Satan and the Work Denying

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33 here:

...satan does his work to deny the work of God.
...

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the statement is true and factual.

[Mithrae]

It seems perfectly clear, to me at least, that in post 3 some information was provided in support of the OP claim, from a collection of early and widely-accepted sources regarding Satan; and it also seems quite clear to me (and apparently Euphrates) that in post 4 you rejected the source of the information with no explanation beyond your personal amusement.

I think "deny the work of God" means to oppose God's will.

Biblically, Satan is in opposition to God. The word "satan" in Hebrew means "the opposer". When it's not used as a proper noun, the correct translation would be something like "adversary". Satan tries to get Jesus to turn away from God's plan in Matthew 4 (and Mark and Luke).

But if biblical evidence isn't good enough, I'm not sure what will suffice.

I see the term being defined, and nothing here that offers support this Satan fellow ever set foot inside this or any other universe.

I reject biblical claims until they can be shown to be true, much like I reject tales of cows jumping over the moon - until they can be shown to be true.

Oh hallelujah, praise the Lord, stir the noodles and rattle the drawers! After a mere 22 posts, the thread's author clarifies that his question is not about Satan's acts or motivation, but his very existence!

In the spirit of generousity, we might note that it was not until post 15 that the issue of motivation vs. existence was clearly raised. While I had in fact asked for better clarification of the question being asked in post 8, I must admit that a somewhat reasonable case could be made that it took a mere four responses (to me) after the specific issue was raised for the thread author to clarify what he meant by his OP. Amen!

So... we have finally established that Joey is not interested in questioning Satan's acts or motivation: He wants evidence of Satan's existence!

Now 'pon my oath I have never glanced at this before, but since I've now done so let's get a little context on what the 'claimant' actually 'claimed,' to require such thorough cross-examination by our friend Joey:

• Revelationtestament in post 33 wrote:
  There is no proof for the resurrection, just as there is no proof against it. There is evidence for both sides because as usual, satan does his work to deny the work of God.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost looks like a fellow named after a book and a section of the Christian bible is stating, within the parameters of his worldview, that there are limits on humanity's capacity for objective knowledge. What an absurd notion! But (again correct me if I'm wrong) it seems that Joey previously stated that the purpose of his thread was to 'confirm' -
to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact
- whether Revelationtestament's 'claim' was true or factual. When Revelationtestament stated that there are limits on humanity's capacity for objective knowledge, in other words, Joey thought it necessary to start a thread requesting 'indisputable fact' or the like on why this is actually the case!

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 26:

Oh hallelujah, praise the Lord, stir the noodles and rattle the drawers! After a mere 22 posts, the thread's author clarifies that his question is not about Satan's acts or motivation, but his very existence!

I asked if the stated claim can be shown to be true and factual, and see nothing in that challenge that precludes anyone from showing any part of that claim to be true and factual. Presenting more claims on top of the initial claim does not show the intial claim to be true and factual. True and factual.

That said, does Mithrae deny the utility of showing this Satan feller exists, so that following claims may be more easily accepted?

In the spirit of generousity, we might note that it was not until post 15 that the issue of motivation vs. existence was clearly raised. While I had in fact asked for better clarification of the question being asked in post 8, I must admit that a somewhat reasonable case could be made that it took a mere four responses (to me) after the specific issue was raised for the thread author to clarify what he meant by his OP. Amen!

Let's do this then...

What part of "Please offer some means to confirm the statement is true and factual" are you having the most difficulty with, as you attempt to comprehend the challenge?

So... we have finally established that Joey is not interested in questioning Satan's acts or motivation: He wants evidence of Satan's existence!

Please note, NOWHERE in the challenge presented in the OP does it ask for the confirmation of motive. Acts, yes, motive, no.

Now 'pon my oath I have never glanced at this before, but since I've now done so let's get a little context on what the 'claimant' actually 'claimed,' to require such thorough cross-examination by our friend Joey:

Revelationtestament in post 33 wrote:
There is no proof for the resurrection, just as there is no proof against it. There is evidence for both sides because as usual, satan does his work to deny the work of God.'

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost looks like a fellow named after a book and a section of the Christian bible is stating, within the parameters of his worldview, that there are limits on humanity's capacity for objective knowledge. What an absurd notion! But (again correct me if I'm wrong) it seems that Joey previously stated that the purpose of his thread was to 'confirm' -
to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact
- whether Revelationtestament's 'claim' was true or factual. When Revelationtestament stated that there are limits on humanity's capacity for objective knowledge, in other words, Joey thought it necessary to start a thread requesting 'indisputable fact' or the like on why this is actually the case!

You ain't from the Bible Belt, are ya?

The claim presented in the OP is a common phrase around these parts, and is typically presented as true and factual regardless of the original poster's intent.

I have presented, with the OP, a link to the comments in question, specifically so folks can see the full context. That said, "Satan does his work to deny the work of God" sure sounds like a claim to me.

But perhaps Mithrae, in his infinite wisdom regarding what I seek in my own OP, can set us all straight and just present evidence for the claim or stop this charade of challenging my motives and my intent in presenting my OP.

Don't like claims getting challenged? Perhaps debate ain't the place ya wanna be.

[Mithrae]

Now 'pon my oath I have never glanced at this before, but since I've now done so let's get a little context on what the 'claimant' actually 'claimed,' to require such thorough cross-examination by our friend Joey:

Revelationtestament in post 33 wrote:
There is no proof for the resurrection, just as there is no proof against it. There is evidence for both sides because as usual, satan does his work to deny the work of God.'

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost looks like a fellow named after a book and a section of the Christian bible is stating, within the parameters of his worldview, that there are limits on humanity's capacity for objective knowledge. What an absurd notion! But (again correct me if I'm wrong) it seems that Joey previously stated that the purpose of his thread was to 'confirm' -
to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact
- whether Revelationtestament's 'claim' was true or factual. When Revelationtestament stated that there are limits on humanity's capacity for objective knowledge, in other words, Joey thought it necessary to start a thread requesting 'indisputable fact' or the like on why this is actually the case!

You ain't from the Bible Belt, are ya?

The claim presented in the OP is a common phrase around these parts, and is typically presented as true and factual regardless of the original poster's intent.

I have presented, with the OP, a link to the comments in question, specifically so folks can see the full context. That said, "Satan does his work to deny the work of God" sure sounds like a claim to me.

But perhaps Mithrae, in his infinite wisdom regarding what I seek in my own OP, can set us all straight and just present evidence for the claim or stop this charade of challenging my motives and my intent in presenting my OP.

Don't like claims getting challenged? Perhaps debate ain't the place ya wanna be.

Howdy again Joey. Took a bit of a breather from debating to get some perspective. I agree that I was getting quite obnoxious there, and for that I apologise.

That said, in the spirit of fairness let's also note that if you don't like scrutiny of the methodology by which you seek to arrive at the truth of the matter, it's probably best to steer clear of debate likewise.

Now as I suggested, it looks to me as though the quote from the OP was an explanation within the poster's worldview of why there is no proof for or against the resurrection. It was not the premise of any argument, nor presented with any presumption that others would or should accept it as true. So snipping out that little section and labelling it as a claim which warrants challenging seems a questionable approach at best.

I notice also that in the threads Knowing the will of God and Noah and the animals, you have snipped sections of what Pax said and requested a means to confirm them: Yet in both cases, his comments were in response to questions and made open reference to personal faith or Christian belief, respectively.

More broadly than simple quote-mining of 'claims' which you want to 'challenge,' however, it seems to me that all of your recent threads can essentially be reduced (initially at least) to the single question of confirmation regarding God's existence. This is implied by their titles:
Knowing the Will of God
Noah and the Animals
God and the Changing of Lives
When'd [miracles, defined as manifestation of divine intervention] Even Start?
Theist Ethics and Divine Revelation
God and Self-Awareness

Clumsily, this is what I was getting at regarding your question of Satan's existence, rather than the actual statement of motivation which is quoted in the OP. With the possible exception of the thread on ethics, every single one of these 'claims' which you 'challenge' is dependant on a theistic worldview. Without confirming -
to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact
- the existence of a God, his self-awareness or direct intervention or changing of lives or manifest will all remain obviously unconfirmed by the standards which you have said you want. In a sense I suppose that's a somewhat clever format to put them in, an endless series of theistic 'claims' which can't be 'confirmed' when challenged; rather than starting a thread trying to confirm which worldview has the best claim to truth.

If memory serves I've pointed all of this out before, on an occasion when you started a dozen or so of these threads on the same day. As far as methodology goes, I don't think these threads have merit in arriving at the truth of the matter and are somewhat dubious as 'debate.' It's only natural that I feel the urge to reiterate this point whenever my screen begins to fill up with Joey's 'Claim' Challenging Extravaganza.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 28:

Howdy again Joey. Took a bit of a breather from debating to get some perspective. I agree that I was getting quite obnoxious there, and for that I apologise.

We're cool. I'll 'pologize for any of it I've done.

That said, in the spirit of fairness let's also note that if you don't like scrutiny of the methodology by which you seek to arrive at the truth of the matter, it's probably best to steer clear of debate likewise.

Plenty fair.

Now as I suggested, it looks to me as though the quote from the OP was an explanation within the poster's worldview of why there is no proof for or against the resurrection. It was not the premise of any argument, nor presented with any presumption that others would or should accept it as true. So snipping out that little section and labelling it as a claim which warrants challenging seems a questionable approach at best.

Pray tell, what part of "Satan does his work to deny the work of God" is not a claim?

Regardless of the context, which I point folks to by placing a link, there is a claim there. I see nothing questionable in seeking to determine if the claim is true and factual.

I notice also that in the threads Knowing the will of God and Noah and the animals, you have snipped sections of what Pax said and requested a means to confirm them: Yet in both cases, his comments were in response to questions and made open reference to personal faith or Christian belief, respectively.

Does a response no longer constitute a claim, when a claim is made in that response?

More broadly than simple quote-mining of 'claims' which you want to 'challenge,' however, it seems to me that all of your recent threads can essentially be reduced (initially at least) to the single question of confirmation regarding God's existence. This is implied by their titles:
...
...

If you feel my challenges to claims are outside the rules of this site, by all means, report 'em.

Until such time you actually do report the offending posts, and we get a moderator ruling, I can only conclude your complaint is without merit.

...
With the possible exception of the thread on ethics, every single one of these 'claims' which you 'challenge' is dependant on a theistic worldview.

Such a condition indicates a problem for the theist making the claims.

Without confirming -
to give new assurance of the validity of : remove doubt about by authoritative act or indisputable fact
- the existence of a God, his self-awareness or direct intervention or changing of lives or manifest will all remain obviously unconfirmed by the standards which you have said you want.

Can Mithrae think of a better way of showing a creature has done something, or thought something, than to start off showing that creature's actually there to be a-doin' it?

In a sense I suppose that's a somewhat clever format to put them in, an endless series of theistic 'claims' which can't be 'confirmed' when challenged; rather than starting a thread trying to confirm which worldview has the best claim to truth.

Has Mithrae started a thread seeking to determine which worldview has the best claim to truth?

If not, I wonder why he'd be expecting me to start it for him.

If memory serves I've pointed all of this out before, on an occasion when you started a dozen or so of these threads on the same day.

I'm finding it difficult to understand how the number of challenges to claims has any bearing on the claim presented in this OP.

As far as methodology goes, I don't think these threads have merit in arriving at the truth of the matter and are somewhat dubious as 'debate.'

I refer you to my comments above regarding reporting offending posts.

Until such time you report such, and we get a moderator ruling, I contend that your complaint here is without merit.

It's only natural that I feel the urge to reiterate this point whenever my screen begins to fill up with Joey's 'Claim' Challenging Extravaganza.

I propose that if we didn't have a "Theist Claiming Stuff Extravaganza", I'd hafta close down my own shop.

Again, I refer you to comments above regarding the reporting of offending posts. Until you actually do, and we can get a moderator ruling, I contend your complaints are without merit.

[EduChris]

With the possible exception of the thread on ethics, every single one of these 'claims' which you 'challenge' is dependant on a theistic worldview.

Such a condition indicates a problem for the theist making the claims.

Theists are entitled to hold their worldview so long as no better worldview is presented. Science operates according to this principle all the time. The only way that a worldview can be justly challenged is if: 1) there is a better worldview alternative, or 2) the worldview depends on some logical impossibility or incoherence. Since Joey cannot demostrate either of these, it follows that all of his "worldview challenges" are unjustified.

Can Mithrae think of a better way of showing a creature has done something, or thought something, than to start off showing that creature's actually there to be a-doin' it?...

Since theists do not posit God to be a "creature," if follows that Joey's argument here is based on a simple error on his part.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 30:

Theists are entitled to hold their worldview so long as no better worldview is presented.

That they fail to recognize a better worldview is their deal.

Science operates according to this principle all the time. The only way that a worldview can be justly challenged is if: 1) there is a better worldview alternative, or 2) the worldview depends on some logical impossibility or incoherence. Since Joey cannot demostrate either of these, it follows that all of his "worldview challenges" are unjustified.

I was unaware that EduChris has become a moderator. Congratulations.

Or not. I will continue to challenge any and all claims I deem ripe for challenge (with one notable exception due to moderator pressure) until such time I'm prevented from doing so.

Since theists do not posit God to be a "creature," if follows that Joey's argument here is based on a simple error on his part.

How does this show the claim in the OP is true and factual?

[EduChris]

...That they fail to recognize a better worldview is their deal...

In a debate about worldviews, you have an obligation to demonstrate the superiority of your worldview, or else demonstrate the incoherence of competing worldviews. To date, you have not fulfilled either of these basic obligations.

...I was unaware that EduChris has become a moderator...

Sarcasm aside, I was merely pointing out that your ubiquitous worldview challenges arise from a context of unmet obligations on your part. In other words, and regardless of how the moderators properly choose to handle their moderating chores, your incessant worldview challenges are logically unjustified--they fail to meet the criteria of debate.

[EduChris]

From Post 30:

Since theists do not posit God to be a "creature," if follows that Joey's argument here is based on a simple error on his part.

How does this show the claim in the OP is true and factual?

For any claim offered from within the context of a particular worldview, there is no obligation to prove that the claim is true and factual within some other competing (and unproven) worldview.

Even apart from your simple conceptual error, you have the burden in this case of demonstrating that the claim is either false or incoherent within its own worldview.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 32:

In a debate about worldviews, you have an obligation to demonstrate the superiority of your worldview, or else demonstrate the incoherence of competing worldviews. To date, you have not fulfilled either of these basic obligations.

Please link to the site or subforum rule/s in question.

Sarcasm aside, I was merely pointing out that your ubiquitous worldview challenges arise from a context of unmet obligations on your part.

Please link to the site or subforum rule in question.

In other words, and regardless of how the moderators properly choose to handle their moderating chores, your incessant worldview challenges are logically unjustified--they fail to meet the criteria of debate.

All I see is an attempt to declare I'm in violation of rules of your own making.

I reject your position here because I merely challenged a claim and have, under the rules of this site, no burden to support claims I've not made.

I object to your implication that I'm in violation of the rules, and will report any more implications or accusations you present against me that seek to impugn my integrity.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 33:

For any claim offered from within the context of a particular worldview, there is no obligation to prove that the claim is true and factual within some other competing worldview.

I never said there was. I challenged a claim. That you are unwilling to, or can't support that claim is not my problem.

Even apart from your simple conceptual error, you have the burden in this case of demonstrating that either the claim is either false or incoherent within its own worldview.

Please link to the site or subforum rule/s in question.