Vincent Cheung vs. Derek Sansone

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. SECTIONS 1-12

3. AFTERWORD

4. SOME COMMENTS FROM READERS

5. FREE BOOKS AND ARTICLES

INTRODUCTION

The following written exchange started when Derek Sansone, an atheist, contacted me and asked me if I would be interested in a formal debate with him. I declined a formal debate, and although I was reluctant to begin a prolonged discussion, I finally took time to correspond with him.

We did not cover the details of our worldviews. In fact, I did not permit him to make any progress throughout. There are many ways to engage an opponent, and how you do it often depends on what you wish to accomplish. In this instance, I did not have the time or the desire to fully engage him, and told him so in the first place, so my aim was to quickly disarm him and to be rid of him without appearing to be intimidated by him. I have accomplished this and much more.

Although I want you to learn from what follows, you should not mechanically imitate my approach. Again, it depends on what you wish to accomplish, and also the method, arguments, and attitude of your opponent. In many situations, and especially when speaking with your friends and relatives so that extended discussions are possible, you should get into the details of the worldviews involved over the course of several hours, days, or weeks.

In this case, although we did not get into the details of our worldviews, in my writings I have provided answers to the very questions that I asked him. So it was not as if I used those questions to distract him or to avoid answering anything myself.

Sansone likes to make up words that his opponents do not use and then apply these words to them, such as "presupper," "theo-logic," "theo-metaphysics," "theo meta concepts," and so on. Therefore, it is only fair that I make up one term that he does not use, but that seems appropriate to his position. That is, I will call his method "psycho assertionism" (or PA), where "psycho" means crazy, and "assertionism" refers to his practice of asserting his views again and again without providing arguments to support them.

Since his method is to assert his view over and over again, it was tiresome for me to comment on his text line by line; nevertheless, I did it. For the same reason, you might find parts of the dialogue tedious to read, but since there are also some very humorous and instructive parts, I encourage you to persist to the end.

--
Vincent Cheung
http://www.vincentcheung.com

1A. DEREK

Mr. Cheung,

Greetings. My name is Derek Sansone.

I am interested in a formal debate with you. I am a former Calvinist Christian, and have just recently debated Pastor C. I am on a Presupper binge at the moment and have a desire to probe the Reformed theistic position. 

1B. VINCENT

Thank you for contacting me. At this moment I am not accepting debate invitations.

However, if you are interested in knowing more about my approach to apologetics, please read my Ultimate Questions and Presuppositional Confrontations, probably best in that order. Also, my answer to "the problem of evil" is in chapter 4 of my The Light of Our Minds. My apologetic books are mainly meant to teach Christians how to do apologetics, so it contains many biblical expositions, "in-house" issues, and at times assumptions that are not justified right there but elsewhere in my books. So, the books are best taken as a whole, as should be the case for the works of almost any writer. This will require some patience on your part, that is, to read the whole presentation before considering how really to deal with it. You can read two short examples of my approach in chapter 1 of Ultimate Questions and chapter 1 of Presuppositional Confrontations.

Since you already have some contact with Reformed presuppositional apologetics, I should add that although my approach can be called "presuppositional," and that although I mention the transcendental argument in my works, my approach is different from Van Til and Bahnsen. In fact, I reject much of what they taught, because as I show in my books, their philosophy represents a basic synthesis rather than an antithesis with non-Christian thought.

I mention this to you because I have noticed that some readers, including Christians, who upon seeing that I am "presuppositional," automatically assume that I agree with Van Til and Bahnsen, and thus read my works through their perspective. Sometimes they think I teach the same thing even when I teach something different, even when I state that they are wrong on some things. When they do this, they invariably misunderstand my arguments and fail to grasp the advantages in my approach. So it is best not to group me with them.

As many people misunderstand my approach or confuse me with other presuppositionalists, I am willing to answer questions that you may have about it after you read my materials. However, please understand that I will only have time to give very brief answers. At any rate, I think that my books are indeed clear enough.

2A. DEREK

I understand. I don't mind reading theological material, I have tons of it left from when I was an apologist...R.C. Sproul and J.I.Packer are still on my book shelf, as with D.A. Carson's Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility...to name a few...

I'll read your books. Send me the link.

2B. VINCENT

Since you mentioned Sproul, Packer, and Carson, I will also point out that my theology also differ from them on several important points. For example, they say that election is active and reprobation is passive -- I do not believe that, but I believe that both are active. On this matter I am more like Herman Hoeksema and Gordon Clark. At any rate, I am better read on my own terms without being first categorized with others. That said, I affirm that I am in essential agreement with most Reformed theologians and confessions.

All of my books are available for download at http://www.vincentcheung.com.

3A. DEREK

Yes, the problem with all theological perspectives is they argue from ignorance, make false dichotomies, lack specificity, and make composition mistakes. Among others...

I will look at your material soon.

3B. VINCENT

You wrote, "Yes, the problem with all theological perspectives is they argue from ignorance, make false dichotomies, lack specificity, and make composition mistakes. Among others..."

Now, of course I would not agree with this very broad statement, although this does apply to many people's theologies. I would say that in those cases they speak neither for Scripture nor for me, just as not every atheist represents all atheists. But we will not argue about it here. In any case, to read what I affirm regarding theology, please read my Systematic Theology.

4A. DEREK

I must agree, my statements can be broad and "un" properly directed. I owe that to my past of effect observations from debates and dialogs with many, not all, types of theists.  I do not wish to blanket you with the rest...But you are considered to be a "presupper."

I am going out of town this weekend, and will not get to your material. However, I look forward to engaging your theological perspective...

4B. VINCENT

(No reply)

5A. DEREK

Greetings Vincent,

As I looked at the several on-line books you offer, I was starting to think that this engagement would be better served if I just asked you one simple question...

I already know you have some Reformer/Presupper undertones, with differences here and there, differences that could be considered "nonessentials" in some Theistic circles....

....And instead of trimming the branches of your theology, which is still supported by circular theo-logic, I would jump down and confront your roots...

Now, on to the question.

Where do you apply "faith"? 

or...

What do you have faith in as a believer?

5B. VINCENT

I would disagree that my system is fallaciously circular. Perhaps it would be easier for you simply to identify me with others whom you consider to be fallaciously circular without actually dealing with my arguments, but until you show it, it is still just an unjustified assumption -- or even fallaciously circular ("You are circular because you are a presuppositionalist, because presuppositionalists are circular")!

As for faith, as I have stated in my books, Christians ought to believe in all the propositions in Scripture, and all the propositions that is necessarily deduced from it.

Now, without wanting to start a debate with you, since like I said I do not have the time and I am unwilling to help out just any atheist who is trying to make a name for himself (without thinking that you are necessarily one of them), I also think that our "engagement" can be better served -- and will both start and end here -- if I will ask you a simple question. When you asked me, "What do you have faith in as a believer?", how did you learn the word "as"? Since this question is logically prior, logically I could ask you this question before I answered your question about faith, but I answered it first anyway.

Now, until you logically show me how you non-fallaciously learned the word, logically your question is nonsense and could not be uttered, and the "engagement" cannot even continue without my permitting it. Nevertheless, if you have an answer, give it and justify it, write out the logical process by means of which it was done. My books provide my own answer to this question.

6A. DEREK

Your books will provide "an" answer, not the only possible answer. This isn't my first presupper rodeo, Mr. Cheung.  You have fundamental problems. I am trying to find the core and start there, then move into the rest of your theo-metaphysics... 

I learned the word "as" through sensory input...my social construct has provided the necessary observable effects...

Now, answer my faith question...Don't red herring me, please...

If you can't take this simple question on, then, kindly say so. I understand desire and priority...Maybe another time...

6B. VINCENT

"Your books will provide "an" answer, not the only possible answer."  

This is for you to show.  

 

"This isn't my first presupper rodeo, Mr. Cheung."

Again you identify me with others. Fine, but I am telling you that you are going to embarrass yourself if you do this.

"You have fundamental problems.  I am trying to find the core and start there, then move into the rest of your theo-metaphysics..."

Fine. This is for you to show.

"I learned the word "as" through sensory input...my social construct has provided the necessary observable effects..."  

How can knowledge come through sensory input? Please write out the reasoning process by which you non-fallaciously derive knowledge from sensory input. How could you avoid the problems with induction? Also, if you learned "as" through sensory input, does that means you have seen or heard "as" itself? Not the word, but the "thing" that the word designates.

What is a social construct? How do you know your social construct? How do you know that your social construct provided you with "the necessary observable effects"? How do you know what "effects" are "necessary" in order for you to non-fallaciously learn the word (or any word)?

"Now, answer my faith question...Don't red herring me, please... If you can't take this simple question on, then, kindly say so. I understand desire and priority...Maybe another time..."

As I said, my question is logically prior to yours, since if you cannot know the word, you could not have asked the question. So it is not a red herring.

I already answered it in my message. I wrote: "As for faith, as I have stated in my books, Christians ought to believe in all the propositions in Scripture, and all the propositions that is necessarily deduced from it." I hope you are reading my emails with greater care!

Now, what about the word "as"? Until you give me a non-fallacious answer, I have the logical right to dismiss you at anytime. If you cannot or do not answer the question, then what logical right do you have to ask me anymore?

7A. DEREK

Before I move on...

You aren't going to attack the senses, using your senses, are you?

7B. VINCENT

No.

And you aren't going to defend the senses, using your senses, are you?

8A. DEREK

Of course I will.

When a person comes along and argues from false assumption, among other fallacies, and states Psalm 14:1 proves their god is a precondition for my ability to argue against his existence.

Supposing is a flawed way of knowing Theo-metaphysical claims, Mr. Cheung.

You would not know ANYTHING without external forces of observable effects, in which you had NO control. You're a sentient being, picking up the causal chain through sensory input to the brain...

Your memory bank stores these effect observations and it is built through social conditioning started on the day you were born, sir.

8B. VINCENT

"Of course I will."

Then how are you not circular?  

"When a person comes along and argues from false assumption, among other fallacies,"

You have yet to show that my assumptions are false.  

"and states Psalm 14:1 proves their god is a precondition for my ability to argue against his existence."

Have I done this? Where? 

"Supposing is a flawed way of knowing Theo-metaphysical claims, Mr. Cheung."

Right, and therefore your way of knowing is flawed.

"You would not know ANYTHING without external forces of observable effects,"

How do you know this? Show it.

"in which you had NO control."

How do you know this? Show it.

"You're a sentient being, picking up the causal chain through sensory input to the brain..."

How do you know this? Show it.

And what is a "causal chain"? How did you come to know about it?

And how did you learn about causation? By sensation? How have you seen or heard "cause" itself?

What is "sensory input"?

How do you know that you have a brain?

"Your memory bank stores these effect observations"

What is a "memory bank"? How did you come to know about it? Have you "sensed" your memory bank? Even if so, how do you know that I (or any other person) have such a thing as a "memory bank"?

And what are these "effect" or "effects" that you are talking about? How do you know that they are "effects," as if they are caused by something else?

"and it is built through social conditioning started on the day you were born, sir." 

Yes, you already said this before. But this is just an assertion. Maybe I misunderstood the game that we are playing. If it is a game of assertions, then I can assert just as well as you can, but I probably can't stand being as circular as you.

And you still haven't answered my simple, and even more fundamental questions.

9A. DEREK

"How can knowledge come through sensory input? Please write out the reasoning process by which you non-fallaciously derive knowledge from sensory input."

My circularities come from the within limits of human axiomatic identity, which is based on the material universe. You incorporate the incorporeal Theo meta concepts in your circularities.  Which are unfalsifiable or testable...

I am irreducible and can be observed. I exist therefore I am...Existence precedes awareness of oneself...

"How could you avoid the problems with induction? Also, if you learned "as" through sensory input, does that means you have seen or heard "as" itself? Not the word, but the "thing" that the word designates."

No, the English language that I learned through observing effects from my teachers through my social construct, has taught me the word "as" and how to apply it...

"What is a social construct? How do you know your social construct?"

How do I know a social construct? Can you be more specific? 

"How do you know that your social construct provided you with "the necessary observable effects"?" 

There can be no other possible source. Matter of fact, all information comes externally. You may have internal forces working within, but they don't give you info, they are utility functions only.  You are passive, in a re-active sense...you initiate nothing ultimately...

"How do you know what "effects" are "necessary" in order for you to non-fallaciously learn the word (or any word)?"

It's simple, in order to have knowledge you must have had been exposed through the senses. That exposer comes within the causal chain.  You didn't choose the effects you observed and stored. And language comes through this method.

9B. VINCENT

"My circularities come from the within limits of human axiomatic identity,"  

But how do you know these limits? Again by sensation? How do you "sense" limits?

So you admit that you are circular, but it seems that you are claiming that you are somehow non-fallaciously circular.

"which is based on the material universe."  

But how do you know that there is a material universe? Again by sensation?

"You incorporate the incorporeal Theo meta concepts in your circularities.  Which are unfalsifiable or testable..." 

How do you know that the incorporeal is unfalsifiable and untestable? Again by sensation?  

"I am irreducible and can be observed. I exist therefore I am...Existence precedes awareness of oneself..."

So you have your axioms and presuppositions. But whereas I proceed from my first principle via deduction, you incorporate induction into your system. How do you defend induction as non-fallacious?

"No, the English language that I learned through observing effects from my teachers through my social construct, has taught me the word "as" and how to apply it..."

Right, so you use sensation and induction. But you have yet to justify sensation and induction. Also, how could your teachers "teach" you anything before you even know the word "as"? And still, you have not shown that you have seen or heard "as" itself. So you have never sensed it. But you claim to have observed the "effects." Again how do you know that "as" is an effect?  

"How do I know a social construct? Can you be more specific?"

That is, what is a social construct, and how did you come to know about it?  

"There can be no other possible source."  

How do you know this?

"Matter of fact, all information comes externally."  

How do you know this?

"You may have internal forces working within, but they don't give you info, they are utility functions only."

How do you know this?

"You are passive, in a re-active sense...you initiate nothing ultimately..."

How do you know this?

"It's simple, in order to have knowledge you must have had been exposed through the senses."  

How do you know this? I know that you believe this, but you have yet to justify it.

"That exposer comes within the causal chain."

Again, how do you know this? What is a "causal chain"? How do you sense a "cause"?

"You didn't choose the effects you observed and stored."

How do you know this?

 

"And language comes through this method."

As it is, you still have not justified how you can know anything. Yes, you have asserted, and when questioned, you re-asserted. But where are the arguments? Where is your justification and defense?

Thus I am still waiting for you to answer all of the above questions, as well as all the other ones in the previous messages.

10A. DEREK

I have to say...that this connection or dialog would have probably been better off if I just asked you to defend the goodness that is in you, instead of asking about your application of faith.

But since we have started as we have, I must engage what is...

And what is, is the apparent attack on my epistemic foundation or standards for such justification of trusting the senses.

One of your emails was an obvious sign that you are skeptical of my sense or perceptual understandings.

So, with that assumed by your language, I will proceed. 

Your fundamental problem is that you can't demonstrate how my epistemological standards are invalid.  The main problem with the TAG (the transcendental argument for the existence of God).

You also have not justified your epistemological standard as being:
A.) The only possible standard
B.) A standard prescribed by a transcendental entity.
C.) The work of the God of the Bible

Again I am reminded of one of my emails to you in stating that most theists, especially Reformed Presuppers, make, again, the false dichotomy, lack of specificity, composition and spacial pleading fallacies.

Mr. Cheung, it appears that you are setting me up to give an account for your rejection of my epistemic standards and with them, my whole way of thinking and speaking about the world.

The problem, is that if I am forced to accept your conclusion of this skepticism, we shall find ourselves saying things that make no sense. We must say things like, I'don't know if I or anyone else has a head"., which is nonsense.

That this makes no sense is admittingly an epistemic consideration, but it is also decisive.

For the goal of thought and language is to make sense of our observations. What makes sense is certified by our epistemic standards...those standards reflect our conceptions of reality.

You, are on the doorstep of rejecting those very standards and conceptions. And by doing so, you are rejecting the very language you speak.

So, Mr. Cheung, your treachery has been exposed, and I conclude, your skepticism is a sham and delusion.  As is your faith.

You are attacking the senses using the senses.

So, care to start over and give me a defense for the goodness that is in you?

I am open, and if you can uncover something that I have missed that draws a conclusive distinction to the mechanism in which your disembodied incorporeal non spatial system, acted on the embodied corporeal spatial system, I could not deny it intellectually. 

I can't deny that there is a computer on my desk can I? No.  So, let's look at the objective evidence that points to your transcendental entity...

10B. VINCENT

"I have to say...that this connection or dialog would have probably been better off if I just asked you to defend the goodness that is in you, instead of asking about your application of faith." 

I do not know what you mean by this yet, but I will read on.

"But since we have started as we have, I must engage what is...And what is, is the apparent attack on my epistemic foundation or standards for such justification of trusting the senses. One of your emails was an obvious sign that you are skeptical of my sense or perceptual understandings. So, with that assumed by your language, I will proceed."

Ok.  

"Your fundamental problem is that you can't demonstrate how my epistemological standards are invalid."  

This is just an assertion. I can just as easily assert the opposite.

In addition, I have provided arguments in my books, which you have yet to engage.

"The main problem with the TAG (the transcendental argument for the existence of God)." 

What does the TAG have to do with me?  

"You also have not justified your epistemological standard as being:
A.) The only possible standard
B.) A standard prescribed by a transcendental entity.
C.) The work of the God of the Bible."

But what is my epistemological standard? Do you even know? I explain and provide arguments for it in my books, which you have not engaged.

And when I ask about your views, you assert, and re-assert, and then you assert again.  

"Again I am reminded of one of my emails to you in stating that most theists, especially Reformed Presuppers, make, again, the false dichotomy, lack of specificity, composition and spacial pleading  fallacies."  

I don't know what you are talking about. Where have I done this? Please show it.

"Mr. Cheung, it appears that you are setting me up to give an account for your rejection of my epistemic standards and with them, my whole way of thinking and speaking about the world." 

I am not setting you up for anything. I am just asking you questions that are logically prior to anything that you can ask me. To be fair, I have provided my answers to those same questions in my books, which you have not engaged.  

"The problem, is that if I am forced to accept your conclusion of this skepticism, we shall find ourselves saying things that make no sense."

Please speak for yourself -- not "we," but just you.

"We must say things like, "I don't know if I or anyone else has a head," which is nonsense."

Why is this nonsense?

Now, is the argument something like this? "If X (your epistemology) is false, then nonsense results; Nonsense is impossible or unacceptable; Therefore, X is true." But you have to show that X is necessary to avoid nonsense. Even if nonsense is impossible, it does not necessarily follow that X is true -- maybe Y, Z, A, B, etc. are true.

"That this makes no sense is admittingly an epistemic consideration, but it is also decisive." 

Why? How is it decisive? Try to write this out as a syllogism so that I can follow your reasoning and see that it is valid.  

"For the goal of thought and language is to make sense of our observations."

This is yet another assertion. How do you know it? By sensation? What did you sense that helped you understand this "goal"?  

"What makes sense is certified by our epistemic standards...those standards reflect our conceptions of reality.
You are on the doorstep of rejecting those very standards and conceptions."  

What are "those" standards and conceptions? What standards and conceptions? What are you talking about?

And do you mean that I reject your standards and conceptions? Since when did it become "our"?!

"And by doing so, you are rejecting the very language you speak."

Not really. I have my theory of linguistics and language acquisition, which are stated in my books, which you again fail to engage.

As for you, I asked about your theory of knowledge and language, and I am still waiting for a rational reply.

"So, Mr. Cheung, your treachery has been exposed, and I conclude, your skepticism is a sham and delusion.  As is your faith."

What treachery? Treachery against what? What are you talking about?

How can skepticism be "a sham and delusion"? 

Then, how does that jump to my faith being "a sham and delusion"? 

Is there a process of reasoning here? If so, please re-state it clearly.

Now, do you believe in doubting assumptions, or do you doubt only what you want to get rid of?

In addition, I am just asking you questions that everyone has to answer in the study of philosophy -- it doesn't take a Christian or a theist to ask these questions. If you can't handle it, then why play the game? But I suppose that you believe you can handle it. If so, just answer the questions, so that we can know where you stand and why, and then, having these answers in mind, move on to discuss whatever interests you.   

"You are attacking the senses using the senses."

How have I done this? And how do you know this without a circular appeal to sensation?  

Maybe we are both in a dream, or maybe we are both disembodied beings, in which case neither of us would be using (physical) senses. Since my question to you is purely logical, it could occur even if we are both in a dream or if we are both disembodied beings. It is possible to ask you this question in a dream or in a non-material world; that is, my question to you does not depend on our being in a material world. However, since you claim that we are both using our senses, your answer does depend on us being in a material world and using our senses; therefore, you must defend how you can know anything by sensation.

To accuse me of attacking the senses using the senses begs the question, since as I said, maybe we are both in a dream, or some other situation in which I can still ask the question without depending on the senses.  

"So, care to start over and give me a defense for the goodness that is in you?"

You keep making assertions without arguments, then conclude that I am wrong, and now you want to "start over"? (Here Sansone teaches us that, if you ever get into trouble in a debate, just ask if you may "start over.")

As for "a defense for the goodness that is in you," I don't understand what you mean. 

And you still have not settled the logically prior issues of knowledge and language.  

"I am open, and if you can uncover something that I have missed that draws a conclusive distinction to the mechanism in which your disembodied incorporeal non spatial system, acted on the embodied corporeal spatial system, I could not deny it intellectually."

I have provided arguments in my books, which you have not engaged.  

"I can't deny that there is a computer on my desk can I? No."

Why not? If it is so obvious, show it. Write out your syllogism and end this part of the discussion once for all.

"So, let's look at the objective evidence that points to your transcendental entity..."

But what is "objective"? Your epistemology sounds pretty subjective to me. If you disagree, please show how your epistemology is objective, and why I must adopt it. 

And this brings us to "evidence." What is "evidence"? I suppose that you will not accept the Bible as evidence for my view. But why? You have yet to tell and show me. 

 

(10B. VINCENT, continued)

I thank you for this message and for your attempt. But whereas I at least responded to your statements almost line by line, you have ignored many of my statements and questions. And so the unanswered questions keep piling up. If your statements are still logically nonsense to me, how I can understand and then respond to your questions?

Although I do not want to increase your burden, seeing that you have not yet justified even one of your "sensational" claims, there are other things that I, to put it mildly, wonder about. Nevertheless, since in one of your previous messages you said that it was "simple" to answer from your view, you should easily be able to answer all of the following without fallaciously begging the question.

Since sensation is so important to your view, I would like to understand what you are talking about. What is a sensation? How did you learn the meaning of a sensation? How do you know when you are having a sensation? You said that all information comes externally and from sensation. So do you sense the sensation to know that you have a sensation? If you sense a sensation, then how do you know that? Do you sense the sensation that senses the sensation? Then, do you sense the sensation that senses the sensation that senses the sensation? If this is not your view, then please explain. That is, if all information comes from sensation, then how do you know when you are having a sensation?

Do you ever not have a sensation? How do you know that? Is a lack of sensation itself a sensation? Then, do you sense that you are not having a sensation?

Can you have a sensation and not be conscious of it? How do you know that? Have you ever sensed that you are not conscious of a particular sensation? If so, then are you not in fact conscious of it? Does this not return us to the original question, that is, can you have a sensation and not be conscious of it?

Or, are you conscious of all the sensations that you are having? How do you know that? Do you sense that you are sensing all? But then, do you sense that you sense that you are sensing all? How do you know? By sensation again?

Do you always sense everything around you? If not, how do you know that you are not sensing everything around you if you are not sensing what you are sensing?

How about radio waves? Are there radio waves? If so, do you sense radio waves? All the radio and TV stations at the same time? If you use a radio device to pick up these waves, then what are you sensing? The sound from the radio, or the radio waves? Do you hear words and music from the radio? If so, then are radio waves words and music? Ah, but you might say that these are the "effects" of the radio waves. But then, you are only sensing the effects and not the cause. If so, how do you know the cause? If you infer from the effects to the cause, then how do you know that the inference is valid? By sensation again? What do you sense that would confirm this?

Also, how do you know that you do not know certain things? By sensation? Again, is the lack of sensation a sensation? How do you know this? Do you sense that a lack of sensation is a sensation?

Then, if you know that you do not know certain things, what are these "certain things"? If you know what they are, then you must know what they are by sensation, but then, this means that you have sensed them -- if so, in what sense do you not know them?

Now, do you believe that the earth is flat, or that it is a sphere? If you believe that it is a sphere, then how do you know this? By sensation? How? Have you seen the earth from space?

Or do you trust the experts and the scientists? But then you did not sense what you claim to know, but you sensed only the testimony of these "experts." Maybe you have seen a picture of the earth? But a picture is not the earth, so at best you sensed a picture. How do you know that the picture was not "doctored"? By sensation? How do you sense "not doctored"? Also, a picture is flat, so how is the earth a sphere?

The sun looks pretty flat to me. Now suppose that I look at the sun from space and see that it is spherical, then what am I suppose to believe? If we assert that the sun and the earth are spheres and that they rotate, then the rotation is not really sensed, but calculated. Even then, how do you confirm that no errors in calculation were made? Again by sensation? What do you sense?

Also, do you believe in atoms? Have you sensed an atom? Even if you have, how do you know that there are atoms other than the one that you have sensed? Or are we just supposed to trust the scientists? Are they your pope? If you do not believe all that they say, then why do you accept some of what they say and not others when you have sensed neither (except for their testimonies, if even that)? Have they seen atoms? Have they seen the effects of atoms? If so, how do they know that those effects were produced by atoms? And still, maybe they sensed the effects (if even that), and not the atoms.

How did you learn your name? Did you accept a word as your name, just because people called you something enough times? I can think of a number of things to call you other than "Derek," but will you accept one or more of those words as your name or names if I call you those things often enough? Why or why not?  If I call you "Ralph" twice, would you accept that as your new name? How about six hundred times? Why or why not? How often is "often enough"? How did you know that it was enough when you first accepted your name as "Derek"? Did you sense "enough"? Or the effects of "enough"? How? Are you Pavlov's dog? But there is not always food after the sensation of the bell's ring, is there? Or did you somehow infer from what you heard that "Derek" was your name? If so, did you sense the inference? Please write out the process of inference in syllogistic form so you can exhibit its logical validity.

Do you like logic? Do you want to be rational? Then how did you learn the law of contradiction (or non-contradiction)? If you learn all things by sensation, then how did you sense the law of contradiction? If you sensed (seen or heard) it used or applied and then inferred this law, then is your knowledge still from sensation? Or is it from sensation plus logical inference? But then, how come you used logical inference before you learned the law of contradiction? Also, before you learned the law of contradiction, did you have sensations? If so, did you apply the law of contradiction to those sensations, so that a sensation could not mean one thing and its contradictory at the same time? If you did not apply the law, then how come all sensations were not nonsense? If you did apply the law, how could you do it before you learned it?

How did you learn the word "God"? If all knowledge comes from sensation, then have you sensed God? If you have sensed God, then why are you an atheist? If you have not sensed God, then maybe you heard the word and inferred the meaning of the word, but then by sensation you only learned the sound and not the meaning, since you inferred the meaning. But then, did you and I infer the same thing out of the sound? Do we mean the same thing when we say "God"? If we do not mean the same thing, then all the arguments you have against "God" do not apply to me.

As for the question of personal identity, how do you know that you are the same person today as you were yesterday? Do you sense that you are the same person? But cannot two different things give you the same sensation? If so, then the problem remains. If not, then how do you know? That is, how or what have you sensed that no two thing in this universe can give you the same sensation, so that you can always distinguish between different things?

Now, I also wonder about several things that you wrote.

For example, you wrote, "the English language that I learned through observing effects from my teachers through my social construct, has taught me the word "as" and how to apply it..."

You said that you learned the word "as" because your teachers taught you the word. But is this not relying on testimony instead of by sensation? Or at least both? But how do you know that what they told you was correct? Again by sensation? What did you sense to verify whether they were correct? Also, what would be "correct" in this case? How do you know? If you somehow verified what they taught by sensation, then did the teachers teach you the word or not? Also, have you verified by sensation every word that you use?

Also, has the word "as" (or any other word that you use) changed its meaning? How do you know that it has or has not changed? If it has changed, then how do you know that you will necessarily know about it? If you do not know whether it has changed, then why do you use it? And what reason do you have to suppose that I would understand the same thing when you use the word? By sensation? How? And what do you sense?

Also, how do you know that you were not dreaming when your teachers taught the words to you? How do you know that you are not dreaming now? By sensation? What do you sense that tells you that you are not dreaming? Do you have sensations when you are dreaming, like sight and sound? How do you know? Again by sensation? Perhaps I am just one of your nightmares, and that you will wake up to a sensation friendly world soon. Either way, how do you know?

Then, you wrote, "Matter of fact, all information comes externally....You may have internal forces working within, but they don't give you info, they are utility functions only."

How to you know that these "internal forces" that are "utility functions" (whatever they mean) do not change what you sense, so that what you think you sensed does not really correspond to the object of sensation? Now, if you try to verify that what you think you sensed indeed corresponds to the object of sensation, then do you still do this verification by sensation? And then you accuse other people of being circular? 

Also, you wrote, "You incorporate the incorporeal Theo meta concepts in your circularities. Which are unfalsifiable or testable..."

How do you know that the incorporeal is unfalsifiable and untestable? Have you sensed the incorporeal or the effects of the incorporeal, then somehow inferred that the incorporeal is unfalsifiable and untestable? Then, is this claim about the incorporeal itself falsifiable and testable? If your claim about the incorporeal is falsifiable and testable, then how come other claims about the incorporeal are not? If your claim about the incorporeal is unfalsifiable and untestable, then by your own standard, why should I pay any attention to you when you talk about the incorporeal?

Now, if I claim to have seen and sensed Christ, how would you refute me? It would be my testimony. How would you refute me by sensation?

Moreover, you wrote, "Supposing is a flawed way of knowing Theo-metaphysical claims Mr. Cheung...."

But how do you know this by sensation? Do you know something about "Theo-metaphysical claims" by sensation, and then by sensation know that "supposing" is a flawed way of knowing about these claims? What did you sense that helped you to know this? How did you infer this from sensation? Was the inference valid? Show that it is valid.

My questions about the incorporeal would also apply here.

Then, you wrote, "You would not know ANYTHING without external forces of observable effects, in which you had NO control."

But how do you sense a lack of control, or the effects of a lack of control then validly inferred to be the effects of a lack of control? 

Now if any of the above questions are irrelevant, unimportant, stupid, and a waste of time, then how do you know that? By sensation yet again? How do you sense "irrelevant," "unimportant," "stupid," and "a waste of time"? Perhaps you learned what they mean by sensing yourself? No? Then what and how?  

In any case, since I have taken the time to write these thoughtful questions, please have the decency to explain to me your answers to them, and defend your answers. Again, according to you, this should be a simple task.

Are we trying to be logical or not? Are we trying to be rational or not? If we are, then why did you ask me about "faith" or "defense of the goodness" before you have shown me how you can logically know or say anything, which is the logically prior issue? Whereas I have been very focused and specific with my questions, you have been going all over the place. Are you trying to "red herring me"? And then you accuse Christians for being irrational?!

You are the one who wrote, "I am trying to find the core and start there." Throughout, I have been trying to accommodate you on precisely this point, and to give you an opportunity to present and defend your view on "the core." My view on the core issues are stated in detail in my books for public scrutiny. As for you, you have failed to answer the simplest questions on the core issues. If I do not know where you stand on the core issues and why, then how I can engage your view? Without knowing where you are intellectually coming from and why, how do I know what kind of answer to give you?

You have an epistemology, and you will probably accept as true only those answers consistent with your epistemology, or perhaps you think that you are even willing to change your epistemology upon hearing a compelling argument. So I am trying to "find the core and start there" by asking you, what is your epistemology, and how do you justify it? You sound so confident about your view, so you must have ready answers and arguments for it. If so, then just show me. But you did not do this.

You said that this is not your first "presupper rodeo," then surely you must have had your presuppositions challenged before. Since you still sound so confident about your view, then I suppose you must have been successful in defending it against these presuppositionalists? If this is so, then it should be easy for you to state your view and defend it. Yes, I think I understand something about your view, but you have just asserted it. But you need to defend it, and exhibit its rationality and validity.

Recall how this dialogue started. You are the one who first emailed me, and then you asked me a question. I answered your question (the one about faith), and then I asked you about things that logically come before your original question. Even by non-Christian standard, this should be quite fair and charitable. Then, you accused me of trying to set you up for something. But you asked me about faith, and after I answered, you changed and asked me about some "defense of the goodness" (whatever that means). Were you trying to set me up? If so, doubtless you could not logically do this without first answering the logically prior issues of knowledge and language from your worldview, and defending those answers.

You said more than once that I have fundamental problems, but you have not justified how you can even make the assertion, let alone justify the content of the assertion itself. I understand that you are trying to oppose my system of thought, but you also have a system of thought, from which you make assertions against my system of thought. But unless you justify your system of thought as true, then how can you use your system of thought to oppose mine? Can't I do the same to you? Can't anyone do this to anyone? You said that you want to get to "the core," and here I am asking you simple and direct questions about the core -- that is, about the way that you know anything and the basis upon which you make any assertions, including assertions against my system of thought. So surely this is what you want to discuss and tell me. Until you give me some strict rational argument, your position is too irrational for me, such that it cannot even be logically understood.

And surely I am not too skeptical for an atheist to handle? Who has heard of such a thing?

As an opponent, you have been much more disappointing than I anticipated. For this reason, and since I have already been very generous with my time with you, I must safeguard future attempts to waste my time by stating in advance that I would (except for some unexpected and special reason that I cannot think of right now) neither read nor answer additional emails that you send me for at least two years. It might take you at least that long to improve your arguments and presentation, although they will probably never improve at all. Right now, it is as if you are wallowing in intellectual feces, and the intellectual stench is very unpleasant, even if amusing at first. Perhaps you will find other less skilled "presuppositionalists" to entertain your sensational nonsense; as for me, this is enough nonsense to last a while.

In any case, I will take this opportunity to also exhort you to repent of your sins and believe the gospel. You have probably heard it many times. You wanted to think that it is intellectual nonsense, and you thought you could intellectually resist its claims. But instead, your view has been exposed as foolish and groundless. On the other hand, since I stand on the infallible foundation of Scripture, when you argue against me, you are arguing against the wisdom of God, which is like fighting a supernova with a toothpick. Even without quoting Psa 14:1, as you say that we often do, but just by using standard philosophy questions, and by giving you repeated opportunities to answer them, I have exposed you as a complete moron, and an intellectual midget and an intellectual fraud. You are an embarrassment to philosophers everywhere, and indeed to humanity. Only God can save your wretched soul and feeble mind. 

Red = Derek's statement
Blue = Derek quotes Vincent
Black = Vincent's response
Green = Vincent speaks to the readers

Why does to "die daily" mean to deal with you? Please give me an exegetical argument from the relevant biblical passages.

 

You are the one commanded to spread the messege

Right, and that is what I am trying to do by focusing on my work in preaching the word, and giving you a little time, and then showing as many people as I can the text of our dialogue. Also, I am commanded not to give what is sacred to the dogs and to cast pearls before pigs, and rather shake the dust off my feet. Therefore, I am just trying to scrape the intellectual feces (you) that I stepped on from my feet.

 

and give a defense for the goodness that is in you. 

Where am I commanded to give a defense for "the goodness" that is in me? Did you just make that up?

Specifically, what are you referring to when you say "goodness"?

What do you mean by it? What do you think I mean by it? Do we mean the same thing by it?

What do you mean by "defense"? I suppose that you are referring to an intellectual defense by argumentation. If so, what would be the conclusion in the argument? That is, what conclusion am I trying to assert or prove by the "defense"? "The goodness"? What does that mean? Do you mean that I should argue that what I believe to be goodness is indeed good? Or do you mean that I should argue that there is indeed goodness in me? Or what?

 

You were pretty decent through most of this, right up until the end....calling me a moron, wallowing in intellectual feces? Is that the most Christian response, especially from a pastor?  

You are the one who says that we (Christians? presuppositionalists?) often use Psa. 14:1, which says, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Also, Romans 1:22 says, "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools." The root here is moros. So of course it is the most Christian response to call an atheist a moron. If Christians have been using Psa. 14:1 against you so many times, as you say, then you should already know this. But here you speak as if you have no idea that this is the Christian thing to say.

You moron!

(I have now established that this is indeed the Christian thing to say; therefore, I will keep on saying it. Unless one first refutes Christianity, to claim that I should not speak this way begs the question. For more on this, see Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology, Ultimate Questions, Presuppositional Confrontations, Apologetics in Conversation, Commentary on Ephesians [especially p. 103-106], "A Moron by Any Other Name," and "Professional Morons"; Douglas Wilson, The Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking [Canon Press, 2003]; Robert A. Morey, "And God Mocked Them" [audio]; and James E. Adams, War Psalms of the Prince of Peace: Lessons From the Imprecatory Psalms [Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1991].)

 

You are the lucky one by not debating me  publicly...I would have embarassed you, sir...

Well, I doubt that I would be embarassed by you, and I doubt that the people reading this will think that I would be embarassed by you. But you are right that I am the "lucky" one -- I do not believe in "luck," but apparently you do -- since then you would be wasting even more of my time, and then it would be a public waste of time!

 

The most interesting part of your argument was the following, which (believe it or not) refutes the TAG (the transcendental argument for the existence of God). You said: "Now, is the argument something like this? "If X (your epistemology) is false, then nonsense results; Nonsense is impossible or unacceptable; Therefore, X is true." But you have to show that X is necessary to avoid nonsense. Even if nonsense is impossible, it does not necessarily follow that X is true -- maybe Y, Z, A, B, etc. are true." That's essentially what the TAG says- "If Christianity is false, then logic can't exist. The non-existence of logic is impossible. Therefore, Christianity is true." But in your own words, you have to show that [Christianity] is necessary to avoid nonsense...it does not necessarily follow that [Christianity] is true -- maybe [Judaism], [Islam], [Hinduism], [Buddhism], etc. are true."

But if this is the transcendental argument, then you were trying to use the transcendental argument yourself, and then you acknowledge that my response refuted it. So, whereas I successfully refuted your transcendental argument, where in our dialogue did I use the transcendental argument? Yes, I do mention the transcendental argument in my books, but I also mention the cosmological argument; however, it is clear in my books that I depend on neither.

I had warned you at the beginning not to identify me with other presuppositionalists that you had debated. Then, during the course of our dialogue, I wrote, "What does the TAG have to do with me?" -- and you did not say.

Also, what you say here still does not prove that your epistemology is right, but rather seems to say that even you admit that it could be wrong, that is, not necessarily true.

 

That's essentially why the TAG fails- because it can't argue for the truth of its premise from its conclusion. You could insert any other premise in the TAG and have a logically valid argument.

But this is just another assertion, you have yet to show this. You claim above that the transcendental argument fails if the Christian cannot show that one must necessarily presuppose Christianity to avoid nonsense, but you have not taken any actual example or formulation of the transcendental argument for the existence of God to show that it fails to show that Christianity is a necessary presupposition.

So you prove nothing here.

 

Like I said the, lack of specificity and false dichotomy rings loudly... 

What "specificity" is lacking? What have you asked me to specify? What are you talking about?

And a "dichotomy" between what and what? Where have I posed a "dichotomy" that is false? What are you talking about?

 

Most of your argument seems to be just skepticism.

Most of my argument is just skepticism? But I thought you think that I use, or even depend on, the transcendental argument? Which is it?

But no, my argument is not skepticism as such, but I have been asking you standard questions that every person who engages in philosophical thinking must answer. So skepticism is not my argument; rather, my method and my argument are stated in my books, which you still fail to engage.

 

You keep asking me axiomatic questions about my epistemology, with the intent (I assume) of catching me in circular argumentation.

No, the intent is to find out what you believe, how you know anything, and why.

 

But axioms are not arguments- an axiom is knowledge assumed, not concluded. If I attempt to conclude the basic axioms (Existence, Sentience, Sensory Observation, Logical Universe), then of course I am going to show myself to be circular. The only intellectually honest approach is to assume only those axioms which are necessary, and until the Christian axiom is shown to be necessary, Christianity is not intellectually honest...

Great! So all you have to show is that your axioms (Existence, Sentience, Sensory Observation, Logical Universe) are necessary; otherwise, you admit that you are intellectually dishonest.

As for me, my arguments are presented in my books, which you still fail to engage. As for you, I have given you repeated opportunities to explain and defend you view, but you have yet to show that your basic axioms are necessary.

 

"I thank you for this message and for your attempt. But whereas I at least responded to your statements almost line by line, you have ignored many of my statements and questions. And so the unanswered questions keep piling up. If your statements are still logically nonsense to me, how I can understand and then respond to your questions?"

I didn't realize you were in such a hurry. Take a chill pill, Vincent, this haste doesn't suit you...I thought you would have been more patient.

I admit that I don't want to waste time on you, but how do the sentences quoted above reflect that I was in a hurry? How did you infer "in such a hurry" from these quoted statements? If this is how you practice logical inference, then how can we expect you to infer the right things from sensation? You can't even read!

What is a "chill pill"? Is it corporeal, or incorporeal? If it is corporeal, where can I buy some? If it is incorporeal, then why do you think that there is such a thing?

Why does "this haste" not suit me? Why did you think that I would have been more patient? By sensation? What did you sense that made you think that I would have been more patient? In any case, your sensation gave you the wrong information, then, did it not?

 

"Although I do not want to increase your burden, seeing that you have not yet justified even one of your "sensational" claims, there are other things that I, to put it mildly, wonder about. Nevertheless, since in one of your previous messages you said that it was "simple" to answer from your view, you should easily be able to answer all of the following without fallaciously begging the question."

What other wonders?

I am referring to the questions below.

 

"Since sensation is so important to your view, I would like to understand what you are talking about. What is a sensation?"

Touch, taste, hear, smell and see.

But at best, you are just listing different kinds of sensations. But what is a sensation?

 

"How did you learn the meaning of a sensation?"

The English language has identified these activities,

English identifies the meaning of sensation?! How about German or Chinese?

But how do you know the meaning of a sensation, so that you can express this meaning in English (even if you cannot do it in German or Chinese)?

 

but you don't even need to know language to be exposed to external forces...

But what is the meaning of a sensation? That you are "exposed to external foces" does not tell me what you mean by sensation.

And what are these "external forces"? What "forces"?

 

"How do you know when you are having a sensation?"

Senses stop when I am sleeping or when I am not aware. 

But how do you know this? You said that "all information comes externally" and is known by sensation. So how do you know by sensation that your senses stop when you are sleeping? That is, if the senses stop, then how do you know that they stopped? According to you, you must know "all information," including this piece of information, by sensation.

Also, if your senses stop when you are sleeping, does this mean that I can punch you as hard as I can in the face while you are sleeping, and you will just keep on sleeping?

Or, do you mean that sensation must be connected to active awareness? But you wrote, "all information comes externally...You are passive." Which one is it?

 

Senses stop when I am sleeping or when I am not aware.  I could also be under sensory prohibitors, such as medicine. 

But how do you know this by sensation?

 

My sentience gives way to sensory input, externally of course.

But how do you know this by sensation?

What is your "sentience"? How have you sensed it?

 

It's self-evident that a sense is a sense, you don't even have to have a word for it, it is awareness. 

Of course it is self-evident that a sense is a sense, just like a dog is a dog, a Derek is a Derek, and a moron and a moron.

But what is a moron? Who is a moron? You are!

So what is a sensation?

 

"You said that all information comes externally and from sensation. So do you sense the sensation to know that you have a sensation?"

No. It's just a sensation. It's constant, no pre-senses necessary.

This is just an assertion. Show it! Show it!

And what do you mean that it is "constant"?

And I am not talking about "pre-senses." I am asking you how you know when you are having a sensation. If, as you say, "all information" comes externally and from sensation, then the knowledge that you are having a sensation must also come from sensation, so you must sense your sensation, and then sense the sensation that senses the sensation, and so on.

You moron!

 

If I sensed the sensation is the same thing as senses anything, fill in the blank with whatever is being sensed.

(Dear readers, please help me. Does any of you understand this nonsensical statement?)

 

"If you sense a sensation, then how do you know that? Do you sense the sensation that senses the sensation? Then, do you sense the sensation that senses the sensation that senses the sensation? If this is not your view, then please explain. That is, if all information comes from sensation, then how do you know when you are having a sensation?"

I don't think you quite understand what human sentience is.

Tell me, then! Tell me! And show me!

 

Senses report, not dispute.

Then let's "dispute" about how and what the senses can "report." But you just assert, then re-assert, and then you assert again.

But how do you know this by sensation? You said that "all information" must come externally and by sensation.

 

"Do you ever not have a sensation? How do you know that? Is a lack of sensation itself a sensation? Then, do you sense that you are not having a sensation?"

If I stop having senses than I would not also be aware conciously of my surroundings, or I am under some medication that dulled the senses.  Such as pain killers...

But how do you know this by sensation? You said that "all information" must come externally and by sensation.

How can you have this information about "stop having senses" if "all information" must come externally and by sensation?

 

"Can you have a sensation and not be conscious of it?"

No it would cease to be a sensation then.  If there is no input then you are not concious of it then.

So again I wonder what happens if I punch you really hard in the face while you are sleeping.

Do you believe in science? Do you believe in experimentation? Then tell someone to try it on you tonight.

 

"How do you know that? Have you ever sensed that you are not conscious of a particular sensation? If so, then are you not in fact conscious of it? Does this not return us to the original question, that is, can you have a sensation and not be conscious of it?"

See above.

But that's the problem -- you have not yet shown how one can see anything, so how can anyone "see above"?

 

"Do you always sense everything around you?"

No. If someone is behind me I cannot see them or touch them yet.  However, I could smell them if they had a harsh odor...

Suppose that someone stands behind you for several seconds and then leaves, and none of your senses registered his presence. This means that something was around you and you did you sense it.

So, if you say (although you do not), "I always sense everything around me," then this would be wrong because you did not sense this person.

But if you say (as you admit), "I do not always sense everything around me," then how do you know? You never sensed this person who stood behind you, so how can you know that he was behind you and that you did not sense him?

 

"If not, how do you know that you are not sensing everything around you if you are not sensing what you are sensing?"

It wouldn't matter. I just said I wouldn't be sensing it yet, obviously, so I know that I didn't sense something until after I eventually sense it. 

But you are begging the question. You wrote, "I know that I didn't sense something until after I eventually sense it." You "know"?! But you wrote that "all information" must come externally and by sensation.

 

If the person walks around into my vison scope, I then sense them then. 

How?

And how do you know this?

 

"How about radio waves? Are there radio waves? If so, do you sense radio waves?"

I can see them.

Which?

 

Most of the radio wavelengths are readily accessible from Earth's surface

"Most"? But if "all information" comes externally and from sensation, then to make this statement, you must have sensed all radio waves, then counted (again by sensation) how many of them are "readily accessible from Earth's surface"? To say "most," you must know all, and then count that the majority are "accessible" (what does that mean?!).

But how do you know all radio waves by sensation? Don't just assert it, show it!

 

and astronomers have built large radio telescopes to catch this radiation.

How do you know that these instruments are reliable? In your view, you would be sensing only the "effects" of these radio waves through the instruments. To know that the instruments do not distort the objection of sensation (the radio waves), you must directly sense the radio waves and then sense the effects of these radio waves through the instruments, and then compare the two sensations.

But if you can do that, you wouldn't need the instruments!

You moron!

 

"All the radio and TV stations at the same time?"

No.

Why? And how do you know? Don't just say it, show it, prove it!

 

"If you use a radio device to pick up these waves, then what are you sensing?"

I am seeing and hearing.

What are you seeing and hearing? The radio waves, or the sound from the radio?

 

"The sound from the radio, or the radio waves? Do you hear words and music from the radio? If so, then are radio waves words and music? Ah, but you might say that these are the "effects" of the radio waves. But then, you are only sensing the effects and not the cause."

Great, were finally getting somewhere...

Really?

 

I assume they are from space...

You assume? (He "assumes.")

"From space"? Have you sensed space? Ah, but you "assume."

 

Many natural phenomena exhibit wavelike behavior.

How do you know this by sensation?

 

But the origin is theory.

What are you talking about? You mean the origin of the "natural phenomena" is theory, or what?

Please learn to write clearly.

"Also, how do you know that you do not know certain things?"

When I know that I don't know them.

But if "all information" comes externally and by sensation, then you must sense that you don't know something in order to know that you don't know this "something." But if you sense this "something," then how is it that you do not know this "something"?

 

"By sensation? Again, is the lack of sensation a sensation?"

Yes, consequent of sensory input.

Are you saying that "you do not know certain things" or that "you know that you do not know certain things" is the "consequent of sensory input"? But if you have "sensory input" of these "certain things," then how do you not know them?

 

Lack of sensory input means, lack of sensation, come on, Vincent, this is elemental...

Here you just re-state your view, and then say "come on...this is elemental," as if I missed something. "Lack of sensory input means, lack of sensation" -- fine, but this is not what I asked you. I asked you that if "all information" must come from sensation, then how can you know about a lack of sensation? How do you sense a lack of sensation? How do you sense a lack of sensory input?

 

Then, if you know that you do not know certain things, what are these "certain things"? If you know what they are, then you must know what they are by sensation, but then, this means that you have sensed them -- if so, in what sense do you not know them?

Sight and memory of past sight and experience.

Is this supposed to answer my question?! I asked "What are these certain things (that you do not know)?" and "In what sense do you not know them?"

And you answered, "Sight and memory of past sight and experience."

So, do you mean, "I do not know sight and memory of past sight and experience"?

Or, do you mean, "I do not know them in the sense of sight and memory of past sight and experience"?

Now, what in the world does this mean?!

(Does it not seem like that Sansone is trying to psycho-assert me into submission?)

 

Now, do you believe that the earth is flat, or that it is a sphere? If you believe that it is a sphere, then how do you know this? By sensation? How? Have you seen the earth from space?

No, but I have seen pictures. I know that it round, based on what falls under roundness in the English language.

But I already wrote (and as you quote below), "Maybe you have seen a picture of the earth? But a picture is not the earth, so at best you sensed a picture....Also, a picture is flat, so how is the earth a sphere?"

 

Or do you trust the experts and the scientists? But then you did not sense what you claim to know, but you sensed only the testimony of these "experts." Maybe you have seen a picture of the earth? But a picture is not the earth, so at best you sensed a picture. How do you know that the picture was not "doctored"?

I take the surrounding elements into consideration when observing.

What surrounding elements?

What surrounding elements will tell you that the earth is a sphere when you cannot see it as a sphere?

What surrounding elements will tell you that the earth is a sphere when a picture of the earth is flat?

What surrounding elements will tell you that the earth is a sphere when you have only the testimonies of "experts"? And how do you know that they are really experts by sensation?

 

I probe the sources...I examine. I scratch below the surfaces, that's is how I left the faith...

I probed your souces, I examined your view, I scratched below the surfaces, and that is why I call you

A MORON!

 

By sensation? How do you sense "not doctored"? Also, a picture is flat, so how is the earth a sphere?

Technology has provided sufficient data that can be examined by scientific experiment and repeated, this works for me...

What technology? How do you know that the technology is reliable to test something if you need the technology to test that something in the first place?

"Sufficient data"? Sufficient according to whom? Sufficient according to you? If so, then your standard is subjective, but you said that you depend on "objective evidence." What objective evidence defines that there is "sufficient data"?

So you trust "scientific experiment"? But I have shown in my books that the method of experimentation commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. That is,

If X is true, then Y is true.
Y is true.
Therefore, X is true.

But this is a fallacy because it may be that A, B, or C causes Y to be true, not X. To repeat experiments is only to repeat this fallacious procedure over and over again.

As even the atheist Bertrand Russell admits:

All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based.

And Karl Popper writes:

Although in science we do our best to find the truth, we are conscious of the fact that we can never be sure whether we have got it….In science there is no "knowledge," in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.…Einstein declared that his theory was false – he said that it would be a better approximation to the truth than Newton's, but he gave reasons why he would not, even if all predictions came out right, regard it as a true theory.

But Derek Sansone writes:

"This works for me."

"For me"?! But you claimed to be objective.

If you want to know or claim to know anything by science, then you must overcome this objection about affirming the consequent, and establish by argumentation your philosophy of science.

(See also "Is Science Superstitious?" by Bertrand Russell. Near the end of this essay, he writes, "The great scandals in the philosophy of science ever since the time of Hume have been causality and induction....Hume made it appear that our belief is a blind faith for which no rational ground can be assigned....This state of affairs is profoundly unsatisfactory...We must hope that an answer will be found; but I am quite unable to believe that it has been found." Sansone offers no argument to support his "blind faith" in causality and induction; instead, he seems to superstitiously believe in science. As for me, I have explained and defended my view of science in my books, which Sansone fails to engage.)

The sun looks pretty flat to me. Now suppose that I look at the sun from space and see that it is spherical, then what am I suppose to believe? If we assert that the sun and the earth are spheres and that they rotate, then the rotation is not really sensed, but calculated. Even then, how do you confirm that no errors in calculation were made? Again by sensation? What do you sense?

There could be errors. 

How do you know when something is an error and when it is not? If you cannot tell, then how do you know that you are not in error now?

 

But we know by current cosmology that the sun is a sphere.

This is just an assertion, not an argument or a proof.

How do you know that "current cosmology" is correct? Don't just say it, show it!

And when you say, "current cosmology," do you mean that it may change? If so, then how do you "know" that it is correct now? Which is it?

 

It looks flat from my perspective too,

LOL.

 

but that is just because of my angle...

How, how, how do you know this?! How do you get this information ("just because of my angle") from sensation?

If I look at the sun from space, and it looks like a sphere, I can just as easily say, "It looks like a sphere to me, but that is just because of my angle."

So is the sun flat, or is it a sphere? How do you know?

On the other hand, so far you show yourself to be a MORON from any angle.

Also, do you believe in atoms? Have you sensed an atom? Even if you have, how do you know that there are atoms other than the one that you have sensed? Or are we just supposed to trust the scientists? Are they your pope? If you do not believe all that they say, then why do you accept some of what they say and not others when you have sensed neither (except for their testimonies, if even that)? Have they seen atoms? Have they seen the effects of atoms? If so, how do they know that those effects were produced by atoms? And still, maybe they sensed the effects (if even that), and not the atoms.

This is where you use faith...as you know.

ROFL.

But, me having faith in atoms is a belief based on expectations of things already experienced or humanly experience-able...

What is the logical process by which you infer this expectation from your experience?

Don't just psycho-assert, show it! Write out the process of reasoning.

 

by the axiomatic laws of logic and nature... I see with my eyes and observe.

There are "axiomatic laws of...nature" now? What are you talking about? What are they? How do you know about them?

 

How did you learn your name? Did you accept a word as your name, just because people called you something enough times? I can think of a number of things to call you other than "Derek," but will you accept one or more of those words as your name or names if I call you those things often enough? Why or why not?

It would get on my nerves a little. But that would be my problem of not conditioning you enough. Or maybe you are mentally retarded, and conditioning would be futile. So, I'd have to deal with that when it happens, I hate speculating on unlikely hypotheticals...

But this does not answer the question, why or why not?

 

If I call you "Ralph" twice, would you accept that as your new name?

It would be "a" name you call me, not my real name...

How would you know?

 

How about six hundred times? Why or why not? How often is "often enough"? How did you know that it was enough when you first accepted your name as "Derek"? Did you sense "enough"? Or the effects of "enough"? How? Are you Pavlov's dog? But there is not always food after the sensation of the bell's ring, is there? Or did you somehow infer from what you heard that "Derek" was your name? If so, did you sense the inference? Please write out the process of inference in syllogistic form so you can exhibit its logical validity.

I don't need to.  It's unecessary.  I appeal to the external forces of my parents. 

But who are your parents? How did you know? Or is that also an axiom?

 

And with that comes repetition and conditioning. I grew to understand my name was Derek.

So you are Pavlov's dog. But like I said, "There is not always food after the sensation of the bell's ring." So the question remains, how did you learn your name by sensation? Nothing you have said so far even comes close to being a real answer.

 

Do you like logic? Do you want to be rational? Then how did you learn the law of contradiction (or non-contradiction)? If you learn all things by sensation, then how did you sense the law of contradiction? If you sensed (seen or heard) it used or applied and then inferred this law, then is your knowledge still from sensation? Or is it from sensation plus logical inference? But then, how come you used logical inference before you learned the law of contradiction? Also, before you learned the law of contradiction, did you have sensations? If so, did you apply the law of contradiction to those sensations, so that a sensation could not mean one thing and its contradictory at the same time? If you did not apply the law, then how come all sensations were not nonsense? If you did apply the law, how could you do it before you learned it?

Ok, enough of this...

Hey, answer the question! Or do you give up? Why is it "enough"? Enough of what? You haven't answered anything.

Again, how do you know that there is "enough of this"? How do you sense "enough"? Or, what do you sense from which you infer that this is enough? Is the inference valid? Please show it.

And "enough of this" according to whom? According to you? If I had known that "enough of this" is a proper move in debate, then I could have just do the same to you and saved me some time, but then you probably would have accused me of avoiding your questions.

(Please see the section marked "10B. VINCENT, continued" to see all the remaining questions that Sansone does not even try to answer.)

 

Now here is my sermon Mr. Cheung...

Why do you have to pre-suppose logic when we already know with certainty that we use it?

How is this question relevant to me?

Also, are you saying that if "we already know with certainty that we use" something, then we do not presuppose it? Isn't it the other way around, that if you already know with certainty that we use something, that you do presuppose it? What are you talking about?

 

You may call it something else, but it's fundamental characteristics are utilized regardless of their label.

Call what "something else"? Logic? You say "their label" (plural) -- so are you talking about the label for the characteristics, or logic? What are you talking about?

"It's fundamental characteristics"? The "fundamental characteristics" of what? Logic? What are you talking about?

(Dear readers, have I not been more than patient with Sansone? I am doing this only for you.)

 

There is no believing involved.

So you do not believe in logic? What are you talking about?

Or, by "no believing," do you  mean no presupposing or assuming (without justification)? What are you talking about?

 

No need to hesitate, because by hesitating while deliberating prior to a choice being made, you use logic to analyze what someone is offering you.

I am not sure, but you might be talking about how some people use the transcendental argument to justify logic, and say that it cannot be justified otherwise? Is that it?

If so, then where have I done this? Are you talking to me, or to Bahnsen and Van Til?

Bahnsen and Van Til are not here, so why don't you talk to me instead?

 

You use it to find the truth of the matter...it is by using this natural born brain emission that precedes an acceptance or rejection of one's claims.

Are you still talking about logic? How can you use logic to "find" something? Logic itself is without content. And how is logic a "brain emission"?

Also, you are the one who says that "all information" comes externally, and is known only by sensation. So again, does information about logic come externally and by sensation or not? But if logic is your "brain emission," then your brain must be outside of you. Here you seem to say that you know and defend logic because logic is unavoidable and self-evident, but on your view, you can and must only know that logic is unavoidable and self-evident externally and by sensation.

Please make up your mind.

 

The reason claims may seem doubtful is because of the laws of logic naturally playing out to justify what someone is saying to you. There is no reason to be uncertain about the methods of logic because they happen without choice. It like a chain reaction. Automatic. The axioms of logic are presupposed in all discourse, including the attempt to doubt logic!

Where have I doubted logic?

But I would like to know how you learned it if "all information" must come externally and by sensation, as you psycho-asserted.

 

We are all born "a" theistic, then by external forces of information reaching us, we learn about religious ideology.

This is just an assertion. How do you know? Show it.

 

It then, is combined with the other ideologies that exist and all are part of the moral machine.

What is a moral machine? And how do you know that you are a part of it by sensation? What are you talking about?

 

We all effect each other and we are all effected relatively because we all start from different points and learn on our own pace.

How do you know?

 

...religion is learned,

How do you know?

And without justifying this, you jump to...

 

which indicates that it is a social phenomena, and not a 'supernatural" or "spiritual" phenomena.

So whatever is learned is not supernatural or spiritual? Why?

 

Morality requires knowledge, and speaks to motivations.

How do you know?

And if "morality requires knowledge," how does this speak "to motivations"?

 

If my motivation for an act is reward, then I am merely being prudent, not really moral.

How do you know? And by what standard of morality do you say this? And how do you justify this standard of morality?

 

If my motivation for an act is to avoid punishment, then I am being obedient, not moral in a mature sense.

If you want to avoid punishment, you are being "obedient"?! Shouldn't you say "prudent"? Why or why not?

 

An act is moral in a mature sense when one performs the act because the act itself is found to be good.

How can morality be mature or immature? How do you know?

The "act itself is found to be good"? By what standard?

 

Theism cannot inculcate mature morality, because the punishments and rewards it offers invalidate mature morality.

I thought you said that you were a former Calvinist, but Calvinists teach that we are moral because we are grateful to God.

You must have been as stupid a Calvinist as you are an atheist.

 

Any system that offers infinitely good rewards for obedience and infinitely bad tortures for disobedience undermines the formation of mature motivations for moral behavior.

Again, this is just an assertion. Write our an argument for it.

 

Presuppositionalism is merely an attempt to give a big word to a small idea. It's an attempt to use a big philosophical word for an idea nearly devoid of any deep philosphical content. Presuppositionalism is just an attempt to make ignorance into a philosophy.

I offer arguments in my books, which you have yet to engage. You are just making an assertion. You are attempting "to make ignorance into a philosophy."

What is "deep" philosophical content? Do you mean what you have been saying so far?

 

If one can't come up with any reason to support one's view, why not just claim that you don't need any reason, and then give this process a big sounding word to scare the rubes?

And this is what you have done.

 

In short, it's just a dodge, a trick, a way to dodge the fact that the "presuppositionalist" has no real justification at all.

This is just an assertion. (It's just a dodge, a trick, a way to dodge the fact that Sansone has no real justification at all. Well, at this point, Sansone hasn't even given us a fake justification.)

 

We cannot base any system on a supernatural assumption, because the supernatural contradicts everything we know and anything we could know.

But how do we know "everything we know"? You said you wanted to get to "the core," but when I asked you about it, you just kept on making assertions.

 

All you can do is simply believe based on faith.

But what is faith? You said earlier that you believe in atoms by "faith."

 

This is not a system, nor an epistemology.

Any philosophy can be a system, but maybe not a true system. Any proposed epistemological principle is an epistemology, but just not necessarily a true or good one.

Your lack of precision is annoying to me, and probably to my readers also.

 

It is simply one's desire for things to be as they are not.

This is just an assertion. How do you know it? Show it.

 

Even if you can find inconsistencies in my worldview, who says that I have to establish meaning to life?

Have I asked you to establish meaning to life? Where?

Or are you still talking to other "presuppositionalists"?

(By now he has ignored me, and is just ranting and ranting.)

 

That there is a "meaning" to life is begging the question.

How? Don't just assert it? Show it.

And what do you mean by "meaning" to life?

 

And, to me, there is an even better challenge to be made.

"To me," again? So are you objective or subjective?

 

How can a meaning to life be given to another?!

How does this apply to me?

 

A meaning to life must be self-chosen, by definition!

But you just said, "That there is a "meaning" to life is begging the question." So you are now begging the question.

"By definition"? How? I can just as easily say, "A meaning of life must be God-chosen, by definition!"

 

Theistic claims have to do with an unknowable supernatural entity

If theistic claims are unknowable, then how do you know that they are unknowable?

 

that supposedly is not only beyond rational-empirical verification,

Did I say this? Where?

 

but beyond all comprehension!

Did I say this? Where?

(To find out what I say about God's "incomprehensibility," please see my Systematic Theology.)

 

The incorporeal divine entity's of the world have no veridical basis or platform for such speculations.

And therefore there is no "veridical basis or platform for such speculations" for this statement you made.

 

They violate the empirical laws of nature as we understand them through our existence physically.

Are there any "empirical laws of nature"? Show me one and prove it.

"As we understand them"? But you claimed to be objective.

 

So you cannot base logic upon something that violates logic!

And therefore we cannot base your worldview on logic.

 

It's really that simple.

True.

 

And it should not concern you anyway, since your god would be "above logic" and therefore, alogical.

Did I say this? Where?

Also, why is "above logic" necessarily the same as "alogical"? Show it!

(Please see my books to learn what I say about logic, and its relation to God.)

 

You may take this as an insult.... but it must be true if god is omnipotent.

Ok. Please explain...

 

If there is an omnipotent creator, no law can point to him, because this creator would have no limits (laws are limits! - they tell us what we CAN'T do!)

Why are laws limits? You are assuming without argument that all laws are prescriptive rather than descriptive. Don't just assert it, show it!

 

Omnipotent means 'without limits"

"Omni-" means "all, universally."

"Potent" means "powerful."

(Please see Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary)

 

(This is why saying that "god is omnipotent" does not really describe him at all... its a negative characteristic)

Fine, then I will just say "all-powerful" -- a positive characteristic.

 

The only universe that would point to an omnipotent being would be a magical one - without limits.

Why would the "universe" have to be without limits if only the "being" has to be omnipotent?

 

We do not live in such a universe. We live a universe of limits and laws.

How do you know this? Don't just assert it, show it!

 

The sensory input to the brain gives us, existentially, verified proof of these laws.

But how is it verified? By sensation? You have yet to prove that this is possible.

 

Any disembodied entity has no merit and should be dismissed as fantasy...

Why?

 

there is no testable way to show it's existence

Why must it be specifically "testable" (empirically again?) instead of just rationally demonstrated by argument?

 

and therefore it violates the laws of logic....

So that which is not testable "violates" the laws of logic? Show the contradiction. Write it out and let us see.

 

it's so simple actually. The senses cannot be used to undermine the validity of the senses! This is a contradiction!

It's so simple actually. The senses cannot be used to prove the validity of the senses! This is a contradiction!

 

Can you disbelieve a story that is believable? or vice versa, believe a story that is unbelievable?

No, and that is why I don't believe your nonsense.

 

Or is Christianty true, because its so absurd that no one could make it up?

Do I say this? Where? Whose assertion or argument are you trying to address here?

(It seems that by this point, Sansone is getting confused and hysterical.)

 

You hold your position by faith, do you not?

This depends on what you mean by "faith" or "by faith."

As for you, at least when it comes to atoms, you said, "This is where you use faith."

 

Faith itself is the claim that one can hold to a belief based on desire,

So you "hold to a belief" in atoms "based on desire."

As for me, this is not what I mean by faith. I have both told you what I mean by it, and I have explained it in detail in my Systematic Theology. If you assert that "faith" must mean what you assert it to mean, then you must show it, and not just psycho-assert it.

 

without the need for ANY epistemological justification.

So you "hold to a belief" in atoms "based on desire" "without ANY epistemological justification"? Well done! 

But you also said, "But, me having faith in atoms is a belief based on expectations of things already experienced or humanly experience-able."

So which is it, you flip-flopping moron?

Are you trying to refute me or refute yourself? Can't you just do this alone instead of writing to me and wasting my time?

Also, what you say here is just an assertion. What is the proper "epistemological justification"? Although you have asserted it many, many, many times (like a psycho), you have yet to defend your view on this.

 

That's it. That's all faith is, and it is all faith can be. The anti-knowledge...

Therefore, your "faith" in atoms is "anti-knowledge." That's it. That's all your faith is, and it is all your faith can be.

Also, this is just an assertion. But at least you are consistent in your method of "debate" -- assert, re-assert, and then assert again.

 

If you want to argue that faith is something more, two errors occur:
1. you make faith into something that it is not: reasonable expecation, probability, etc.
2. you change the nature of faith so that it no longer serves its intended goal - to grant the possiblity of belief where no evidence exists.

But why must I grant your definition of faith? You have made no argument to show that it must mean what you say that it means.

I can just as easily say, "Derek Sansone = a psycho moron. If you want to argue that Derek Sansone is something more, two errors occur: 1. You make Sansone into something that he is not: a human being with even below average intelligence, and 2. You change the nature of Sansone so that it no longer serves its intended goal -- to be the public example by which Vincent Cheung shows the world that atheism and empiricism is intellectual manure."

In any case, now I also understand that, 1. Your "faith" in atoms is not (or is not based on) "reasonable expectation, probability, etc.", and 2. Your "faith" in atoms is held "where no evidence exists."

 

Theist tend to either accidently or purposely confuse what "faith" is

You are the one who confuses what "faith" is. But unlike you, I have shown it (above), rather than just psycho-assert it.

 

(they try to claim it is experiential, or a probabilistic enterprise)

Who are you talking to? Or who are you talking about? I certainly do not say this.

At the beginning of our dialogue, when I cautioned you about confusing me with others, you responded, "I understand. I don't mind reading theological material." But here, you are certainly not talking about what's in my books. So why don't you say this to whoever you are thinking about? Why are you saying this to me?

 

but in doing so they invalidate it as a means towards their own god -

Right -- they (whoever you are talking about), but not necessarily me. You are just ignoring me, aren't you?

 

because no one has empirical experience of god and no one has a "reason" to believe in god.

Have you asked everyone?

Also, I give reasons for believing in God in my books, which you have failed to engage. To psycho-assert is not to prove or to argue.

 

So, the theist does himself a disservice in the end,

Which theist? Do I know him?

 

by warping what faith really is, into something that it is not.

Right, we have already read about your irrational faith in atoms.

 

The theist has NEED of a process that allows him to believe without proof, without justification and even in the face of negating evidence! This is non contingent faith.

Like your faith in atoms?

But again, which theist? Who are you talking about? What does this have to do with me? Is this how you do debates? Do I even need to be here? Come on, man, talk to me.

 

What I really do is not based on faith. It is based on experience and probability. I don't believe based on no evidence; I KNOW based on past experience and probability.

LOL. No, you don't. You told us you have "faith" in atoms, you flip-flopping moron.

 

Is there any value in faith then?

Yes, according to you, without it, we cannot believe in atoms.

 

Perhaps... faith in people you've never met before, people you have no experience with... but even here, its not really faith, as we have all had experience with strangers before.

So is it faith or not? Is it "faith in people" but "not really faith"? Which is it?

You are saying that "experience with strangers" will tell you something about "people you've never met before, people you have no experience with."

How does this work? Are there good people and bad people?

If I have met only good people, then am I supposed to believe that all people are good? This is a logical fallacy.

If I have met only bad people, then am I supposed to believe that all people are bad? This is also a logical fallacy.

What if I have met both kinds? Is the new stranger then good or bad?

 

perhaps the only time we NEED faith is in our infanthood...where we have had no experience with any person at all.... (then again, even here, this is not quite true.... after all, we all form inside another person... there really isn't any time that we aren't connected to someone else!)

No, even after infanthood, according to you, we still need to have faith in atoms.

 

But if you want to call this faith, then fine. But otherwise, we work on experience and probability, and these allow for knowledge, not just "belief."

But when it comes to atoms, you work on faith, which you then stated is contrary to "reasonable expecation, probability, etc."

 

The supernatural world violates everything that we know about the natural world. This is definitional!

I can psycho-assert too. Let me try:

The natural world violates everything that we know about the supernatural world. This is definitional!

 

In fact, the only way to define "supernatural" is in this negative sense - what is not natural, is supernatural.

Here, I will do it again:

In fact, the only way to define "natural" is in this negative sense -- what is not supernatural, is natural.

 

Logic is a natural system, the process of non-contradictory observation.

Logic is not a "process," you moron, let alone a "process of...observation." Reasoning is a process.

But I will psycho-assert again: Logic is God's reasoning system, the structure of his divine mind, which he has implanted in man as his image, and by which we have now defeated Derek Sansone.

 

It is experiential and is grounded in induction and empiricism.

I will psycho-assert again: Logic is non-experiential and is not grounded in induction and empiricism.

Now, induction is a fallacy, and you have yet to show how you can know anything by empiricism.

 

These are all elements of the natural world.

Again, this is just an assertion. Show it, prove it!

 

There is nothing in logic that can point to things that contradict logic.

And therefore, atheism is wrong, and Sansone is a moron.

 

However, if god is omnipotent and omniscient, then everything that exists is contingent upon this god, including existence. Existence itself would not be primary.

Why? Don't just assert it, show it!

 

However, for logic to work, the axioms of logic must necessarily be true - not contingently true.

Again, you are not talking to me. I never said that logic is only contingently true.

 

If there is a god beyond logic, this god could negate the law of contradiction tomorrow, or could have made it so that contradictions are true.

I never said that God is beyond logic.

John 1:1 says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The word translated "Word" is logos, which is just as (or even more so) properly translated "Reason" or "Logic."

Thus in the beginning was Logic, and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God.

Now what?

Theology is based on the concept that abstractions can exist independent of matter (Idealism in the true philosophical sense). In other words, consciousness can precede existence. But we know this is in error, axiomatically, because consciousness is always consciousness of something - i.e. existence! In fact, conscious is itself something, ergo existence must precede consciousness.

Who? Who says this? Do I know him? I don't say this, do I?

 

Therefore, the two systems are incompatible.  

Which two systems?

 

Supernatural means beyond nature. Or in other words, not natural or part of nature.

But what is nature?

 

Not having any material. No energy. No-thing.

So material = energy = thing? How do you know? Oh, you are just psycho-asserting again.

 

Nature is existence regarded as a system of interconnected entities governed by law; it is the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance to their identities.

How do you know this?

 

What then is a super-nature? It would have to be a form of non-existence - "existence" beyond existence. Identity beyond identity.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? So far you have just been psycho-asserting.

Also, what if I define nature differently? And what if I do not use the word "supernatural," so that the whole thing is one system but that God is still different from the material world?

It seems that you are just defining and asserting, then accepting your own definitions and assertions, and then asserting the conclusion, and then congratulating yourself.

Again, why do you need me here?

 

The idea of a supernatural thing therefore is an assault on everything that man knows about reality: ration, reason, empiricism, logic, determinism, and so on.

(What do you mean by "ration"? I think that this is a typo, but since I am not sure, I will not delete it.)

But you have yet to show what we really know about reality. I can just as easily say, "Atheism, therefore, is an assault on everything that man knows about reality: God, reason, logic, predestination, and so on."

 

It is a contradiction of every essential of rational metaphysics - including logic.

What is "rational metaphysics"? Yours? How is your metaphysics rational? And if everything is material, then how can you have a meta physics, instead of just physics?

 

It must be alogical by definition. It represents a rejection of the basic axioms you have listed above - it rejects the axioms of identity and non-contradiction:

This is getting tedious, but I don't want to let anything slip by without making a comment. So, again, this is just an assertion. Show it.

 

Is god the creator of the universe? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.

Why? And you have yet to show the "existence over consciousness" nonsense.

 

Is god the designer of the universe? Not if A=A.

Why?

 

The alternative to design is NOT chance - it is causality!

Then what caused the universe?

 

Is god omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given according to logic.

What is the "metaphysically given"? And why and how do you know that no one can alter it? And what does this have to do with omnipotence?

 

If god infinite? Infinite means without any specific quality - no specific quality - i.e. without IDENTITY!

Who says that "infinite means without any specific quality"? And how do you know this by sensation? How have you sensed "infinite"? Even if you can know anything at all by sensation, how can you sense "infinite," or anything that is "infinite" in order to know it? If it is infinite, you can never finish sensing it to know that it is infinite. You can at best sense a part of it, but if you sense only a part of it, how do you know that it is infinite?

Also, who says that God is just "infinite"? What if he is "infinitely X" or some other specified quality or qualities?

 

Can god perform miracles? A miracle is a violation of the laws of identity.

What is your definition of a miracle? What are "the laws of identity"? Do you mean the "law" of identity (A = A)? How does a miracle contradict it?

(Please see my Systematic Theology for my definition on "miracle.")

 

is god pure spirit? consciousness is a faculty of living organisms - i.e. the identity of physical beings!

This is just an assertion. How do you know that "consciousness is a faculty of living organisms"? Show it. Write out your argument for it.

Do you mean that "living organisms" = "physical beings"? How do you know? Where is your argument for this?

And why must God be an "organism" to have consciousness? What is an "organism"? How do you know?

 

Every argument commonly offered for the notion of god leads to a contradiction of the axioms of logic and reality itself.

Do you mean every argument commonly offered for the "notion" of God, or for the "existence" of God? What would be an argument for the "notion" of God? Please give me an example of arguing for a "notion." Any "notion."

Also, whatever this means, this is just an assertion. You must show it. List "every argument commonly offered for the notion of god" and refute each. Otherwise, I can just as easily say the opposite: "Every argument commonly offered against the notion of God leads to a contradiction of the axioms of logic and reality itself."

Then, what is "reality"? Or what are the "axioms of...reality"? I suppose you have excluded God from "reality" by definition? If so, does this not beg the question? 

What are "the axioms of logic"? Do you mean that logic are the axioms, or that there are axioms for logic?

If you can't even talk clearly, how do you present and defend your view, let alone refute mine?

Are you drunk?

 

The notion of god clashes with the very preconditions of thought themselves.

This is just an assertion. Show it. What are these "preconditions of thought"? And exactly how does "the notion of god" contradict these "preconditions of thought"?

 

There is NO logic that will lead one from the facts of this world to a realm contradicting them!

What do you mean "no logic"? Do you mean "no argument"? "Logic" itself, as in a law of logic (or all the laws of logic), has no content in itself. Only an argument has content.

Again, you need to be more precise. If you are going to speak nonsense, at least do it like a professional.

 

There is no concept formed by observation of nature (i.e. logic) that will serve to characterize the very antithesis of nature - the "super-natural".

What do you mean by "observation of nature (i.e. logic)"? Do you mean that "observation of nature" is "logic"? If not, what?

And why is the supernatural the "very antithesis of nature"?

 

Inference from the natural can only lead to the natural, and their foundation can only be the natural.

Again, who are you talking to? Where have I made an inference from the natural to the supernatural?

 

As far as reason and logic itself go, existence exists, and only existence can exist. 

Right, and therefore God exists.

But how do you know this by sensation? Also, are you "existence"? If not, then do you exist?

 

If one wishes to postulate a supernatural world, one must leave the world of logic, for one contradicts it.

How do you know this by sensation?

What is "the world of logic"? And how does one "leave" it?

How does one contradict the world of logic? What in the world do you mean?! Do you just mean "contradict logic," rather than "contradict the world of logic"? Even so, how does one "contradict logic"? What is logic that you can contradict it?

 

God cannot serve as the "first axiom" either,

Do I make God the "first axiom"? When? Where? How? Or are you speaking to other "presuppositionalists" again?

And how do you know that God cannot be the "first axiom"? By some other first axiom? By sensation? Then you must show this other first axiom is true, and show that sensation can bring you knowledge, which you have yet to show.

 

for an axiom must be necessarily true

And therefore your axiom must be false.

But how do you know this by sensation?

 

- i.e. any attempt at a refutation must lead to a contradiction.

How do you know this by sensation? How have you sensed "any attempt"?

 

But god's existence is not axiomatic,

How do you know this by sensation? And please define "existence."

 

and, god could contradict himself.

How do you know this by sensation?

So, again, how did you learn the word "as"?

(I encourage my readers to read again my short closing statement in section 11B -- all that I have said there still applies. Sansone has added nothing new to the discussion by his final statement, but his many incoherent and unjustified assertions may disorient some of you, and whether it is intentional or not, this seems to be the only strength in his tactic -- that is, he tries to wear out the reader's resistance by his numerous but groundless assertions. Reviewing my closing statement will help reorient you about the "core" issues, as Sansone himself puts it, and to see that I have successfully defeated him.)

 

---

AFTERWORD

As you can see, Sansone is crazy. He speaks nonsense, and then he keeps on asserting his view over and over again. Therefore, I call his method "psycho assertionism" -- that is, his method is to repeatedly assert his view like a madman. As my wife observes, it is possible that Sansone may have psycho-asserted himself into adopting atheism in the first place.

It seems that Sansone has been stirring up some trouble on and off the Internet, and challenging people to debate him, especially "presuppositionalists." So I decided to correspond with him several times. Now we see that he is nothing.

I usually do not deal with amateurs like Sansone, but would deal only with the arguments of professional atheistic philosophers, such as those presented in their publications. Although professional atheistic philosophers are almost always more precise and coherent than Sansone, the substance of their arguments never really rises above Sansone's level.

I hope that the above dialogue has encouraged you, showing you that Christians do not need to be intimidated by atheists. Contrary to what they try to have people believe, they are the irrational fools of this world.

If you would like to learn more about theology and apologetics, I have several books that you may download at our ministry web site.

--
Vincent Cheung
http://www.vincentcheung.com

---

SOME COMMENTS FROM READERS

"Poor little Sansone. His days are over...world is finished. "

"Cheung not only prevails, but he prevails with style."

"...it was absolutely poetic and powerful."

"I must say you had both my wife and me rolling with laughter."

"Nice job. 'Psycho assertionism' says it all. This guy could be any of about 1000 people I used to speak to at Brown University."

"It is encouraging for me to see men of God like yourself standing for the truths of Christianity."

"Your Sansone fiasco is very interesting. He certainly presents no challange at all!!!"

"Derek...I would have loved to hear what you think of Vincent Cheung handing you your head on a platter. Do you 'sense' what I'm saying?"

"I am quite taken with your dialogue. I think it astounding."

"Wow, truly amazing. Thanks for sharing the conversation with us. It's really encouraging and it would definitely stir me up to think through my understanding of your essays."

---

FREE BOOKS AND ARTICLES

These and other free books and articles are available from our web site at http://www.vincentcheung.com.

To download, right-click on the link corresponding to the file you wish to acquire, and then choose "Save Target As."