Jim has posted a response to my latest blog post. Although he at first said that his e-mail to PZ Myers contained “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” his answers (and lack thereof) to my findings clearly show that this was not the case. Rather than just address my post, Jim adds yet another inaccuracy:

//”Readers should note that Sye himself is banned from posting comments here, because of the threats and lies he repeatedly posted here several months ago.”//

Of course Jim provides no evidence to back up this claim. Clearly Jim banned me from posting on his blog because I was exposing his worldview for the nonsense that it is.

Let’s have a look at Jim’s responses to my responses regarding his false claims.

Jim’s claim:
//“As you probably know, Sye’s basic schtick is a transparent and horrible variation of Kant’s Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. Since we poked holes in it, on our podcast, he has been systematically lying about the way our conversation ran, to anyone who is stupid enough to listen to him, rather than listen to the podcast for themselves.”//

My answer:
False. Apparently Jim has a very convenient memory as to how he and Alex said(1) said the podcasts went. Jim admitting to “ridiculous mistakes, and Alex to “flailing hopelessly.” Is there any wonder why Jim and Alex are so angry with me?

Jim’s response:
//”You’re referring to the first podcast, in which I have already repeatedly said both on my blog and on the podcast we didn’t perform well.”//

Odd how on their podcast of NOV. 25, 2011, and Jim’s blog of NOV 30, 2011 they mentioned their “ridiculous mistakes,” “flailing hopelessly,” and “giant, huge, ridiculously obvious mistakes,” from the podcast of September 30, 2011, but neglected to mention how they so deftly “poked holes” in our argument in the subsequent podcasts of Oct. 15, 2011, and Oct. 24, 2011. Yup, they seem like the kind of guys that would miss that opportunity if it really happened as Jim now claims. Not.

//”it’s about the latest podcast, in which you also verbally agreed to two specific stipulations not to edit or post it to YouTube”//

Complete with the usual evidence provided to back up his claims.

Jim’s claim:
//“After our second podcast with him, in which he told us we would burn in hell for the sin of holding ourselves to a higher standard of proof than wishful thinking”//

My answer:
False. Aside from repentance, Jim and Alex are going to Hell for their sin, not for what he claims I said here.

Jim’s response: (Crickets).

Jim’s claim:
//”he was told — rather generously I thought — that if and when he felt ready to present the objectively valid evidence for Yahweh’s basic existence, which he repeatedly claims to have but never shares, he would be more than welcome to come back on the podcast and tell us about it.”//

My answer:
False. Jim keeps saying this, but has yet to produce evidence that this was ever communicated to me.

Jim’s response
//”If you were left in any doubt as to why you were invited back onto the podcast, other than to finally present the evidence you repeatedly claim to have but constantly refuse to present — especially given the email exchanges we had in-between podcasts number two and three — you’re even more deluded than I first thought.”//

Clearly Jim has no evidence that this was ever communicated to me, as he claimed.

Jim’s claim:
//”A few weeks ago he said he wanted to do just that. “//

My answer:
//”False. I never said that I was coming on the podcast to do this, I am a presuppositionalist after all. Jim sprang this non-existent agreement on me in the introduction to the latest podcast, and STILL I agreed to present evidence.”//

Jim’s response: (Crickets).

Jim’s claim:
//”So we setup a Skype chat, and started the recording with a disclaimer saying that we did not give our permission for anyone to edit our comments,”//

My answer:
False. Nothing mentioned about editing.

Jim’s response:
//”You are a pathological liar. I said, “I do not give my consent for ANY PART of this debate to be used…” http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2012-04-03_minicast__insta-bail_aka_bye_bye_sye.mp3”//

How convenient that he did not finish that sentence. Allow me “be used FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. NOT that it not be edited AT ALL.

Jim’s claim:
//”or use the recording for commercial purposes.”//

My answer:
False. Jim did not say that the RECORDING could not be used, but that the DEBATE could not be used for commercial purposes, and as the recording shows, the debate never happened. In Jim’s own words it was “over before it’s begun.”

Jim’s response:
//”BWAAAA HAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA!!!!!!”//

Looking forward to hearing that laugh in court when I bring this point up!

Jim’s claim:
//”He was then asked to present the objectively valid evidence for God’s basic existence,”//

My answer:
False. I was not asked to present evidence.

Jim’s response:
//”Your own website is called Proof That God Exists, Sye. Do you not think maybe there’s a clue in the title, that you claim to have evidential proof of Yahweh’s basic existence? Oh wait, I forgot. You have to believe it first, right? Gee, how scientific.”//

So where was I asked to present evidence Jim as you claimed?

Jim’s claim:
//”which he had promised.”//

My answer:
False. I never promised to do this.

Jim’s response: (Crickets).

Jim’s claim:
//” At which point, he insisted that he already had presented it”//

My answer:
False. I did not say that I had already presented evidence.

Jim’s response:
In your own words, when asked if you had any objectively verifiable evidence for the basic existence of Yahweh, you said “I’ve had it from the beginning”. http://fundamentally-flawed.com/pods/?p=episode&name=2012-04-03_minicast__insta-bail_aka_bye_bye_sye.mp3

So where did I say that I had already presented evidence as you claimed Jim?

Jim’s added nonsense:
//”At which point Alex explained to you and the listeners that the disclaimer made for a good intro to the debate, completely cancelling out your phantasmagorically stupid excuse that the disclaimer portion of the recording did not count as being part of the actual conversation.”//

We shall see about that if this gets to court. Announcing AFTER THE FACT that the prior portion is to be included in the podcast, hardly makes for an agreement to include it.

Jim’s claim:
//”but we weren’t interested in listening to it.”//

My answer:
False, I never said this.

Jim’s response: (Crickets).

Jim’s claim:
//”He then quit Skype, in a hissy fit”//

My answer:
False. Actually Jim said “bye” first, and I was quite matter-of-fact about the whole thing.

Jim’s response: (Crickets).

Jim’s claim:
//”and posted a recording of the conversation, without our disclaimer included, on his blog,”//

My answer:
False. I never posted the conversation on my blog.

Jim’s response: (Crickets).

Jim’s claim:
//”insisting that we had tried to censor him and put words in his mouth.”//

My answer:
False. I really don’t know where Jim is getting this from, but I never said this.

Jim’s response: (Crickets).

Jim’s claim:
//”A few days later a YouTube clip appeared with excerpts of our comments, to advertise Sye’s latest project”//

My answer:
False. I advertised no project.

Jim’s response: (Crickets).

Jim’s claim:
//”which he might profit from, and we had stipulated our comment were not to be edited”//

My answer:
False. Again, no mention was made of editing (which is really a moot point as my video contained the entire actual podcast that I was a part of – from the introduction to me leaving. Jim and Alex have a habit of including elements of the discussion that are NOT part of the podcast (as they did with my appearance with Eric Hovind and again here).

Jim’s response: (Crickets).

Jim’s claim:
//”So we issued a DMCA and YouTube took it down. Then he posted it again from another account.”//

My answer:
False, I only posted it once.

Jim’s response: (Crickets).

Jim’s claim:
//”Now, in a fit of rage, Sye and his liars for Jesus are spreading a blatant falsehood about myself and my co-host Alex Botten, in the blog-o-sphere.”//

My answer:
False. I think you are projecting here Jim. I am not the least bit angry. I am quite laid back, even as I type this. I don’t get angry when those I engage hang themselves on their own words, it is just sad and bewildering.

Jim’s response: (Crickets).

Jim’s claim:
//”We specifically told Sye that we did not give our permission for him to edit our comments or post them on YouTube.”//

My answer:
False. Nothing was said about editing, and the mention of YouTube was in reference to ad sharing, which I am not a part of.

Jim’s response: (Crickets).

Jim’s claim:
//”Contrary to his claim, we did not tell Sye that he could not use the recording.”//

My answer:
False, I never claimed this, but this admission will come in handy if this ever gets to court.

Jim’s response: (Crickets).

Jim’s claim:
//”We told him that he could not edit our comments”//

My answer:
False, they did not.

Jim’s response: (Crickets).

Jim’s claim:
//”or use the recording for his own personal financial gain — which he immediately went ahead and did anyway.”//

My answer:
False, I get zero financial gain for having that video on YouTube.

Jim’s response:
//”Are you one of Eric’s employees? Do you get paid to appear in his productions? Do you file tax returns on earnings accrued from your “ministry”? Have you ever received an invitation from Google / YouTube to opt one of your videos into their ad revenue sharing scheme? Do you quote-mine people as a matter of course, in your unintelligible screeds against reality, and then delete / ignore their comments when they ask for an apology? Do you disable comments altogether on videos you know for a fact are utter bullshit?
Do you think I’m trying to change the subject by asking this? Why do you think questions pertaining to your financially gaining from content which isn’t yours to exploit are off-topic? At which point did you think we were talking to you for any reason, other than to highlight the fact you’re a money grabbing scumbag with the morals of a stoat? How do you not realise, even at this point, that you have proven this fact for us with such efficiency, we couldn’t have asked for a better outcome?”//

So where in that vitriolic rant is the evidence that I gain financially from having that video on YouTube?

So there you have it folks. Out of the 22 falsehoods that I pointed out in Jim’s letter to PZ, he did not even address 14 of them (for obvious reasons) and the rest clearly do not refute my claim that his allegations were false.
I wonder if I’ll get to read these in court?

P.S. Jim, I do not have an American work visa and cannot be paid to work in the U.S. (pathetic try though).

Cue vitriolic rant about how I am the one looking bad here

(edited out repeated question, updated stats May 16, 11:30 AM).

Alex and Jim are at it again. I hope to post more details when this matter is settled, but in short, Alex and Jim had a video of mine wrongfully removed from my YouTube channel. Jim sent a letter to PZ Myers (again) concerning this matter, which PZ posted in its entirety on his blog, (perhaps as sour grapes over this). In that letter Jim made many false statements. He recently posted a blog post challenging me to post these falsehoods, and thus this response.

Jim’s words will be contained in these //” “// markings.

First his challenge:

//”I have no idea what these “blatant falsehoods” are, but I can assure everyone reading this, that every single last word of my original email to PZ contains the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I know Sye has something of an allergic reaction to facts, so I won’t be holding my breath waiting for him to specify exactly which parts of my letter he objects to, but suffice to say if he does go further down the road of taking legal action against us, I’ll be sure to let everyone in this thread know. I’m almost tempted to force his hand, just see what hilarity he manages to dig up by way of evidence that we’re the ones who are in the wrong, as opposed to being the injured party.//”

Now to Jim’s falsehoods. He writes:

//“As you probably know, Sye’s basic schtick is a transparent and horrible variation of Kant’s Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God. Since we poked holes in it, on our podcast, he has been systematically lying about the way our conversation ran, to anyone who is stupid enough to listen to him, rather than listen to the podcast for themselves.”//

False. Apparently Jim has a very convenient memory as to how he and Alex said(1) said the podcasts went. Jim admitting to “ridiculous mistakes, and Alex to “flailing hopelessly.” Is there any wonder why Jim and Alex are so angry with me?

//“After our second podcast with him, in which he told us we would burn in hell for the sin of holding ourselves to a higher standard of proof than wishful thinking”//

False. Aside from repentance, Jim and Alex are going to Hell for their sin, not for what he claims I said here.

//”he was told — rather generously I thought — that if and when he felt ready to present the objectively valid evidence for Yahweh’s basic existence, which he repeatedly claims to have but never shares, he would be more than welcome to come back on the podcast and tell us about it.”//

False. Jim keeps saying this, but has yet to produce evidence that this was ever communicated to me.

//”A few weeks ago he said he wanted to do just that. “//

False. I never said that I was coming on the podcast to do this, I am a presuppositionalist after all. Jim sprang this non-existent agreement on me in the introduction to the latest podcast, and STILL I agreed to present evidence.

//”So we setup a Skype chat, and started the recording with a disclaimer saying that we did not give our permission for anyone to edit our comments,”//

False. Nothing mentioned about editing.

//”or use the recording for commercial purposes.”//

False. Jim did not say that the RECORDING could not be used, but that the DEBATE could not be used for commercial purposes, and as the recording shows, the debate never happened. In Jim’s own words it was “over before it’s begun.”

//” Sye verbally agreed to this TWICE.”//

False. I said ONCE that I understood what he said, not TWICE that I agreed to it.

//”He was then asked to present the objectively valid evidence for God’s basic existence,”//

False. I was not asked to present evidence.

//”which he had promised.”//

False. I never promised to do this.

//” At which point, he insisted that he already had presented it”//

False. I did not say that I had already presented evidence.

//”but we weren’t interested in listening to it.”//

False, I never said this.

//”He then quit Skype, in a hissy fit”//

False. Actually Jim said “bye” first, and I was quite matter-of-fact about the whole thing.

//”and posted a recording of the conversation, without our disclaimer included, on his blog,”//

False. I never posted the conversation on my blog.

//”insisting that we had tried to censor him and put words in his mouth.”//

False. I really don’t know where Jim is getting this from, but I never said this.

//”A few days later a YouTube clip appeared with excerpts of our comments, to advertise Sye’s latest project”//

False. I advertised no project.

//”despite that we had specifically included YouTube in the disclaimer, since original content clips are eligible for Google’s ad revenue sharing scheme,”//

Which I am not a part of, as is blatantly obvious.

//”which he might profit from, and we had stipulated our comment were not to be edited”//

False. Again, no mention was made of editing (which is really a moot point as my video contained the entire actual podcast that I was a part of – from the introduction to me leaving. Jim and Alex have a habit of including elements of the discussion that are NOT part of the podcast (as they did with my appearance with Eric Hovind and again here).

//”or used in any third party content.”//

I am not a third party.

//”So we issued a DMCA and YouTube took it down. Then he posted it again from another account.”//

False, I only posted it once.

//”Now, in a fit of rage, Sye and his liars for Jesus are spreading a blatant falsehood about myself and my co-host Alex Botten, in the blog-o-sphere.”//

False. I think you are projecting here Jim. I am not the least bit angry. I am quite laid back, even as I type this. I don’t get angry when those I engage hang themselves on their own words, it is just sad and bewildering.

//”We specifically told Sye that we did not give our permission for him to edit our comments or post them on YouTube.”//

False. Nothing was said about editing, and the mention of YouTube was in reference to ad sharing, which I am not a part of.

//”Contrary to his claim, we did not tell Sye that he could not use the recording.”//

False, I never claimed this, but this admission will come in handy if this ever gets to court.

//”We told him that he could not edit our comments”//

False, they did not.

//”or use the recording for his own personal financial gain — which he immediately went ahead and did anyway.”//

False, I get zero financial gain for having that video on YouTube.

Well, I count 22 falsehoods. Perhaps I read Jim’s blog post wrong. Perhaps he was challenging me to find something true in his letter to PZ. That would make more sense, and would have been much harder.

1.  Excerpt from this podcast @7;47

“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? “  ~ 1 Corinthians 1:20

I sit here, watching my cursor blink at me, totally dumbfounded that Tommy Rodriguez does not get it.  Not an inkling.  Not a spark.  Not even a hint of an inkling or a spark.  I used one of the very simplest analogies in my repertoire: “Racing for Pinks.”  How can anyone not understand the basis of this argument?  How could anyone with Tommy’s education not have a clue as to what is going on here?  Tommy is by no means dumb.  He is educated, he is articulate, but he is no closer to getting it than when we started our interaction.

I have been counseling people on the Biblical way of defending the faith for a few years now.  One of the sentiments they convey to me when employing this apologetic is their frustration that although the argument is plain as day,  the person they are communicating with just does not get it.  I always counsel them the same way: “They can’t get it. Repentance comes BEFORE a knowledge of the truth, not after.”  (2 Timothy 2:25).  Tommy cannot and will not get it unless and until he repents of denying the God that he knows exists.  “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7), surely Tommy cannot grasp the truth until he repents of denying the very foundation of truth.

See, with me it is not frustration though.  I have done this enough times to be beyond that.  For me it is sheer astonishment at the foolishness of unbelief.   Clearly Scripture calls unbelievers “fools” for a reason.  Why then am I so amazed when the fool behaves and reasons foolishly?  I wish there was someone I could call on to tell me: “Sye, that is what fools do.”

Now I know that Tommy will read this, and likely take offense to the title of “fool,” but it is not in the sense of name-calling, and it is not a title that I have given him.  It is merely the Biblical description of the unbeliever’s moral ineptitude in the area of reasoning.   Yes, moral ineptitude.  The fool is not someone who unknowingly slips up, but one who willfully ignores what he knows to be true, and careens down the path of destruction.

I will have to omit large chunks of Tommy’s response as most (read all) of it does not pertain to the discussion at hand.  Remember folks, I’m looking for his pink slip and he’s still just spinning his tires.  As always, Tommy’s words will be in the //”  “//  brackets.

//”In any case, on this occasion I tried changing gears in order to discuss Darwin’s theory of evolution. My academic background is in bioinformatics and molecular biology. Naturally, this is a place I feel most comfortable. Plus, I really wanted to hear his take on these matters.”//

Tommy is forgetting that in order to even begin a discussion on these matters he must make fundamental assumptions which I claim that he cannot account for according to his worldview.  In my very first response to Tommy I said: “I’d like to discuss the fundamental assumption of science – induction, or the uniformity of nature.” And later: “No use talking about science, when it is my claim that you need God to do science. Too often (most often) secular scientists do science without considering the very foundation of science.  You see, if I argue science with you apart from your accounting for your ability to do so, then I am conceding my position from the start. Even if I were to convince you of a certain scientific argument , you could still say: “Well, I did not need your God to come to that conclusion.”

We are right back at square 1.  Tommy wants to race, and I first want to see his pink slip.

//”But as I had anticipated prior to this discussion, Mr. TenBruggencate refused to discuss evolution. In fact, he wanted nothing to do with the subject, claiming that evolution has nothing to do with our initial debate over nature.”//

I am perfectly happy to entertain Tommy’s use of evolution in his justification for truth, and knowledge, and logic, and induction, but I refuse to grant him the very things our argument is about.  Tommy wants to assume truth, and logic, and knowledge and induction in order to argue about evolution, but he does not want to justify his assumptions according to his worldview.  Again, he wants to race without giving his ownership.  Can it be any more clear?

//” How absurd is that? Evolutionary theory is cornerstone of all biology. It explains the mechanisms at work in all living systems. I think this makes it more than relevant. Don’t you?”//

Of course we will come to different conclusion on this based on our respective presuppositions.  The argument is not about what evolutionary theory can or cannot explain.  The question is whose worldview can account for any theory explaining anything, and it ain’t Tommy’s.

//”Instead, Mr. TenBruggencate insisted on reasserting his old circular arguments about ‘presupposing uniformity’, making reference to his 3 initial questions again and again.”//

That’s right Tommy, I want to see your pink slip.  I want to see what your justification is for calling any argument circular, by what standard you claim that circularity is fallacious, and how you account for that standard according to your worldview.  I keep making reference to those questions, because till now you have totally dodged them, and they get to the heart of what this discussion is actually about.

//” His reasoning is based around the notion that you cannot account for science, logic, or truth (or anything) without presupposing God first. If I go on to say ‘evidence … about this’, he says, ‘you can’t account for evidence without presupposing God’. If I say ‘logic … about that’, he’ll say, ‘you can’t account for logic without presupposing God.’//z

EUREKA!!! 

//” Sir, you are being overly ambitious. You cannot account for truth, evidence, science, or logic without a universe (with people in it), not God.”//

Just give me your justification Tommy, and we’ll go from there.

//”Anyways, I tried persuading Mr. TenBruggencate into thoroughly explaining creationism (in a concise, logical, outlined, and descriptive manner that included some evidential support – either empirical or scientific – and how it all ties into his ‘uniformity of nature’).”//

All of which presuppose elements which Tommy has yet to account for (because he cannot).  He wants a logical explanation, but has yet to account for logic.  He wants to race, but has not provided his ownership.  This is not that difficult.

//” But I got nothing. I asked him to describe how he thinks evolution works in his own words. I find that misconceptions regarding evolutionary theory are quite wide and quite commonplace.”//

And quite irrelevant.

//”After all, I wanted to know if Mr. TenBruggencate knew anything about his opponent’s position. But again, nada.”//

I know for certain that Tommy is “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1: 18-21).

//”Ultimately, I believe my suspicions are correct. Mr. TenBruggencate’s avoidance has more to do with his inability to explain away the overwhelming evidence in behalf of evolution, rather than anything else he can ever affirm with his circular arguments.”//

No Tommy, I will not race you to you provide your pink slip.  This is not that difficult.

//” That’s the bottom line. But what’s worse, Mr. TenBruggencate did not (or could not) explain his own position regarding creationism either. ??? “//

Well, if you would allow me to publish our private discussion, the world would see that this is false.  God created everything, simple as that. If you want to discuss our separate views, fine, but Tommy, you are not in the race yet.

//”Sir, if you cannot logically outline the core of your own explanations, what are you arguing for or against? Steering blind, are we?”//

Logically Tommy?  Do I really have to say it again?

//”Furthermore, if I do not know the basic foundation of my opponent’s creationist worldview, then I cannot continue to debate him. “//

This is a common tactic of the unbeliever, they ignore the fundamental issue of the debate, and set up an escape route.  Tommy is looking for a way out of the race, cause he’s checked his pockets, and voila, pas de pink

//”I have agreed to answer his 3 initial questions with the hope that Mr. TenBruggencate will extent me the same level of gratitude and engage in my questioning regarding evolution and creationism.”//

Well folks I have read Tommy’s “responses,” and not surprisingly, have ascertained what type of vehicle he has brought to the race (see pic).

My first question was:  1. What is your basis for assuming that the words you type to me (or the laws of logic, scientific method) apply the same way they did 5 seconds ago if nature is random?

I won’t post Tommy’s response in its entirety, as mostly he was defining randomness, which has exactly nothing to do with my question.  I wanted to know his basis for assuming that any past pattern (with the full understanding that he can’t even justify past patterns) will, or probably will continue into the future.

//”Sye, nature consists of patterns that reflect a cause and effect. We observe this phenomenon as a sequence of events. We call it time. Time is an attribute of the universe that can be measured in light years, minutes, seconds, hours, etc. Our measurement of time is pretty accurate as we use it consistently to make predictions in science and mathematics.”//

As I said, even if Tommy could justify the logic and reasoning, not to mention senses and memory, to justify past patterns, which he can’t, this does not even start to answer the question as to his basis for assuming that past patterns have anything to do with the future!  The best way that I have found to expose Tommy’s error is to in simplest terms define what he is doing.  In order to justify that Tommy’s words will mean the same thing in the future that they did in the past, Tommy is looking back at the past, and using this as his explanation.  Let’s call that type of reasoning “looking back at” reasoning.  My question, in a nutshell though, is how does Tommy know that “looking back at” reasoning is valid?  What does Tommy do, he “looks back at” to tell me that such reasoning has been valid. He is employing the very reasoning that I am asking him to justify.  This is viciously circular.  I’m asking for Tommy’s pink slip, and he is saying: “I had a pink slip once.”  Tommy, please try again.

My second question was:   2. Please tell me one thing that you know to be a fact and how you know it to be a fact. (If you invoke your senses, memory or reasoning, please include how you know that they are giving you valid information).

//”A fact is a fact when it is confirmed and collaborated by mass majorities. Facts must be publicly verifiable, if not it losses it’s label as a fact. Facts are everywhere, but they do not explain how things work. Only theories give us explanations of natural phenomenon.”//

Well, that is not what a fact is, but I am NOT asking Tommy what a fact is, I am asking him what he knows to be a fact and how he knows it.  There is no answer to that question.  Even in this erroneous definition though, he is employing senses, memory and reasoning, which I asked him to justify, and, as expected, he did not.  Tommy, please try again.

My third question: 3.What is “truth” in an evolutionists worldview, and how can you possibly know anything to be true?

//”Sye, Darwin’s theory of evolution is an explanation for the mechanisms at work in living systems. You are not grasping this concept my friend. Your line of questioning clearly demonstrates it.”//

And this defines truth how?

//”One of the requirements for a statement to be labeled ‘true’ (for truth) rather than ‘false’ is publicly verifiable evidence.”//

Problem is “verification” ASSUMES truth, the very thing you are trying to justify.

//” For example, “the Earth orbits the Sun” is a statement that is to be considered ‘true’ because we have substantial data to support it as such.”//

Which assumes that the data is “true” but does not define truth and does not answer the question.

//”Most people will agree and collaborate with that statement to make it true.”//

So truth is by consensus???

//”On the other hand, “the Earth is flat” is a false statement because all of our models and data suggests otherwise.”//

Would it have been a “true” statement if the consensus said that the earth was flat in past ages when past models and data suggested that the earth was flat?  Of course not!  It would have been a wrong belief, but not truth!  Truth, by definition cannot change.  Surely something cannot be true, which is actually false?

//”Fortunately, science has helped us refine truth through a fairly accurate, scrupulous, and rigid body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, and correcting and integrating previous knowledge.”//

Tommy, just give us your definition of truth, and how you know anything to be true!  Please try again!

No folks, I am not frustrated, but I have discovered that astonishment at foolishness feels a lot like frustration.

NO! I am not clairvoyant!

When I said in my last post that this may not be the last instalment, I was not gazing into a crystal ball. I was merely speculating that Tommy would be like other professed atheists I have engaged, and try to save face after having the fallaciousness of his worldview exposed.  Tommy did not disappoint.  I’m calling this post “No more Mr. Nice Guy” in reference to Tommy’s newfound attitude towards me, in case any of you thought it was an indication that some padding had fallen out of my presupp gloves.   (Note: Tommy removed his post, but after some private conversations, reposted it to keep the conversation going in a public forum).

I had planned on (and started) doing a line by line rebuttal of Tommy’s latest post, but the embarrassment of riches it provided made doing so far too laborious.

In our conversations Tommy has denied uniformity, the absoluteness of truth, and the absoluteness of logic and I hope to use this post to continue to point out the inconsistency of his worldview, and the consistency of the Christian worldview.   As before, Tommy’s words will be in the //” “// brackets.

//”Sye TenBruggencate is an atheist.”//

Tommy wrote this, of course, in response to my assertion that there are no real atheists (or agnostics) but as Greg Bahnsen so devastatingly pointed out to George Smith in their 1991 radio debate, this is not simply an empty authority claim which can be reversed on a whim.  This claim is based on the testimony of Scripture (Romans 1:18-21) and is further evidenced by Tommy’s own actions.  When Tommy assumes uniformity (and he does), he presupposes God.  When Tommy assumes moral absolutes (and he does), he presupposes God.  When Tommy assumes logical absolutes (and he does), he presupposes God.  When Tommy assumes the validity of his senses, memory, and reasoning (and he does), he presupposes God.  In absolutely everything Tommy thinks, says or does he presupposes God and I will continue to expose that in this post.  Now, if Tommy wishes to reverse this claim and support his contention that I am an atheist, he is free to try, but he would have to give evidence as to how I presuppose the non-existence of God in anything, let alone everything I do.  I join Dr. Bahnsen in not seeing it as a likely prospect that any support for such a claim will be forthcoming.

//”For a moment consider the following. If Mr. Sye TenBruggencate is correct about uniformity and induction in relation to God and science, and I am making the ‘presumption’ that he is (because I do side with modern science and it’s explanatory worldview of the universe),”//

Problem is Tommy denied uniformity!  He said: “Nature is not uniform.  Nature is random.”  (Well for a brief time the transcript was sneakily changed to “Nature is not always uniform,” but since Tommy changed it back on my request, I was not going to make a point of it).  Now it would appear that Tommy is once again arguing for uniformity but has never given his justification for it according to his worldview.

//”then we must acknowledge a fundamental contradiction. “//

Problem here is that Tommy denied that logic is absolute in our latest private interaction (which, not surprisingly he did not allow me to publish).  How can there be a “fundamental contradiction” if logic is arbitrary?

//”Mr. Sye TenBruggencate’s argument (the uniformity of nature, or, quite basically, the assumption that the future will be, or will even probably be, like the past) would effectively handicap God from performing miracles”//

How so? I have never argued for a specific uniformity, but for a general uniformity.  Miracles did not alter the general uniformity of nature, but were specific instances which God used for specific purposes that in no way affect our assumption that God is in control and governs the universe in such a way that we have a reasonable expectation that tomorrow will be like today.

//”by rendering intelligibility impossible.”//

This is a very odd claim.  An expectation of uniformity is necessary for intelligibility!  How could anything be intelligible without, at very least, the expectation that the laws of logic will apply today as they did yesterday?  Odder still is now Tommy apparently is arguing against uniformity!  He seems to switch arguments on a whim, but fails miserably no matter which side he takes.

//” The correlation lies with universal patterns of cause and effect”//

How does a finite person recognize a universal pattern?  On what basis does Tommy assume that a past pattern (even if he could recognize a universal pattern, which he can’t) will apply 2 seconds from now?  You see, Tommy does his drive-by shots at the argument, but never answers the fundamental questions I pose to him.

//”and the fundamental laws of physics that we use as the foundation of all science.”//

Again, even if Tommy could identify a “fundamental law” this would contradict his claim that truth is not absolute (the law could only be “true for him”), and he would have zero basis for assuming that any law would hold 2 seconds from now.

//”Uniformity or induction cannot (by definition) account for Biblical miracles in nature”//

Nor is uniformity what we appeal to in accounting for them, but here once again Tommy is telling us what cannot be the case?  How does Tommy know that in a world where truth and logic are arbitrary?

//”If the uniformity of nature holds up, it prevents God from being God. Either that or Mr. Sye TenBruggencate’s presuppositional explanations are completely incorrect. It can only be one or the other. “//

Why Tommy? Surely you are not saying that the law of non-contradiction is absolute???

//”In the end it appears that his core argument supports secular viewpoints. Thanks. Much appreciated. “//

Which secular viewpoint would that be Tommy?  The ludicrous viewpoint that nature is NOT uniform, or the unsupported one that it is?

//”Mr. Sye TenBruggencate loves to speak in terms of contradictions.”//

That’s right, because everything Tommy says is in contradiction to what he believes, and because I can account for the absolute laws which deem contradictions to be fallacious!  Tommy, on the other hand alleges contradictions (“then we must acknowledge a fundamental contradiction”), but denies the absoluteness of logic!

//”His presumption arguments are entirely circular in nature”//

Not only does Tommy expose a fundamental misunderstanding of ultimate authority claims (which are necessarily circular), He cites circularity as though it is somehow fallacious, when he has denied that logic is absolute!

//”In other words, the entire basis of his argument is a merry-go-round. ‘Round and round’ we go, with no end in sight. It isn’t legitimate, only dressed up to look like it is. “//

So now there are arguments which are absolutely illegitimate?  Where does THAT come from in a worldview which holds to arbitrary truth and arbitrary logic?  Now, I don’t expect Tommy to get it, in fact He can’t until God grants him repentance, but surely you all can see how he refutes himself with everything he says?

//”Don’t be surprised when Mr. Sye TenBruggencate comes back at me with a whirl of shit, with his typical circular arguments, taking jabs at me at the personal level (making a whole fuss about my ‘logic’ and ‘truth’, and arbitrary this and arbitrary that, circular, circular, circular, blah blah blah), maybe even paraphrasing the Bible here and there, rather than explaining what he cannot assert. See, he wants to distract you. He wants to confuse you. He wants to stray you away from the topic at hand.”//

Really Tommy? The topic at hand is a “race for pinks,” I have shown my ownership, he has been revving his engine and his tone has more and more resembled the ranting racer in the first line of my first post.  I repeat folks, I am not clairvoyant.

//”This is his angle. But you are a smart audience.”//

That should be Tommy’s greatest fear.

//”I was going to leave this alone. After all, what’s the point? At the end, this argument is mute; senseless. But after re-reading Mr. Sye TenBruggencate’s condescending mannerisms and mocking tone at my expense (after I treated him with the up most respect), I decided it would only be only proper to give him a taste of his own medicine. What he attempted was an intellectual witch burning at the stake. It is plainly disgraceful.”//

Here Tommy rounds out his appeal to absolutes by imposing some kind of moral standard, which his worldview simply cannot account for.

//”By the way, I am not against Christians. I love and respect my Christian brothers and sisters,”//

Well, indeed we ought to treat Tommy with respect, but to call Christians his “brothers and sisters” is a failure to recognize the Scriptural teaching that we have different Fathers (John 8:44).

//”But I do believe God should be a matter of choice.”//

Indeed Tommy is free to choose against Truth, but it is utterly foolish and damning to do so.

//”God is a matter of faith. No matter what Mr. Sye TenBruggencate claims – God cannot be proven.”//

Which once again, exposes Tommy’s precommitment to the concept of proof, which presupposes truth, knowledge, logic, uniformity, etc. etc. none of which Tommy can account for, and all of which his view denies.  He tells me what “Cannot be,” but how does Tommy know what “cannot be,” or what “can be?” Not surprisingly, he remains silent when these questions are put to him.

//”Can anybody say, exposed?”//

Yip. I can.

I am happy to leave it to the readers to decide if Tommy has ever even attempted to answer the questions I posed in my very first message to him:

1. What is your basis for assuming that the words you type to me (or the laws of logic, scientific method) apply the same way they did 5 seconds ago if nature is random?

2. Please tell me one thing that you know to be a fact and how you know it to be a fact.  (If you invoke your senses, memory or reasoning, please include how you know that they are giving you valid information).

3.What is “truth” in an evolutionists worldview, and how can you possibly know anything to be true?

My friend Tommy is a fish out of water in this argument.  He avoids questions and levels complaints as though he could justify the foundation for said complaints.  Contrary to what his worldview teaches, fish out of water do not evolve to bigger and better things, they gasp and die.

I’m not sure if this last response will cause Tommy to shy away for good, but if he does choose to respond again, I implore him to start by addressing the above questions (of course I would much rather that he repents for his sin against the God that he knows exists, and turn to seek the Truth).

Jesus Christ did not only die to save souls for eternity, He died to save reasoning, among many other things, right now.  Tommy is clearly struggling with this argument as is evidenced by his inability to let it go, despite his earlier claim that he would.  Please pray for him folks.

—

I’m disappointed to report that Tommy has not given me permission to publish our latest private exchange, but hopefully you can glean the gist of it through this latest public discussion.  Tommy has indicated that he is done with this discussion, but past experience with professed atheists who have said the same lead me to believe that this may not be the last installment.

Again Tommy’s words are in the brackets: //”  “//.

//”Your response is still unsatisfactory.”//

My responses are not intended to, nor could they possibly, satisfy one who denies God.  Proof does not equal persuasion, and that you are not persuaded by my responses is to be expected.  Too often Christians formulate their responses to satisfy the demands of the professed unbeliever so that they will repent, but, according to Scripture, that is turning things upside down.  2 Timothy 2:25 says that Christians must gently instruct their opponents in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth.  Repentance comes before a knowledge of the truth, not after.  Since Scripture tells us that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7), and that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ (Colossians 2:2,3), it follows that in order to be able to justify anything you claim to know, you must first repent of denying your only foundation for knowledge – The Lord God Almighty.

//”Obviously Sye, your objective is to twist and turn this whole dialog, never getting to the point. ‘Round and round we go’. “//
The simple fact is Tommy that you are not getting the “Racing for Pinks” analogy.  You are in a stolen car revving your engine, and I am simply asking you to produce your ownership papers.  The louder you rev, the more you drown out my request.

//”In our PM, we were discussing ‘truth’ and you asked me to define it, where I responded that truth is “a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true”. (Merriam-Webster) In my own words, I guess truth is how WE define reality. “/

And in our latest PM discussion (which you will not allow me to publish), I explained the absurdity and self-refuting nature of your notion of truth.  If truth is simply what is accepted as true, then everything that anyone accepts is true and everything that anyone rejects is false.  No one could be wrong about anything.  You know this is absurd and you refuted yourself every time you said that I was wrong about anything.  Denying absolute truth absolutely is so blatantly fallacious that the only possible explanation for you not getting it is that you simply refuse to.

//”But how does a chimp define truth? Or a dog? Or a tree? Or a star? Or a rock sitting on an alien moon on the other side of the galaxy?”//

Surely you are not suggesting that since animals or inanimate objects cannot define truth that truth is therefore a human construct?  None of them could define the universe either, surely it does not follow that the universe is then a human construct?  Furthermore, according to your ‘reasoning’ the universe could have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before there were humans around to formulate the laws which deem that such a contradictory proposition could not be true, and after all humans died off, then contradictions could once again be true.  It follows from your reasoning that either a) Humans alter the nature the nature of the universe such that it contradictions cannot be true, or b) You do not know that you exist now!  Either proposition is equally absurd.

//” Humans define truth. It is a human concept. Again, it means nothing unless we are around to define it. “//

I realize that your background is not in logic Tommy, but you are simply committing the fallacy of question begging here.  All you are saying is that truth could not exist without humans because truth is a human construct, which is viciously circular and unproven.  How do you know what can or cannot exist without humans?  How do you know that God does not exist and is not the source of all truth?

//”How does that prove (or disprove) anything? “//

Again, the very concept of proof presupposes absolute truth.  That is why I have repeatedly asked you to give me even one fact assuming your view of arbitrary truth!  The very concept of proof assumes absolutes, which assumes God, but you can’t hear that over the rev of the engine in your stolen car!

//”I ask again. Why take me down that road? What is point?”//

To expose the inconsistency of your worldview and your precommitment to belief in God.

//” If you want to debate the philosophical implications of truth, logic, and so forth you should take this discussion elsewhere.”//

If you wish to discuss science, you need the foundation from which to do so. That I exposed that you have none, does not mean that I should abandon my approach.

//” Philosophy is not my strong point.”//

Clearly, but I am patient, and am willing to give you all the time you want to investigate your foundations for what you are doing.  Of course I would much rather that you repent of denying the God that you know exists, rather than assuming Him, while at the same time denying Him, in a faux search in the opposite direction.

//” I thought our original discussion was science related and how it pertains to God.”//

That’s like saying: “I thought you were here to race, but all you are doing is talking about these pink slips.”  Science assumes uniformity, truth, logic, reasoning etc. etc. which assume God.  Science pertains to God as science would be impossible without God.

//” Nonetheless, since science is practiced in the ‘physical’, I guess it would be pointless for us to continue, as you mentioned that “God is supernatural, not natural”. Thus, he cannot be identified by scientific means. I can’t give you a solid answer beyond that.”//

I am not looking for you to define God, I am simply asking you to justify what you are doing without God.  If it is your position that you will only discuss things in the natural realm, then perhaps you can tell me where in the natural realm we find the laws of logic?  If you can’t (and you will not be able to), then on what basis do you use logic in your science?

//”By the way, I was merely responding to your original argument when you state that, “you cannot account for truth, knowledge and logic without God”. I’m merely pointing out that you cannot account for ‘truth, knowledge and logic’ without humans, not God. This was my whole point. Again, these principles are inapplicable outside of the human experience.”//

Well, let me put it to you point blank then: Could the universe have both existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before there were humans around to formulate the law of non-contradiction?  If not, why not?  If so, did the existence of humans alter the nature of the universe?  If not, how do you know that you exist?  If you don’t, how do you know anything?

//”I should mention one more thing Sye. I meant what I said last night. I got into this conversation with good intentions. I believe the exchange of information is not just important, but vital. I am like a sponge, always willing to learn something new (if not, I wouldn’t have entertained this dialog as long as I did). “//

I am happy to leave it to those reading along to determine as to whether or not you were in learning mode.

//”I think you probably approached it the wrong way with me (but I don’t blame you, some atheists can get pretty nasty).”//

I approach all God deniers the same way in debate no matter their degree of cordiality.  I point out the absurdity of their view and urge them to repent for their sin against the God that they know exists.

//”Naturally, you have a defense mechanism for people like me.”//

It’s called “truth.” 

//”But I am not like everyone else. I am open minded and open to all sorts of discussions.”//

I beg to differ, but again, I will leave that to the readers to determine.  They may wish to go back to our original discussion and see if you came close to answering any of my questions or even attempting to do so.

//” Trying to ‘outsmart’ me or make a mockery of me or trap me into open-ended questions shouldn’t be your angle.”//

It isn’t, but Tommy, in a random universe why shouldn’t it be?  Where do you get moral oughts in a universe without an absolute standard of morality. You see every objection you make, assumes the truth of my worldview.

//”What does that do in light of a better understanding?”//

Fact is, you simply cannot understand until you repent.

//”This is not a proper act of persuasion.”//

I thought truth was up to individual perception?  Here again you are assuming some standard of truth in order to tell me what is and is not proper, once again refuting your position.

//”I am always willing to listen, as long I receive reciprocal respect.”//

I have shown you the utmost of respect, while exposing your views for what they are.

//”Maybe we have things we can learn from each other, and grow in the process. Somewhere along lines we lost track of that.”//

Learning assumes truth, knowledge, logic etc. which assume God.  I cannot help that you do not like that I have exposed the fallacy of your worldview.

//”Anyways, I respect your viewpoints. It is admirable how you are able to defend your faith with such ease.”//

As professed atheists love when I admit, I am only a tool.    Christians are commanded to answer everyone who challenges their faith (1 Peter 3:15), and that command was given by God through a fisherman.  Fishermen are not known for their intellectual prowess, but when defending the faith in the way that God has equipped us to do, it is easy.

//”I still do not agree with you, but that does not mean that this dialog has not been educational (in one way or another).”//

I hope and trust that at very least it has been educational for those reading along.

//”To that I bow out. It’s been a pleasure.”//

You know where to find me my friend.  I hope and pray, and urge my fellow Christians who are reading along to do so as well, that God grants you repentance unto a knowledge of the truth.

Indeed thank you for taking the time to engage me,

Sye

Tommy responded on his blog.  Here is my response to his response   We also had another go round via PM which I hope he will agree to allow me to publish.

Tommy’s words are contained within these //” ” // marks.

//”Sye, I think the problem may be in our misunderstanding of ‘uniformity’, as the way you present it. My academic science is localized to inquire about living organisms at a genetic / molecular level, using computer systems to sort through biological information. For all practical purposes, uniformity principles do not apply to my work. “//

Really, then why do you turn on your computer? Surely you expect it to operate the same way it did yesterday? Surely you expect the words in your thoughts to mean the same thing they did yesterday? Surely you expect the laws of logic to apply today as they did yesterday?

//”Or in other words, I have no need to account for uniformity to get accurate results. It is plainly irrelevant. “//

See Tommy, this is just you saying: “I don’t need to provide my pink slip in order to engage in this race.” Sure, you can race the car, but I know that you have stolen it and are racing illegitimately.

//”I do not argue against cause and effect, and patterns in nature. “//

Of course you don’t, but the point is that you cannot account for uniformity of ANY kind. Even if you could identify PAST patterns, you have exactly zero basis for applying them to the future, yet you do, once again exposing your inconsistency.

//”You should read through some of my articles and scientific journals. This is where you and I disagree. I’m only making a point about randomness in nature. I can point to many, many examples of random behavior in nature. Nature can sometimes behave like a lottery ball … Sometimes you hit, and some times you don’t. “//

I am not arguing against what YOU perceive to be randomness, I am arguing that you cannot provide the justification for ANY uniformity (again, the very foundation of science).

//”This is especially true in random mutations observed in biological organisms. Not to mention, when you get down to the quantum level it gets much worse. It appears as if the laws of physics break down all together. How do you account for this oddity in nature? “//

I do not agree with your premise, and have already explained to you that the assumption that the laws of physics break down at the quantum level is a fallacious assumption. Even more problematic for you is that extrapolating what happens at the quantum level into the macro level is engaging in the fallacy of composition.

//”It just seems that your argument about uniformity doesn’t produce a satisfactory answer. Or just maybe its not suppose to.  If you look it closely, the whole premise of the argument is circular and presents a logical paradox. “//

Well, in our latest PMs you have denied the universality of logic, so you can have no complaint against alleged circularity.

//”That is, any answer is a valid answer, by your logical standards.”//

Actually, you are defining YOUR view here. If logic and truth are arbitrary (as you claim) then ANY answer can be true and logical, not so if they are absolute.

//” Your answer to uniformity is God, but mine could easily be King Tut or Snow White. How can you prove me otherwise?”//

Well, if you chose to give up your atheism, since you recognize that it cannot justify uniformity, I will be pleased to debate you on whatever alleged deity you have adopted.

//” Plus, we have no concise definition for what God really is,”//

I have given you my definition via PM: God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.

//” thus, making it nearly impossible to identify in nature.”//

God is supernatural, not natural.

//” The only point of reference we have is the bible, which is inconsistent and unreliable. “//

I disagree, but you have denied the absoluteness of truth and logic, so on what basis do you call the Bible “inconsistent” and “unreliable?”

//”You see, human logic dictates that in order for something to be held credible, there must be a way to demonstrate its validity.”//

If logic and validity are arbitrary, then you have no basis for such an assertion, refuting yourself once again. I could very easily say: “Well, its’ credible, and valid to me,” and you would have NO argument.

//” Obviously, this is done by presenting physical evidence, like the way an investigator presents evidence in court against a murder suspect.”//

Perhaps you can give me an example of evidence where logic and truth are arbitrary?

//” Or the same way a scientist proves that it takes 365 for the Earth to go around the sun. The proof is in the pudding. “//

Great, then let’s see this proof with arbitrary logic, and arbitrary truth!!!

//”There is no need to side step. But where is yours?”//

www.proofthatgodexists.org.

“C’mon let’s race you stupid Fundy!”  “What are you waiting for?  Are you chicken?”  “That piece of junk car you have couldn’t beat anything!”

You have just entered your car into a “race for pinks.”  For those of you unfamiliar with the term, a “race for pinks” is a drag race popularized in the 1950’s where the loser of the race forfeits the ownership of his vehicle to the winner (pink, being the color of the vehicle ownership papers in California at the time).

You have produced your pink slip verifying that you are the rightful owner of your vehicle, while your opponent has been revving his engine screaming at you to get into the race, utterly perplexed at your refusal.

Seems like an odd scenario doesn’t it? — a scenario too ridiculous to imagine ever taking place.  So, why do I bring it up?  Folks, this is exactly the scenario that most Christians face when debating unbelievers.  In fact it’s worse than this; Christians are racing unbelievers when they know that the car of the unbeliever is stolen!

Recently professed atheist Tommy Rodriguez engaged me in a private exchange via Facebook.  Tommy is a scientist and published author, and comes across as a kind, intelligent, no nonsense kind of guy.  I liked him from the very beginning.  It became apparent very quickly though that Tommy has never engaged a presuppositionalist.  He wanted to “race” in his scientific field while I was there asking for his pink slip.

Normally the private discussions I have never see the light of day, but Tommy found our exchange interesting enough that he asked if he could publish it on his blog, and I readily agreed.

When you read it, keep in mind that I am looking for Tommy’s “pink slip” when it comes to his ability to do science, namely, his justification for the uniformity of nature.  All of science is based on the assumption that the future will be, or will probably be, like the past.  Science would be useless if we did not expect that the logic we use, the methodologies we employ, and the very words which formulate the thoughts in our head (to name but a few), mean the same things they did 5 seconds ago and that the results of our experiments will be (or will probably be) applicable 5 seconds from now.   We do not boil water on Tuesday and wonder at which temperature water will boil at given the same conditions on Friday.  Everything we do, we do with an expectation that the future will resemble the past.

The Christian can justify this easily, by appealing to God who controls the universe, maintains those things which do not change as unchanging (such as the laws of logic) and keeps order over those things which do change ( like the state of water into steam when heated) .

As I have said, Tommy is a kind, intelligent fellow, but his worldview cannot account for the uniformity which lies at the base of everything he does.  In fact, near the beginning of our exchange, Tommy actually denies that nature is uniform, but then goes on to spend much of his time arguing for the uniformity of nature.

Tommy is not like other professed atheists and is not hurling insults at me as the opening line in my scenario indicates, but it is clear that he is perplexed at my refusal to get into the race.  My position is clear though, I know that he has stolen the metaphorical car he is driving.  He depends on uniformity, but denies it and denies the God who regulates our universe.

Of course, Christians do have the arguments to meet professed atheist on their terms and get into the race, but knowing that their car is stolen, why on earth would we want to?

Here is the exchange.  It appears as this will be an ongoing discussion.  Tommy has posted his “final thoughts” on our exchange, and I hope to respond to them soon.  Please pray that Tommy comes to know the God he is suppressing, in a saving way.

So, Rational Wiki has put up a page on yours truly. Indeed it is rife with inaccuracies and unsupported claims, but one need look no further than the article itself to see the brilliance of those we are dealing with:

Debate challenge issued today.  So far Penn has tweeted in response to friends of mine:

“I don’t have any training in debate. It’s not what I do. Dawkins or Hitchens.”

“I couldn’t get through their talking, they misrepresented things and saw things as a battle and not quest for truth.”

“I’m supposed to defend my book to any a**hole with a webcam? I haven’t time or desire.”

“Truth is not a game with challenges and macho posturing. I just tell the truth as I see it and they should do the same.”

“I’m not trained in debate. It’s turning conversation into competition. And they misrepresented me.”

“turning truth into competition is not fun for me…”