The Manhattan Project: Difference between revisions

Line 76:

This is not a minor rhetorical quirk. It is the foundation of his sermons, and I suspect of the Manhattan Project. I would encourage anyone still inside the message to watch for it, because once you see it in Courchaine's preaching, you will start seeing it everywhere in Message literature, including in Branham's own sermons.

=== Violating the law of non-contradiction ===

One of Courcaine's core claims is that you cannot use reasoning or evidence to establish spiritual truth. Such truth is grasped only by faith and revelation. The moment you allow reasoning to have a vote, you've already surrendered to the enemy.

And the HUGE problem with this is that it is [[Logic and the Message#Self-refutation|self-refuting]]. '''He spends his sermons reasoning and citing evidence to convince you of that.''' He gives definitions, walks through history, cites Greek and Hebrew, compares proof texts, and weighs Calvinism against Arminianism. Every one of those is an appeal to your reason. A claim that "reason cannot establish truth" cannot itself be established by reason without refuting itself, and it cannot be established by revelation without simply asking you to take his word for it.

The law of non-contradiction isn't a hostile skeptic's tool; it's the precondition for meaning in any statement at all. When Courchaine says "intellectual consistency is not truth," he needs that statement itself to be intellectually consistent and true, or there's no reason to accept it. The sentence eats its own tail.

This is another foundation to Courchaine's arguments. If it falls, then the whole "''you can't question the Message''" apparatus falls with it. While it should be obvious to those in the Message, cognitive dissonance will prevent them from seeing it. But those outside feel the sleight of hand even before they can name it: ''he told me not to reason, and then reasoned with me the whole time.''

== Two fallacies combined into one argument ==

Line 182:

Line 192:

This sermon may be where the idea of the Manhattan Project started. In many of the videos he deleted, he talked about epistemology, the study of the nature, origin, scope, and limits of human knowledge. In this sermon, he appears to be retreating to higher ground, attempting to build an '''epistemological fortress''', a theory of knowledge designed so that no evidence could ever counter the Message.

~~=== His core claim ===~~

His core claim is that you cannot use reasoning or evidence to establish spiritual truth. Such truth is grasped only by faith and revelation. The moment you allow reasoning to have a vote, you've already surrendered to the enemy.

And the HUGE problem with this is that it is [[Logic and the Message#Self-refutation|self-refuting]]. '''He spends 45 minutes reasoning and citing evidence to convince you of that.''' He gives definitions, walks through history, cites Greek and Hebrew, compares proof texts, and weighs Calvinism against Arminianism. Every one of those is an appeal to your reason. A claim that "reason cannot establish truth" cannot itself be established by reason without refuting itself, and it cannot be established by revelation without simply asking you to take his word for it.

The law of non-contradiction isn't a hostile skeptic's tool; it's the precondition for meaning in any statement at all. When Courchaine says "intellectual consistency is not truth," he needs that statement itself to be intellectually consistent and true, or there's no reason to accept it. The sentence eats its own tail.

This is the load-bearing wall of Courchaine's argument. If it falls, then the whole "''you can't question the Message''" apparatus falls with it. While it should be obvious to those in the Message, cognitive dissonance will prevent them from seeing it. But those outside feel the sleight of hand even before they can name it: ''he told me not to reason, and then reasoned with me for an hour.''

=== A false dilemma dressed up as humility ===

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 This is not a minor rhetorical quirk. It is the foundation of his sermons, and I suspect of the Manhattan Project. I would encourage anyone still inside the message to watch for it, because once you see it in Courchaine's preaching, you will start seeing it everywhere in Message literature, including in Branham's own sermons.
+=== Violating the law of non-contradiction ===
+One of Courcaine's core claims is that you cannot use reasoning or evidence to establish spiritual truth. Such truth is grasped only by faith and revelation. The moment you allow reasoning to have a vote, you've already surrendered to the enemy.
+And the HUGE problem with this is that it is [[Logic and the Message#Self-refutation|self-refuting]]. '''He spends his sermons reasoning and citing evidence to convince you of that.''' He gives definitions, walks through history, cites Greek and Hebrew, compares proof texts, and weighs Calvinism against Arminianism. Every one of those is an appeal to your reason. A claim that "reason cannot establish truth" cannot itself be established by reason without refuting itself, and it cannot be established by revelation without simply asking you to take his word for it.
+The law of non-contradiction isn't a hostile skeptic's tool; it's the precondition for meaning in any statement at all. When Courchaine says "intellectual consistency is not truth," he needs that statement itself to be intellectually consistent and true, or there's no reason to accept it. The sentence eats its own tail.
+This is another foundation to Courchaine's arguments. If it falls, then the whole "''you can't question the Message''" apparatus falls with it. While it should be obvious to those in the Message, cognitive dissonance will prevent them from seeing it. But those outside feel the sleight of hand even before they can name it: ''he told me not to reason, and then reasoned with me the whole time.''
 == Two fallacies combined into one argument ==
@@ Line 182: / Line 192: @@
 This sermon may be where the idea of the Manhattan Project started. In many of the videos he deleted, he talked about epistemology, the study of the nature, origin, scope, and limits of human knowledge. In this sermon, he appears to be retreating to higher ground, attempting to build an '''epistemological fortress''', a theory of knowledge designed so that no evidence could ever counter the Message.
-=== His core claim ===
-His core claim is that you cannot use reasoning or evidence to establish spiritual truth. Such truth is grasped only by faith and revelation. The moment you allow reasoning to have a vote, you've already surrendered to the enemy.
-And the HUGE problem with this is that it is [[Logic and the Message#Self-refutation|self-refuting]]. '''He spends 45 minutes reasoning and citing evidence to convince you of that.''' He gives definitions, walks through history, cites Greek and Hebrew, compares proof texts, and weighs Calvinism against Arminianism. Every one of those is an appeal to your reason. A claim that "reason cannot establish truth" cannot itself be established by reason without refuting itself, and it cannot be established by revelation without simply asking you to take his word for it.
-The law of non-contradiction isn't a hostile skeptic's tool; it's the precondition for meaning in any statement at all. When Courchaine says "intellectual consistency is not truth," he needs that statement itself to be intellectually consistent and true, or there's no reason to accept it. The sentence eats its own tail.
-This is the load-bearing wall of Courchaine's argument. If it falls, then the whole "''you can't question the Message''" apparatus falls with it. While it should be obvious to those in the Message, cognitive dissonance will prevent them from seeing it. But those outside feel the sleight of hand even before they can name it: ''he told me not to reason, and then reasoned with me for an hour.''
 === A false dilemma dressed up as humility ===