My Conversation with bsengstock20

Debate Room
1

On Nov 26 bsengstock20 messaged me out of the blue to say that he couldn’t answer a question of mine in the open forum, because of certain conditions imposed upon him by the Moderators. After that he and I engaged in a private conversation of 33 messages back and forth, coming to an end on Dec 14.

During that time I tried to converse with him and also tried to persuade him that if he really wanted to communicate better with us he was going to have to alter the way he posted, what he posted and how he wrote his replies. All my attempts to reason with him on this issue were met with the stonewall non-acceptance on his part. Why should he knowingly move from his position when he knew ours to be less rational than his?

Anyway, here is what passed between us.

Thank you,

Walter.

2

bsengstock20

Nov 2025

Thank you for your response, but I’m unfortunately on hold until tomorrow as per the rules that have been provided to me.

3

Walter

Nov 2025

I’ll wait.

4

bsengstock20

Nov 2025

Thank you. :+1:

5

bsengstock20

1

Walter

Nov 2025

But I’ll give you some entertainment while you wait:

One day, there was a great scholar that approached a middling mathematician who asked on the nature of truth. The mathematician replied, "why do you ask me, seeing that I exist in a provisional state? But if you want truth, devote yourself to fields of study.”

The great scholar asked, “Which ones?”

The mathematician replied, “‘Science, Definitions, Ethics, Epistemology, Politics, and Physics"

The great scholar replied, “I’m an expert in all of these subjects. What then do I lack?”

The mathematician replied, "Do you truly know or do you perceive to know? If you wish to be perfect, you must admit to a knowledge greater than provisional logic. Acknowledge that some things exist necessarily upon which you build your assumptions beyond your observation, ground your work in them, and then your knowledge will be complete. "

But when the great scholar heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great knowledge: but lacked truth.

Towards the end of the day, a man of little intellect visited the house of the mathematician. When he heard of the exchange, he began to fear, asking the mathematician that, if the great scholar could not understand the fundamental nature of truth, how could an unlearned person such as he?

The mathematician replied, “it is very difficult for those with many provisional assumptions to come to the true knowledge of the nature of truth.”

The man of little intellect then asked, “then how can we know the true nature of truth?”

The mathematician replied, “With provisional truth alone this is impossible, but with modal truths (essential truths), we might truly know provisional truths being that all provisional truths depend on modal truths for their justification.”

6

Walter

Nov 2025

I have two things to say to this.

First, I detect more than a little of Mark 10 : 17 to 31 in this. Intentional or coincidence? Second and spinning you a little story in return…

You are like a man in possession of a wonderful box. It glitters and dazzles and invites those looking upon it to open it. Inside they are promised they will find the revelation of ultimate clarity… the truth of truths… the very thing that featured again and again in Carl Sagan’s recurring dream. The book of All Knowledge.

But this box cannot be opened by anything except one special key. It’s indestructible and cannot be prised open by any amount of force. Terawatt lasers? Nuclear weapons? Gamma ray bursts? Nope.

You alone keep the key and you will not open the box on any terms other than your own.

So the box stays firmly shut until everyone dances to your tune.

:face_without_mouth:

7

bsengstock20

28d

It’s a box that cannot be opened without the key, you are right.

The key is God (object).

The awe of God is the beginning of wisdom.

You cannot open the box until you use the key. I have opened my box. You have to open your box.

Now, you may know a lot more about boxes in general, and you can validly criticize whether I am interpreting the contents inside the box correctly, but unless you open your own, you can never come to the beginning of knowledge.

8

Walter

28d

Oh that’s interesting. Each person gets their own box? I see.

But, my criticism of you isn’t so much about your interpretation of the contents of your own box.

It’s more about the validity of your role in this forum as the self-appointed keeper of knowledge.

You promise this, but will only deliver on your terms.

So, perhaps you could tell me why I should dance to your tune?

9


bsengstock20

28d

Well, as the theist, aren’t I allowed to present my quantifications and qualifications for what I believe in (God) as my key to true knowledge?

As an atheist, if you don’t have a stake in the contents of the box (believing that they may be unnecessary or that they do not exist), why be so insistent on defining what the key looks like?

10


Walter

28d

Because as well as being an atheist I’m also a sceptic.

I don’t just believe what someone claims. I ask them to present evidence for what they are claiming. That was the standard in my former forum, Ex-Christian.net, and it is also the accepted standard in this one.

You, the believer, are on our sceptical turf now. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to play by our rules. Please do so.

Oh and when it comes to presenting things in this forum bsengstock20, you’ve some unfinished business in the thread you’ve left hanging for some twelve days now.

How about presenting some answers to our questions there?

11

bsengstock20

28d

Yes. I was suspended for a time (14 days I think). The suspension just lifted.

You are free to challenge me on the existence, relevance, and credibility of my claims; but questioning how I define my claims isn’t constructive to dialogue as you don’t have stake in my claim. Trying to challenge my definitions without sufficient justification as to why your definition is better doesn’t make much sense.

12

Walter

28d

Perhaps not to you.

But what is important to you is not the be all and end all of the matter. When visiting Christians complained about similar things at Ex-Christian.net they were told by the Moderators, “Our forum, our rules”. If they couldn’t abide by that they either left of their accord or earned the banhammer.

A similar status quo prevails here. The choice is yours, bsengstock20.

13


bsengstock20

28d

But isn’t that you defining what I believe?

14


Walter

28d

I’m not doing any defining here, bsengstock20.

I’m just an ordinary member of this forum (as are you) and have no say in how its run. The same was true in Ex-Christian.net. What I’m doing here is simply reporting to you how things are. If you have a problem with that then, as I said before, leave or earn the banhammer.

The rules and guidelines of Ex-Christian.net made it explicitly clear that the decisions of the Moderators were NOT subject to challenge or question by any of the members. But if you want to take your chances with the Moderators of THIS forum, then please don’t let me stop you.

Or, instead of belabouring this point here, with me, who can do nothing to change the status quo, you could instead devote your energies to answering the outstanding questions put to you in the main forum.

The ball is your court.

15

bsengstock20

28d

I think that you misunderstood what I’m trying to address here… My problem is not with the moderators. My problem is with atheists trying to tell me what it means to be a theist. When I present my definition of the term and the terms that come along with it, said atheists view the way in which I define myself and my terms as illegitimate when they have no personal stake in the term itself.

Can you see my confusion/frustration?

16


Walter

28d

Not really.

What are the Moderators of this forum, which is called ATHEIST republic.com, if not atheists?

If they view your definitions as being illegitimate, then, as I’ve already suggested, you must take that up with them.

Bsengstock20, there’s really nothing to be gained here arguing the toss with me.

We can go around in circles if you like and I can keep on repeating what I’ve already explained to you - but that really is a waste of your time and mine.

17


bsengstock20

28d

I got you. And I’m not frustrated with you or anything. You seem to actually want to discuss things.

I just find it wacky that the people who claim to make no assertions regarding theism are the people who are telling me what it means to be a theist.

18

bsengstock20

Walter

28d

Also, I’m limited to five forum comments per day.

19

Walter

bsengstock20

28d

Then if you can demonstrate to them what you think it means to be a theist by the use of evidence, in my opinion you should stand a chance of persuading them. But that’s only my opinion.

But if you confine yourself to modal logic, then I think you’ll get nowhere unless you can show, using evidence, how modal logic can be checked and tested by something other than itself. The evidence for this would also have to come from outside of modal logic.

Systems of knowledge acquisition that are beholden only to themselves are viewed with deep suspicion by sceptics and atheists - especially those who were once theists themselves. Such as some of the Moderators, many of the members and also myself.

Why?

Because knowledge gained through the counsel of the Holy Spirit is just such an untestable and uncheckable system of knowledge acquisition. The spirit is beholden only to Himself and not to the challenges and questions of mere men.

You have a mountain climb here bsengstock20 and your best way to the summit will be with the use of evidence, not with metaphysics and/or modal logic.

Thank you,

Walter.

20

Walter

bsengstock20

28d

Then you had better be shrewd and judicious in how you use the limited freedom granted to you.