Francois Tremblay Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Clockist : There is but One True Clock, and here it is. Aclockist : Uh, that's nice, but all I see is a clock like any other. It's pretty high, I'll give you that. But first of all, its time is completely wrong. It says it's 13:25, but the time is really 18:56. C : What are you talking about ? There is only One True Clock and therefore only One True Time, which is 13:25. It can't be 18:56. A : Well, see, my wristwatch says 18:56, and the Sun is too low in the horizon for it to be 13:25. So your clock is definitely wrong. C : That's preposterous ! How do you know your wristwatch is working correctly ? A : There are plenty of wtristwatches in circulation of this brand and they are known to be very reliable... C : HAH ! But how do you know YOURS isn't broke ? How do you know wristwatches are reliable at all ? Some say one time, some say another time, sometimes minutes apart, so how do we know which one to trust ? Obviously your wristwatch so-called "time" is subjective ! A : Now that doesn't mean that they're all broken, they could just be set imprecisely... C : You can't trust wristwatches ! And as for the other point, how do you know how the Sun moves ? You still follow the outdated geocentric model of astronomy. It's obvious that Intelligent Movement is a superior model, because yours has fatal flaws. For instance, if gravity really works as your scientists say, how come all the planets don't just fall into the Sun ? It's ridiculous ! Everyone knows that there can't be more than 50 minutes in an hour anyway. A : Are you questioning the scientific facts ? C : There are plenty of scientists who agree with Intelligent Movement theory. Now look here, the One True Clock is in perfect accordance with all the facts. A : How do you know that ? C : Simple. Come with me to the other side. A : Okay... C : See ? The other side ALSO says 13:25. A : Yes... ? C : So it's correct. It confirms it. A : All you've done is show me another result from the same clock. How do you know the clock itself is right ? C : Because it says so right down there. Look at the sign. "This clock is infallible." A : But you still only got that from the clock. The clock says it is infallible. So what ? You still haven't proven anything. If the clock is wrong, then it doesn't matter if it tells you it's right or not - that's just circular. Your standard is completely subjective. I can just as easily build my own clock that says it is infallible. Fact is, neither of them would be based on the facts. Only my wristwatch is based on the facts. C : You aclockists just don't understand that without the One True Clock, you can't have proper time. You're rebelling against the absolute temporal authority of the One True Clock. Soon everyone will follow the Clock and you and your pretty scientists will be proven wrong. You'll see ! A : Good grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caretaker Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Beautiful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ nivek ♦ Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Love it.. Author? Permission to distribute? n Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francois Tremblay Posted April 17, 2005 Author Share Posted April 17, 2005 Author is I. Permission is full. A link to my strongatheism.net web site would be nice though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Clockist : There is but One True Clock, and here it is.A : Good grief. This whole thing reminds me of your "discussion" with Matt Slick that I listened to last night. Hoooooly Shit!! That was difficult to hear. Matt Slick was sooo annoying!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francois Tremblay Posted April 17, 2005 Author Share Posted April 17, 2005 Actually, yes, the whole circular reasoning part comes from our debate with Matt Slick. The Bible comes from God's mind, but it's objective because it says it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Actually, yes, the whole circular reasoning part comes from our debate with Matt Slick. The Bible comes from God's mind, but it's objective because it says it is. Aha! But God is absolute and unchanging!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francois Tremblay Posted April 17, 2005 Author Share Posted April 17, 2005 Yea, exactly, but how do they know that ? It's impossible for them to actually know that. And even if they did, that would not make the Bible objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Yea, exactly, but how do they know that ? It's impossible for them to actually know that. And even if they did, that would not make the Bible objective. You silly atheist! If God is absolute, and the bible is God's Word, then we know this to be true, because the Ten Commandments are written according to God's nature, and God can never lie!! Don't you see?? Your logic eats itself!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onyx Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Execdllent. i saluate your ability to satirise xtians! I'm a amateur satirist here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francois Tremblay Posted April 17, 2005 Author Share Posted April 17, 2005 Don't you see?? Your logic eats itself!! Mmm... law of non-contradiction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Exactly!! Logic is a part of God's nature!! God didn't create logic!! That is the TAG argument. Nobody has ever refuted the TAG argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francois Tremblay Posted April 17, 2005 Author Share Posted April 17, 2005 Actually, there is no "TAG argument". There is a strategy based on the notions of TAG, but no formal argument. When you press a presuppositionalist to give you an actual formalized argument, for some reason, they waffle a great deal. And if they give you one, it's woefully incomplete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 17, 2005 Share Posted April 17, 2005 Actually, there is no "TAG argument". There is a strategy based on the notions of TAG, but no formal argument. When you press a presuppositionalist to give you an actual formalized argument, for some reason, they waffle a great deal. And if they give you one, it's woefully incomplete. Yes, I asked Paul to outline the TAG argument....and he ignored me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 18, 2005 Share Posted April 18, 2005 I've been really hesitant to listen to the Matt Slick interview. The last time I heard him attempt an argument, it was on Infidel Guy, and Reggie tore apart his argument in the first ten minutes of the show, after which Matt never really recovered. He sort of reminds me of a very poor version of Gene Cook, and woe is he who is actually the intellectual inferior of Gene Cook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francois Tremblay Posted April 18, 2005 Author Share Posted April 18, 2005 I've been really hesitant to listen to the Matt Slick interview. The last time I heard him attempt an argument, it was on Infidel Guy, and Reggie tore apart his argument in the first ten minutes of the show, after which Matt never really recovered. Let me reassure you. It took us much longer than that, and he monopolized most of the show. We did manage to finally catch him in his circularity, but he still monopolized most of it. He sort of reminds me of a very poor version of Gene Cook, and woe is he who is actually the intellectual inferior of Gene Cook. That's the guy who has his ten point argument that he repeats over and over ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 18, 2005 Share Posted April 18, 2005 Oh God....Mr Neil, Slick does not shut up in the Tremblay 'discussion'. He walks all over, while Franc and Alleee are trying to get a word in edgewise. It was so fucking annoying, because I wanted to listen to what Franc had to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 18, 2005 Share Posted April 18, 2005 I'm trying to listen right now. Jesus Christ! Here's my impersonation of Matt Slick as I hear it: "I'm going to ask a question. Answer my question. I'm going to talk over your answer. You didn't answer me. Answer my question. If I talk over your answer, then you didn't answer. Answer my question. I'm going to keep talking. Talking talking talking. I don't hear you, so therefore you're not answering. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah..." I would have turned his audio off. I don't have the patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francois Tremblay Posted April 18, 2005 Author Share Posted April 18, 2005 Well, as you probably hear, Alleee at some points decided to take the mic and speak to the audience... She was getting exasperated. lol. I had to get myself mad at some point to try to stop his incessant monopolizing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 18, 2005 Share Posted April 18, 2005 I know....Franc and Alleee, you guys need to regulate, Reggie style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francois Tremblay Posted April 18, 2005 Author Share Posted April 18, 2005 Hmm... I don't really know how to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 18, 2005 Share Posted April 18, 2005 yea, you were kind of a wuss on that show, hahaha. dude, you talk over him!! "Matt!! Matt!!!! Do you want me to respond to your questions??? If you want me to respond, you gotta give me some time, and stop walkin over me. You go on and on and on, and I can't get a word in edgewise!" Be firm!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Neil Posted April 18, 2005 Share Posted April 18, 2005 Matt Slick: "Take a shot. Say something." GIVE SOMEONE THE CHANCE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 18, 2005 Share Posted April 18, 2005 or you gotta be like "biiiiiiiiiiiiiitch, shut the fuck up fo' I blas' yo ass!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts