

Even if you insult me, you don’t know if it’s true, because you don’t know if your reasoning is valid.

Metaphysician

Yeah, yeah, you dismiss everything I say because God didn’t tell me it.

I know how your mind works. Unless it is Revelation, you will automatically dismiss it. That is just a defence mechanism against the truth.

Phil

Okay, we can stop here.

Metaphysician

Why is that? Finally accept that you have nothing to offer any reasonable person.

That you have nothing and never did?

Phil

If you want to claim that you have won.

Alright do it.

If you can sleep better, ok.

Metaphysician

I did that five minutes into the argument. But that was not the point.

The point was to show anyone reading this how pathetic your defence of your baseless nonsense is.

You have to pretend reality is not real and that I can’t be sure that I exist.

Leave a comment