Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Thursday, December 1, 2011

The so-called 'Hiddenness of God' Part II: Dispatches from an intellectually-dicey atheist

And the winner of the 1st Annual Caias Ward Award for Intellectual Dishonesty is..... Justin Vacula! Congratulations pal! (Caias, you were 1st runner-up and Tricia Woodcock wound up in 3rd place) Place your Caias high upon your mantle of accomplishments my friend. You earned it.

It seems that Justin can write an entire entry on the so-called hiddenness of God but when asked.....

"So you would argue that if a huge, gigantic, and beautiful sky-god was absolutely visible, audible and communication with people here on earth, that it would in no way cause "psychological pressure" to "do some act against [people's] will ". I don't wish to define your position for you here, but would you argue for or against this idea? "[?]

Yes or no, for or against, pretty please, with sugar on top. We already agree on the definition of coercion. If by 'sky-god' you seek further clarification, then let's say that I'm talking about the God of the Holy Bible."

What clenched this victory for Justin over Caias was when Justin poured it on at the end and blocked me from 2 different sites from asking him a direct question pertaining specifically to something he wrote. Even though Caias had to be asked a simple, one-sentence question requiring a yes/no response 6X before answering it, Caias only sought to be my the intellectual bitch by taking the easy way out and blocking me rather than answering a straight-forward question on one site. Kudos to you both though. I'm in awe of your respective intellects.

Me personally? I would have conceded the point had I been in Justin's position. He had several options of which none of them, I imagine, must have seemed particularly savory to Mr. Vacula. Concede the point, deny the obvious that it would fit the textbook definition of 'coercion', come up with an imaginative new definition of the word 'coercion', or argue in favor of coercion. Justin, I fully realize that you dedicated a lot of text to explaining your position, but none of it related specifically to the direct question I posed to you and I do not feel that I should have to defend arguments I did not raise or points I did not make. What are you going to do in the highly unlikely event that you ever debate someone the likes of a William Lane Craig? Block him? Ignore the question? 'Tis to laugh. That the intellectually-dodgy atheist slithers back to his echo chamber where he can preach to the closed-minded choir and not have to answer hard questions concerning his position is only par for the course in these types of discussions.

EDIT: GCT posits the following (albeit with no corraborating evidence) Quote "He (Justin) has answered it, multiple times, in multiple wordings."

I'll tell you what. If anyone can show where Justin answered my question in any of the evasive, non-pertinent responses he provided, I will take back every word of this entry. Please note that this offer is conditional upon Justin having actually answered the specific question I posed to him. For instance, Justin could have responded to the above question by changing the topic and asking me how we would discern such a manifestation as being from God or from alien technology and I could have answer him by saying 'Blue'. Although it can be considered a answer, it does not answer the specific question posed to me in this example. Good Luck!


Justin Vacula said...

I laugh. I have said, multiple times, that questions can't always be answered with a simple 'yes' or 'no.'

I blocked you because you kept hijacking discussions, insisting that I respond with a 'yes' or 'no' when it's not feasible, and levying personal attacks against persons on my page (as you continue to do so here).

JD Curtis said...

Please explain to me why the above question cannot be answered either yes or no. especially since the way it is presented, it requires either yes or no.

I'll tell you what, cut and paste the answer you gave which dealt with whether such an appearance would amount to coercion or not and we'll examine it. Fair enough?

JD Curtis said...

I must admit, Ms. Woodcock if giving you a run for your money. This is just classic.

"I really do not understand why he tagged me. I had nothing to do with it

Woodcock, you seem quite content in criticizing others in a forum in which they cannot defend themselves. At least here, you can defend your intellectual laziness, which is a luxury that Justin seems determined to deny.

JD Curtis said...

Just so we're clear here JV..

You write an entire article about the so-called 'hiddennness of God' without once ever mentioning the word 'coercion'.

I bring up the topic, define the word 'coercion' and ask if it applies in this case using the dictionary definition of the word coercion.

You submit various paragraphs of tripe and never once analyse the specifically-defined word 'coercion' in the context of the possible outcome of God revealing himslf in an unmistakeable manner.

Am I somehow wrong in this summary? If so, how?

Theological Discourse said...

He really does have a problem With the definition of simple words. He also likes to make them up