Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.

The question in the OP involves an impartial onlooker. Its not Mark doing to judging, his view and mine are to be judged. By this impartial onlooker.

If the impartial onlooker can't exist then the question is voided, given its reliance on an impartial onlooker.

I would have thought Mark would be as interested in there being an impartial onlooker as I am - if we are to assume he actually is interested in his question being answered.

You evidently are not interested.

realitykeeper wrote: »

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The basic premise is I asked antiskeptic (a theist) how they would convince an impartial onlooker (a hypotethical blank slate, religious-and-empricism-wise) that their worldview (Christianity) is true.

A Christian`s belief is based on faith, not proof. However we can hypothesize on whether or not there is a God who sacrificed his son for us. If it is true, we owe God and that debt needs to be repaid by being self sacrificing ourselves, in other words by loving God and each other.

Sure you can say we don`t know for certain that God exists because we don`t have empirical evidence but that is not a valid excuse if God`s sacrifice did happen. I mean suppose a building collapsed following an earthquake and the rescuers were not sure if there was anyone buried beneath the rubble, they would/should check just in case. If the rescuers don`t bother going to all the trouble of looking because there might be nobody there, that is not something they would be thanked for, especially not by anyone buried in the rubble.

Also, I think there are definite snippets of wisdom in the bible. After all, trust (faith) is better than mistrust and love is better than hate.

That understanding of faith isn't the Christian understanding. At not the Christians I know.

"Faith, the substance of things hoped for (i.e. a hope based on something of substance as opposed to a blind hope), the evidence of things not seen (i.e. the non-empirical realm a.k.a. the spiritual realm) "... is the bibles way of putting it.

There's no 'on the off chance its true' element in there.

Nothing on the point of using the example of the NVA example. There was a point. Nothing.

You don't seem to have gotten the point about uninvolved outsiders (of which there are none) either. This in the context of Mark's agenda.

You don't do toe to toe very well. Deal with the problems presented you. Don't evade.

volchitsa wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nothing on the point of using the example of the NVA example. There was a point. Nothing.

You don't seem to have gotten the point about uninvolved outsiders (of which there are none) either. This in the context of Mark's agenda.

You don't do toe to toe very well. Deal with the problems presented you. Don't evade.

Well this is ironic.

When you give a straight answer to any of the questions you've been asked, then you can berate random passers-by in the thread for not replying.

Although maybe you'll even find that if you do reply, then so will they.

Ask a straight question then. Or are you still beating Marks crooked drum for him.

If you dinnae think its crooked then raise an argument regarding its straigtness.

Last chance at the bleating saloon.

volchitsa wrote: »

I did. At least twice. Summed up here for instance
You've ignored it in favour of dishing out personal abuse.
There is no reason why you can't reply to that question, if you wished to.


You should probably think about what that post of yours is really saying.

Your entered a thread with a particular set up: judgment of two world views by impartial onlooker.

Your first post took exception to the problem I raised with constructing this impartial onlooker.

(You might confirm or otherwise that an impartial onlooker is central to this threads aim being realised?)

You are now deemed, by me, on the basis of your lack of interest in the necessity for an impartial onlooker, as sharing the agenda of the OP.

If, along the way, you've genuinely come to want to know how a Christian would make his case to a (in your eyes, neutral/in the Christians eyes antagonistic by default) person) then head to the Christianity forum and open a thread to that effect.

This thread is about something else: an empiricists agenda struggling for purchase.

smacl wrote: »

And again we see the No true Scotsman fallacy coming out. If a person declares themselves to be a Christian for whatever reason, you're hardly in a position to categorically state otherwise.

You'd have to point out where I 'categorically stated otherwise'. A bit to quick on the fallacy draw there smacl?

I did raise a problem: just because someone says they are something doesn't make them something.

NTS would say something like 'no true Christian would murder'. Whereas I said true Christians have and do murder.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am familiar with the theological ideas I think Antiskeptic is expressing due to years of studying the various interpretations of Christianity that were floating around during the Reformation. It's not a million miles from Knox, but even he stopped short at stating that doing good works was doing Satan's work. Or perhaps he (Knox) hadn't gotten around to that being too busy foaming at the mouth at the amount of female rulers he found himself surrounded by.
The most common view of "good works" expressed by those of a Calvinist bent were that they matter not a jot when it came to salvation due to predestination : a person was 'saved' or they were not 'saved' - nothingcould change this. Not good works, not baptism, nothing. It was decided by God before you were born and you wouldn't find out until after you die. But... someone who was saved was likely to perform good works due to they being saved.
At least that was what John Calvin himself had to say on the matter.

You'd have to point out where I said doing good works was necessarily doing satan's work.

Good works mattering not a jot to your salvation isn't just a Calvinist idea.

Nobelium wrote: »

Sounds exactly like Pastor Billy Wright's LVF sermons, once you are saved you can then go out and rape rob murder and pillage innocent people all you like, safe the in the knowledge God is on your side (all your doctrine is missing now is the Muslim terrorist's 72 virgins sopt prize), you can keep your twisted version of Christianity / westboro baptist church thanks.

Your failure to deal with the problems you face (not least, is this pastor a Christian?) is noted.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I never said it was, I merely said that I am familiar with that belief due to reading Calvin who laid out his entire thought process with his usual lawyerly precision. Calvin was one of the first to clearly express and successfully promulgate these ideas - in 1536 he published the first edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion and his ideas differed in many important areas from the likes of Luther.

That's the thing isn't it - many different interpretations of the same texts which claim very different things are truly Christian. How on Earth is in impartial onlooker supposed to know which, if any, is correct?

You know my stance on impartial onlookers.

But lets take the case of genuine believers who differ. For they do (that is, folk who I recognize as genuine believers differ - particularily virulently in the case of Calvinist vs Arminians)

What does it matter ultimately? Each individual believer has his own preexisting influences, faults, strengths, motivations.

Each is responsible for himself before God. If someone ploughs an inaccurate furrow, if he encourages others to do same (with them responsible in turn for themselves) then thats an issue between him and God. God will know to what extent the inaccuracy was damaging, wilful, due to influences outside the persons control, etc.

Nobody will be lost because of someone elses faulty theology. Salvation is a God > individual matter. The mechanism of salvation transcends religion, education, intelligence etc.

The concept of Predestination also rules out repentance as a path to salvation. Do you agree with Calvin on this?

No I don't. There are only a few verses which mention predestination. They are verses addressed at believers aka those in Christ aka the saved.

It is said, for example, that "God predestined us to x,y,z."

"Us" is the believer/those in Christ/the saved. Thus what is predestined is that which is to occur to the saved. The saved shall have this and that applied to them.

They are not predestined to be saved in the first place.

I find Calvinism a rather mangled view. Take TULIP's U (for unconditional election). Its holds that there is no condition (or involvement) of man. Salvation is applied by God's sovereign choice (with the criteria for his choosing this one and not that one undefined. It's simply a mystery).

Now you can find biblical support for excluding certain conditions (a man working, for example) but you can't find support for excluding all possible conditions, since that would require that:

a) all possible conditions are known

b) the bible excludes them all.

The bible would have to be a lot thicker (in the Y axis sense) to achieve that.

So I don't understand the basis whereby the U is installed in TULIP.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would have to quote where I said/inferred that.

I did say this to smacl

"I didn't believe in God, heaven or hell before I was saved and for a time afterwards. So that part of your piece doesn't work very well. I prayed to an unbelieved in God because there was no one else to turn to."

Since I was saved (a.k.a. obtained a forever seat at God's high table) before having any evidence for God's existence, I couldn't have fulfilled the criteria you say I say is necessary.




I had something to say on this the last time you said it (30th May). It can help (genuine kindness by the lost) - but not in the direct, 'works swing the scales to salvation' sense.

What evidence do you possess now? How would you present this evidence to a person who knew nothing about your (or any other) god?

For the purposes of this thread everbody knows something of my (and their) God. The knowledge isn't empirical, but no matter.

I'm afraid I'm sticking to topic on the matter of justifying my position (which has stalled on the matter of the impartial observer it would seem).


The Christianity forum is probably the place to go for your more general question.

volchitsa wrote: »

He thought he was. He became a born again Christian in 1983. Who gets to say if he was wrong? You? How would you tell?

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. If he isn't then he's a lost sinner at the further end of the sin spectrum.

If he's a found sinner then he's at the same end of the sin spectrum.

All found sinners fall somewhere along the sin spectrum. Would he be worse if not a Christian (assuming he is one)? Has he 'backslidden' (a phenomenon whereby a Christian slides backwards down the spectrum?

So many questions. How would I know? I suppose by talking to him. Say he acknowledged his sin as sin but found himself entrapped in hatred. I'd understand that: knowing what its like to know how I should live but finding I can't.

Also, you said you were saved but didn't yet believe in God. So what was the evidence that you had already been saved?

I could look back when I had more understanding and see, in retrospect, the point at which I was saved. I didn't know it at the time though

(Not that I expect a straight answer to this, but I'm just pointing out a couple of the more glaring problems with what you say.)

Hopefully straightforward enough?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

For the purposes of this thread everbody knows something of my (and their) God. The knowledge isn't empirical, but no matter.

I'm afraid I'm sticking to topic on the matter of justifying my position (which has stalled on the matter of the impartial observer it would seem).


The Christianity forum is probably the place to go for your more general question.

So you would rather not answer my question? Strange stance to take but that's your choice i suppose.

I would have thought it would be obvious rather than strange.

Let's say I start giving reasons for my certainty (to folk who aren't impartial). Those same folk, who have found their worldview higher ground isn't anyway as high as they thought, will leap thankfully on the opportunity offered by thread recalibration (the disappearance of the need for an impartial onlooker).

They will, sure as night follows day, start challenging on the basis of their worldview (as if that established higher ground). "No empirical evidence"

You might as well open the stable door..

Nobelium wrote: »

Like yourself, LVF commander Pastor Billy Wright certainly claimed he was, and like yourself claimed he could murder all he liked because he was already saved.

I think I said he could murder and he wouldn't lose his salvation. Which is slightly different. The way you phrase suggests someone who isn't a murderer becomes on merely because they are saved.

Certainly a person can take this freedom from the possibility of damnation and consider it a licence to sin as they feel (if they feel murder a sin as opposed to carrying out God's will, as some hold).

Whichever, there are consequences, just not damnation. The believing murderer, whether knowingly sinning or believing he is doing God's will is opposing God.

God will not be mocked. A sinner, believer or no, reaps what he sows. A believing murderer will suffer the same torment or death of self which a non believing murderer suffers.

And there is nothing halting God's discipline- unto taking you out if the game of life altogether

Being a believer doesn't necessarily protect you from God's general oversight.

volchitsa wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. If he isn't then he's a lost sinner at the further end of the sin spectrum.

If he's a found sinner then he's at the same end of the sin spectrum.

All found sinners fall somewhere along the sin spectrum. Would he be worse if not a Christian (assuming he is one)? Has he 'backslidden' (a phenomenon whereby a Christian slides backwards down the spectrum?

So many questions. How would I know? I suppose by talking to him. Say he acknowledged his sin as sin but found himself entrapped in hatred. I'd understand that: knowing what its like to know how I should live but finding I can't?

Why do you need to talk to him to know? Why not just take his word for it?

You seem to be saying that you can be the judge of whether or not he's saved - as I say, he always considered that he was, after his "born again" experience. So why do you need to talk to him to find out whether he's right or not, and what makes you a better judge than him?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I could look back when I had more understanding and see, in retrospect, the point at which I was saved. I didn't know it at the time though

This really is the question that interests me : how did you know, in retrospect?

And why are you somewhat reluctant to to take Billy Wright at his word about himself when you believe that you are capable of judging for yourself?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hopefully straightforward enough?

Still seems a bit inconsistent TBH. For the reasons I've pointed out above.
But if you can explain what it was that told you, even in hindsight, that you were saved, then quite possibly yes.

As I've pointed out a number of times in this thread, it would be fruitless, and somewhat self defeating to dispense with the OP's impartial onlooker.

The stumbling block of the impossible impartial onlooker serves my purpose. This thread will go the way of the dodo - the impartial onlooker never produced. When (as will surely occur) folk get back to demanding evidence which conforms to their partial worldview I will remind them of our time together here.

As for Billy? Well I'm far more in position to judge all that happened me than judge what another said happened to them. Thats simple enough.

Additionally and generally, one would expect something as transformative as coming face to face (as it were) with utter good to produce change towards good. Hence I have some doubt.

Nevertheless, having seen the lack of transformation in my own life, if operating in a somewhat lower league of sin than murder, I'm prepared to accept that a Billy or slave ship operator can occur side by side with having been saved.

Like I have said, Hitler could have been saved. The extent of God's willingness to reach down into the depths to haul someone to salvation is limitless.

The only thing that will prevent a persons salvation, it would seem, is that they will it not to the very end.

Reiterating re: your last point. Everything we consider ourselves as knowing finds its ultimate root in that which satisfies oneself, whether a philosophy, whether a method, whether the fact that others too find the method satisfactory.

What convinced me won't in any way convince you. Or convince you that had you been in my shoes you would have been convinced. There are too many subtlities, too many details involved in building the picture as to why it all fit, for me, such as to make it even begin to fit for you.

Suffice to say perhaps is that the drumbeat message of the bible (in relation to the condition of a man who arrives at the point of falling to his knees is desparation. Nowhere else to go. Abraham, thief on a cross, man lowered through a hole dug by his friends in the roof above Jesus' head, the ruler centurion deigning SS officer-like before a Jew, to appeal to Jesus concerning his dying child.

I think the only way you will be convinced is when or if you find yourself with no one to turn to. But needing someone to turn to.

It's ironic that Christianity is caricatured as a person needing a crutch. The caricature couldn't be more spot on.

The gospel is, as they say, good news for people who know they are shagged. And bad news to people who think they are sorted.

volchitsa wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think I said he could murder and he wouldn't lose his salvation. Which is slightly different. The way you phrase suggests someone who isn't a murderer becomes on merely because they are saved.

Certainly a person can take this freedom from the possibility of damnation and consider it a licence to sin as they feel (if they feel murder a sin as opposed to carrying out God's will, as some hold).

Whichever, there are consequences, just not damnation. The believing murderer, whether knowingly sinning or believing he is doing God's will is opposing God.

God will not be mocked. A sinner, believer or no, reaps what he sows. A believing murderer will suffer the same torment or death of self which a non believing murderer suffers.

And there is nothing halting God's discipline- unto taking you out if the game of life altogether

Being a believer doesn't necessarily protect you from God's general oversight.

But he's been saved. How does that mean anything if it doesn't mean that his sins - including murder - will automatically be forgiven? in what way is he different from someone who isn't saved if he commits murder and gets the usual (eternal?) punishment for murder?

Or are we meant to think that because he's saved, he'll only get a minor punishment for murder, whereas someone who wasn't saved but tries to live a good life will go to hell anyway?

Its a bit technical I'm afraid.

A person (assume the Christian position for the moment) is made up of spirit/mind/body and operates as a cascade: spirit on top

Sin infests the spirit and the infestation rolls down: mind thinks crookedly, body dies, etc. The spirit informs the mind, the mind concieves of the sin and instructs the body to execute the sin.

Salvation results in the crucifixion and resurrection of the spirit. Born again.

Pisser is, the mind and the body, the two mortal elements, don't undergo this process (not until they die and are too resurrected and rejoined to the born again spirit).

The sin-disinfected mind and body aren't mortal anymore, since it is sin that kills.

The Christian is legally different. They, by permitting their being put to death via repentance (surrender) and to their surprise, being reborn, aren't held accountable for subsequent sin in the same way that someone who refuses the 'offer'

They are accountable: they will suffer the effects of their sin whilst they live and, it appears, will be positioned in the newly recreated earth (it too being redeemed from the infestation of sin: storms, decay, eaethquakes, disease) according to the degree to which they walked in alignment with God (i.e. fought sin within their mortal minds and bodies)

The unbeliever, in refusing salvation is held to a different account. They, in effect, chose not to align with God by way of surrender. And go to a destination where God's isn't present but where all that God stands against is present. That place is called Hell.

It's not so much punishment as being placed where they choose to be placed. Yes, they will have nothing to do for all eternity but to experience such an awful environment. But ultimately, God's grants their will be done in a two option choice.

You might see then, that it's not the sin or the comparative severity of it that matters. What matters is your overall status: whether you've resisted being being brought to the point of surrender in the battle God fights for your spirit. Resisting being brought to surrender is, in effect, refusal of salvation. Since surrender saves.

The 'good' person isn't good at root - for their ultimate alignment is with that which opposes God. They might live a better life.
But the ultimate credit for that goes to the giver of conscience which enables good.

I would expect that just as 'in Heaven' there will, in Hell, be degrees of position, depending on what was done whilst 'in the body'. So far as what you do counts it will count in that way.

But the global situation: whether in God's (goods) presence or the opposite place, the currency is bigger than your individual acts good and bad.

It's total surrender of that most key part of you that changes everything - you can give no more than your total self. Not your mortal body, not your mortal mind. But your immortal spirit.

volchitsa wrote: »

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I've pointed out a number of times in this thread, it would be fruitless, and somewhat self defeating to dispense with the OP's impartial onlooker.

The stumbling block of the impossible impartial onlooker serves my purpose. This thread will go the way of the dodo - the impartial onlooker never produced. When (as will surely occur) folk get back to demanding evidence which conforms to their partial worldview I will remind them of our time together here

Well at least you've now admitted that you need to cling to something to avoid engaging with the discussion.

But then there's this:

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for Billy? Well I'm far more in position to judge all that happened me than judge what another said happened to them. Thats simple enough.

Ah no. That won't do. You said you could judge BW by talking to him. Surely he's in a better position to say what his situation is than you are?

Or if not, then nor can you tell anyone else about yourself, and someone would need to talk to you to evaluate your position - which of course is exactly what you're doing your very best to avoid. Presumably because you know that you can't - and yet you implied that BW could when you said you could work it out by talking to him.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Additionally and generally, one would expect something as transformative as coming face to face (as it were) with utter good to produce change towards good. Hence I have some doubt.

Nevertheless, having seen the lack of transformation in my own life, if operating in a somewhat lower league of sin than murder, I'm prepared to accept that a Billy or slave ship operator can occur side by side with having been saved.

Like I have said, Hitler could have been saved. The extent of God's willingness to reach down into the depths to haul someone to salvation is limitless.

The only thing that will prevent a persons salvation, it would seem, is that they will it not to the very end.

Reiterating re: your last point. Everything we consider ourselves as knowing finds its ultimate root in that which satisfies oneself, whether a philosophy, whether a method, whether the fact that others too find the method satisfactory.

What convinced me won't in any way convince you. Or convince you that had you been in my shoes you would have been convinced. There are too many subtlities, too many details involved in building the picture as to why it all fit, for me, such as to make it even begin to fit for you.

Suffice to say perhaps is that the drumbeat message of the bible (in relation to the condition of a man who arrives at the point of falling to his knees is desparation. Nowhere else to go. Abraham, thief on a cross, man lowered through a hole dug by his friends in the roof above Jesus' head, the ruler centurion deigning SS officer-like before a Jew, to appeal to Jesus concerning his dying child.

I think the only way you will be convinced is when or if you find yourself with no one to turn to. But needing someone to turn to.

It's ironic that Christianity is caricatured as a person needing a crutch. The caricature couldn't be more spot on.

The gospel is, as they say, good news for people who know they are shagged. And bad news to people who think they are sorted.

I still can't see why you won't say what proved to you that you had been saved.

Seems strangely unforthcoming given how much you're able to post about other people, but hey.

Having the thread flounder has utility. It underlines the partiality of those who regularily suppose themselves impartial (a.k.a. empiricism is a neutral/best assessment method for how we know things).

I'm in a position to form a judgment on whether BW has undergone what I've undergone. When asked to comment on him I would need to form a better judgment than the one I have: a statement by a randomer on the web.

A carpenter taking on a new employee is in a position, by way of conversation, to assess whether the guy he's considering taking on is a carpenter too. It's not a proof, the guy could still turn out cral. Its a judgment, a better informed one.

Or should we just take what prospective employees say on face value?

That a carpenter can't, by way of conversation, convince someone who knows nothing about carpentry that he's indeed a carpenter, isn't necessarily the carpenters lack.

Blindness on the part of the person he's talking to is the problem.