Tuesday, September 06, 2011

Answering Nide's Questions about the Uniformity of Nature

A visitor to my blog named Nide who posts comments under the pseudonym “Hezekiah Ahaz” has asked a series of questions relating to one of my favorite topics, the uniformity of nature.
Nide: “Well, of couse Ayn for you to take measurements you have to assume the nature is uniform. Something you can't account for.”
For this question to have stable meaning, he needs to explain specifically what he means by “account for” in the context of the uniformity of nature. What exactly is he asking here?

Nide: “So you have no choice but to take it for granted. Which assumes faith something your philosophy precludes.”

I can’t say which is the bigger impediment for Nide’s understanding, whether it’s his self-inflicted ignorance of his opponent’s position, or his commitment to mischaracterizing his opponent’s position by proposing simplistic implications which in fact are not suggested by that position. But either way, his lack of understanding is persistent and systemic.
What Objectivism precludes is the primacy of consciousness, confusing imagination for reality, substituting emotion for knowledge, etc. I don’t know how anyone could possibly object to these, but here’s Nide trying to malign a position which is distinguished by steadfast allegiance to the fact that wishing doesn’t make it so.
By ‘faith’, Objectivism means acceptance of ideational content without evidence or contrary to sound reasoning. It does not mean “taking something for granted.” Not even the bible equates faith with taking something for granted. But here’s Nide, acting as though it does.
So just to make this crystal clear: Objectivism rejects accepting ideational content without evidence or contrary to sound reasoning.

When Christians kick against this policy, they tell us about themselves.
The Objectivist view of nature is not void of evidence or contrary to sound reasoning. We perceive and deal with nature directly every moment of our lives. Nide has not shown that the Objectivist view of nature is void of evidence or contrary to sound reasoning. There is nothing about the Objectivist view of nature which is inconsistent with its epistemology, and this is why Nide cannot present a validation of his deliberately slanderous construals. If Nide or anyone else thinks that Objectivism’s view of nature is inconsistent in some way with its epistemology, he needs to show this, not simply say that such an offense exists without showing where such an offense occurs. He needs to do his homework instead of thriving on drive-by charges that only expose his gaping ignorance of what he’s talking about.
In the case of the uniformity of nature, the question that I raise with theists who want to make this matter a topic of debate, is whether the uniformity of nature is something which consciousness establishes in nature on the one hand, or a feature of nature which obtains independent of conscious activity. Theists of course, in particular presuppositionalists for whom the uniformity of nature is an apologetic centerpiece, typically avoid discussing the matter in these terms. (See for instance the questions I have posed to apologist Chris Bolt here back in March 2010, which still to this day have not been addressed.)
The Objectivist view is that nature is uniform independent of conscious activity, that nature’s uniformity is not something which consciousness provides to nature. On this view, nature is inherently uniform, and the uniformity of nature is something we discover and identify, not create and/or alter.
The Christian view is clearly the opposite: that some form of consciousness is needed to provide nature with its uniformity, which can only mean that nature is not inherently uniform, that nature is inherently chaotic, that the default of nature is disorder, that the law of causality is something foreign to nature and must be installed into nature by some volitional action of consciousness. This is the subjective view of the uniformity of nature, the view of nature found in Christianity, and it is in fact a distinguishing characteristic of Christianity since “miracles are at the heart of the Christian position.” (Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, p. 27)

Of course, we can imagine that a magic consciousness gives nature its uniformity. But this would be a figment of one's imagination, not a rational identification of reality. If an individual is content with confusing what he imagines for reality, Christianity may very well be a fitting home for him.
Nide asked: “Ayn on what rational basis do you as an ‘atheist’ Justify belief in the inductive principle?”
To the extent that this question has any rational legitimacy (which would require some revision to make that the case), the answer is very simple: on the basis of the axioms, the primacy of existence, and the objective theory of concepts. I’ve stated this before, but so far no theist has been able to bring a lasting challenge to it. All theists can do is try to ridicule it. Meanwhile, they ignore the fact that their worldview attempts to defy the axioms, endorses the primacy of consciousness (e.g., wishing makes it so), and has no theory of concepts to begin with! If there’s a weaker position from which to try to attack Objectivism, I’d like to what it could possibly be.
Nide: “Ayn without begging the question or avoiding a circle can you explain to me why nature is uniform?”
This question is fallacious complex, for attempting to answer it on its own terms invites the fallacy of the stolen concept. To say “why” something is the case implies that it is the result of some cause. But causality is a law of nature. So you can’t affirm a cause prior to nature. This would constitute a stolen concept. I certainly reject the idea that some form of consciousness causes nature to be uniform. This is a blatant absurdity given the mountain of stolen concepts one would have to accept in adopting such a view.
Nature and uniformity are inseparable, like water and its wetness (to use Sye Bruggencate’s own metaphor – it fits, and in this context it finally has some legitimacy as a metaphor). To ask why nature is uniform not only invites stolen concepts (and is therefore fallaciously complex), it also misses the nature of uniformity.
by Dawson Bethrick

Labels: , , , , ,

506 Comments:

Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 06, 2011 8:08 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Dawson

Great post, I think you zeroed in right on the heart of the matter. I used to think the christians lack of a theory of concepts was not to damning to their postion, however the more I learn of this topic the more I realize how devestating the lack is to their world view. Logic has a grammar all of its own, concepts can not just be strung together in any old order in an argument. They have a hierarchical relationship to each other. This fact is completely lost on Nide. I believe that he does not understand the stolen concept fallacy, does not wish to understand it, and does not wish to deal with our desire to avoid it in our thinking.

September 06, 2011 8:11 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I am wondering when AJ will get an entry about him
since he thinks his brain is imaginary.

Dawson,

Always a pleasure. Still wondering why you call me
Nide. It's hilarious but if it makes you happy it makes me happy.


Your post really should have been about how you think absurdities are possible.





That would have been more interesting.

September 06, 2011 1:18 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIqJXRrp2Kg

Sye's latest stunt.

Nide I don't know what you are talking about.

"I am wondering when AJ will get an entry about him
since he thinks his brain is imaginary."

I never said anything even close to that...that's complete nonsense.

September 06, 2011 1:35 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 06, 2011 1:56 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Absurd is not synonymous with what is not real or impossible. There are things that are absurd that are real and things that are absurd that are not. Absurd is a value judgement not a metaphysical status. Square circles are absurd and impossible. Some of the policies at work are absurd and unfortunately for me all to real. I noticed how you refuse to interact at all with with what Dawson discussed. I have a question for you. I want to know if you understand how concepts are formed and integrated. Do you understand what the stolen concept fallacy is and why it applies or as the case maybe does not apply to your insistence that we "account for" our use and reliance on our senses and minds. Do you understand what a fallaciously complex question is? Ok more than one:)

The issues Dawson raised are important to me, if you want to advance the discussion with the goal of convincing me that god is real, you will have to address them. Oh wait, that's right you said you cant convince me, but you are wrong. A reasoned fallacy free argument could convince me. In fact only such an argument could convince me and until you understand this you are wasting your time here.

September 06, 2011 1:56 PM

September 06, 2011 2:13 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “I am wondering when AJ will get an entry about him since he thinks his brain is imaginary.”

I really have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m guessing you don’t either.

Nide: “Always a pleasure. Still wondering why you call me Nide.”

It would not take a genius to figure this out.

Nide: “It's hilarious but if it makes you happy it makes me happy.”

I was happy long before you ventured onto to my blog. And I continue to be happy, even if the god you imagine does not approve.

Nide: “Your post really should have been about how you think absurdities are possible.”

Why? I’ve already addressed this. Here, I’ll repeat what I said:

It depends on what “absurdity” refers to. There are things which I would characterize as absurd which do in fact exist. Muamar Qaddafi for example. The Mormon Church. The government of North Korea. Barack Obama. The Christian bible. Etc. These things all exist. And they are absurd.

I hope you’re starting to see clearer now.


Do you ever make an effort to understand another person’s position and deal with it on his terms? Or do you always prefer to insert something a person has not affirmed into his mouth in order to make your task as a defender of the imaginary easier? If my position as I inform it is so wrong, why do you continually try to distort it? Why not deal with me in an honest manner? Sye proved himself to be dishonest. I see a connection here. Don't you?

Just asking. I know you won’t answer me.

Regards,
Dawson

September 06, 2011 5:14 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 06, 2011 6:18 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 06, 2011 6:26 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

(previous two comments deleted by me due to my decision not to revisit something that has already been beat to death)

Dawson,

Faitheist wrote: "I am wondering when AJ will get an entry about him since he thinks his brain is imaginary.”

You responded: "I really have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m guessing you don’t either."


I'm just guessing here, but it could be that Faitheist was referring to my commenting (in the previous thread) that perhaps one day he would find a quote of his on "Fundies Say The Darndest Things."

It seems that's what he was replying to.

If he would just be considerate enough to put the name of the person next to the person's quote, this sort of thing would not happen as often.

Ydemoc

September 06, 2011 6:38 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

It's interesting because the atheist does exactly what you are accusing me of.

You ridicule, take out of context, misrepresent what the bible all the time.

You insist that Christianity has no theory of concepts. Well,
the bible is not some philosophy book that attempts to
make sense of man's experience. The bible gives you the foundation for those experiences.

Rand is the king of the obvious. I am still waiting for Dawson to interact with the link I have provided. He seems reluctant to do so. I wonder why?


I exist because God exists. I am self-aware because God is self- aware. I know because God knows. This is what it means to be created in his image. I know all of you reject this. However, it's inescapable.

It's interesting that Dawson claims he is happy. Well, God is happy. See the connection?


To say that existence exists and nature is inherently uniform is to take a giant leap of faith because you can't prove it. That's why you have the axioms.

Objectivism is only another attempt to escape the God "problem".


Dawson,

One of your followers decided, last night, to put God on trial. I am still waiting for him to present his case. Have you seen him?

September 06, 2011 7:48 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “You insist that Christianity has no theory of concepts.”

If you think I’m wrong on this, please tell us about Christianity’s theory of concepts, and show us where we can learn more about it. Also, please explain what makes it distinctively Christian.

Nide: “Well, the bible is not some philosophy book that attempts to make sense of man's experience.”

This is just a roundabout way of conceding my point. No, it’s certainly not a philosophy book. It’s a compendium of mystical stories, sort of like the 1001 Arabian Nights. I don’t believe in Genesis creation myth or the resurrection story any more than I believe in magic carpets.

Indeed, taking the bible as truth will not help a person make sense of his experience. It will only confuse a person and immerse him into a labyrinth of psychological trauma. Consider Nide for example.

Nide: “The bible gives you the foundation for those experiences.”

Not at all. Reality gives man a foundation for his experiences, namely the facts identified by the axioms. They are the preconditions of intelligible experience. Without them, there’d be no reality, no identity, no consciousness. You can’t get very far without all of these.

Nide: “I am still waiting for Dawson to interact with the link I have provided. He seems reluctant to do so. I wonder why?”

If you’re talking about the one where the guy just goes on and on calling Rand an idiot or a moron, and drips with resentment in everything he writes about Rand, why on earth should anyone take that seriously? If that’s the one you’re talking about, you’ll need to trot out the specific criticisms that you think are relevant if you want me to look any further at that source.

Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for Nide to tell us what the point of his question about Plato was. He seems reluctant to do so. I wonder why.

Nide: “I exist because God exists.”

And here I thought it was because your parents procreated you and you’ve learned somehow to survive as long as you have. Silly me! Yes, the invisible magic being explanation tells us so much more!

Perhaps Ydemoc is right about Nide.

Nide: “I am self-aware because God is self- aware. I know because God knows. This is what it means to be created in his image. I know all of you reject this. However, it's inescapable.”

I can imagine all these things with you all day long. I can even imagine that it’s inescapable, as you claim. Unfortunately, imagination is all we have to go on here.

Nide: “It's interesting that Dawson claims he is happy. Well, God is happy. See the connection?”

No, I don’t. For one, I cannot see your god. Second, I know your god is imaginary, and that it can be imagined to have any emotion one wants to attribute to it. Also, your god could not earn happiness; it’s supposed to be complete, entire and unchanging, nothing can be added or taken away from it. I on the other hand am capable of earning my own happiness, and I have, and I know it, and this knowledge only increases my happiness. Your god is static, while I am dynamic. Your god is a flatliner, while I’m alive and enjoying life.

Nide: “To say that existence exists and nature is inherently uniform is to take a giant leap of faith because you can't prove it.”

This assumes a false dichotomy: either something is proven, or it’s accepted on faith.

Nide: “That's why you have the axioms.”

Yep, that’s right. Axioms identify facts which are perceptually self-evident. They don’t have to be proved because we perceive them directly. When I see a tree in my front yard, I don’t need to prove that it’s there. Also, I don’t need to take its existence on faith. I see the darn thing.

Nide: “Objectivism is only another attempt to escape the God ‘problem’.”

On the contrary, not an attempt to escape anything. Objectivism shows us why “the God ‘problem’” is not a problem in the first place.

Regards,
Dawson

September 06, 2011 8:47 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Faitheist,

Faitheist wrote: "To say that existence exists and nature is inherently uniform is to take a giant leap of faith because you can't prove it."

Existence, Consciousness, Identity, then comes proof. You don't prove existence, silly; existence is everything. It would have to be before anything thing like proof, talking, validating, leap, faith, considering, sneezing, etc. could be undertaken. I've said before, to ask for proof of these things is to ask to prove running with out allowing for a runner -- except it's much, much worse. Existence is happening in every thing you do.

To posit something before existence is to posit existence (whatever it is you assert that something may be) prior to existence.

"That's why you have the axioms."

You actually think Ayn Rand sat around and thought, "Hmmm. I need someway to get rid of this silly notion that people have about some 3 in 1 deity, who died on a tree, and that people need to believe in, otherwise they are going to hell for eternity. I know -- I'll come up with axioms." My advice to you is to take Dawson's advice and inform yourself.

It's funny that you state that, "Well, the bible is not some philosophy book that attempts to
make sense of man's experience. The bible gives you the foundation for those experiences."

What do you think philosophy does, silly? The bible is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo mish-mash filled beliefs and folk tales of tribal people, until one day the tribes' leaders found that it would be useful to put it down in written form and build places where their fellow tribesmen could gather and pay their respects to a deity. They found that the threat of a hidden, all-powerful, all-knowing deity, who was liable to punish them for any bad deeds or immoral thoughts, kept people in line.

You state, "The bible gives you the foundation for those experiences."

Setting aside the fact that this is what's considered philosophical starting point, would you mind telling us how the bible does this? How does it provide a foundation for experience? Do you sit on it? Do you eat it? Do you get vaccines with it? Of course you don't. So how can you say that the bible serves as a foundation for experience? Various concepts would have to be in place before what you call a "foundation for experience" could even be written.

Additionally, does your bible fulfill the following criteria (available in many of Dawson's writings. This comes from "RazorsKiss on the Christian God as the Basis of Knowledge - Part 2: RK's Axioms"; August 18, 2009 - also available on katholon.com):

- It names a perceptually self-evident fact
- Its truth is not inferred from prior truths
- Its truth is conceptually irreducible
- Its truth is implicit in all perception
- Its truth is implicit in all knowledge and any statement
- Its truth must be assumed even in denying it.

***end quoted material***

Faitheist, here's a question for you: Would you "love" your God as much as you do if there was no hell?

Ydemoc

September 06, 2011 9:06 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

A great response to Faitheist. If he responds (and given the trend, that's a near certainty) I would urge him to use the style that you use when quoting people. As I said before, it will help to avoid a lot of confusion.

Did you catch this Faitheist?


Ydemoc

September 06, 2011 9:18 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Dawson

I have to disagree, there is a god problem. Nitwits keep trying to bully their way into my life and business yapping incoherently about something called god, yes it is a problem.

September 06, 2011 9:30 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Justin: "I have to disagree, there is a god problem. Nitwits keep trying to bully their way into my life and business yapping incoherently about something called god, yes it is a problem."

Yes, of course. That is a problem. But in fact, I'd say that this is a god-belief problem, not a "God problem." If the Christian god has problems, well, they're his problems.

The trouble (problem?) is, the god-believers want to make a nuissance of themselves throughout our culture and beyond. In a very real sense, they want to take it over. They held primary sway over the culture for quite a while - during a time called the Dark Ages - and ever since the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, when their worldview lost vital ground, they've been trying to reassert their domination. If they aren't resisted, they very well could prevail again. Even many of those who seek to defend their theistic beliefs in the public forum would probably not like it, for their version of god-belief may very well not be the victor. They would be standing right alongside the rest of us awaiting the noose.

Regards,
Dawson

September 06, 2011 10:28 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Faithesit,

Faitheist wrote: "One of your followers decided, last night, to put God on trial. I am still waiting for him to present his case. Have you seen him?"

With every word you utter that posits a supernatural being, you are actually attempting an epistemological leap-frog backwards, with reality providing you with no place to land. To the extent you claim to have a spot to land, it is merely a product of your imagination.

As Branden writes:

"One of the most grotesque instances of the stolen concept fallacy may be observed in the prevalent claim—made by neo-mystics and old-fashioned mystics alike—that the acceptance of reason rests ultimately on “an act of faith.

Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. Faith is the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. “Faith in reason” is a contradiction in terms. “Faith” is a concept that possesses meaning only in contradistinction to reason. The concept of “faith” cannot antecede reason, it cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason—it is the revolt against reason."
The Stolen Concept - Nathaniel Branden, PhD
(This essay was originally published in The Objectivist Newsletter in January 1963.)

To claim that I am putting your God on trial is to claim that I am putting the imaginary on trial.

If I were to play along though, I would say that your God is guilty of the most heinous crimes against mankind. To claim your God ismoral is to erase all meaning of the concept "moral."

Maybe your God would like to take a plea deal?

By the way, would you say that your God is in hell? That's one advantage you have, that you can say pretty much anything you want about your deity; it really is only limited by your imagination.

Happy landings.

Ydemoc

September 07, 2011 11:15 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Great post, Brandon's words cleary articulate the issue. Thank you I am going to have to commit this to memory.

September 07, 2011 11:26 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You wrote: "Great post, Brandon's words cleary articulate the issue. Thank you I am going to have to commit this to memory."

Thanks. Branden's words as well as Dawson's many examples of The Stolen Concept are clear and articulate. The only ones who seem to have difficulty with this are those wearing faith blinders.

I can't wait for Faitheist to tell me I'm wearing "reason blinders." That would be hilarious.

Ydemoc

September 07, 2011 11:41 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Very true, however to be fair, Hezekiah/Nide... etc is by his own admission using a very different definition of faith. However even with his own, it is still a form of cognition and to claim it as a fountdation, justification or "account for" cognition as such would of course also result in stolen concept fallacy.

September 07, 2011 11:47 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

"I account for my cognition by faith." Yep. Grand-theft.

Ydemoc

September 07, 2011 12:04 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Can you "imagine" this crime

Grand theft concept

Have you seen these concepts!
Existence, Consciousness, and Identity? Last seen stuffed in the trunk of a theocrats car fleeing the scene of a debate!

September 07, 2011 1:49 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You wrote: "Can you "imagine" this crime

Grand theft concept

Have you seen these concepts!
Existence, Consciousness, and Identity? Last seen stuffed in the trunk of a theocrats car fleeing the scene of a debate!"

If spotted, approach the theist with caution -- he is known for using force.

Ydemoc

September 07, 2011 2:14 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Just a general comment about Dawson's writing: He showcases tremendous ability and patience to examine theistic arguments from all angles. Like a swat team surrounding a villain's hideout, there is really no route of escape for the theist. And Dawson does it clearly and concisely, contrary to various theists who have made charges to the contrary.

Any theist who levels a complaint about Dawson being verbose really should take a look at their fellow apologists' writings, as well as the bible itself - talk about verbose!

Have you ever looked at the atheist section vs. the religious section in a bookstore? The atheist selection is miniscule in comparison.

And theists are great at shifting arguments. When one hole is closed, another pops up somewhere else. It's like "Whac-A-Mole." Unfortunately for theists who dare set foot on this blog with a challenge to play this kind of game, Dawson wields the mallet of reason, using it to not only send the theist back down into his hole from whence he came, but also using it to wipe out the game's very power supply. It may take some time, but ultimately it always ends up as "Game Over."


Just some passing thoughts I wanted to share.

Ydemoc

September 07, 2011 3:15 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

You made a really good point. That I really appreciate. It's a really wise observation. You said existence can't be proven. Well, God exist he's existence. Lord willing you will understand what I am saying here.

Now that we got that out the way. Dawson thinks that being a bully will get him his way. He's really wasting valuable time. With his little taunts and challenges to God and fancy words.

I'm still waiting for you, Dawson, to tell me how do you justify using induction without begging the question or avoiding a circle. Well, Dawson you can't and this is something you keep trying to get around.

Lord willing, you will answer if you can. I don't think you can. The problem is by appealing to experience you beg the question because it assumes uniformity.


I'll be waiting.

September 07, 2011 4:12 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"God exist he's existence"

what are you a pantheist?

September 07, 2011 4:22 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Your confused as usual. However, I am happy you jumped in. I have a question. Can you define and and explain the "stolen concept fallacy" I would ask Dawson but I don't feel like being here all night. Thanks

September 07, 2011 4:33 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

here is a short definition I found in 2 minutes of googling that I think gets the point across

"The Stolen Concept Fallacy consists of using a concept while denying its hierarchical roots. For example, making an argument that relies on the concept of "motion" while denying that there are such things as physical objects. This is fallacious, because the whole concept of "motion" is predicated upon the existence of physical objects that move. "


Question, are you saying god is synonymous with the universe? That is how I read the statement "God exist he's existence"

September 07, 2011 4:50 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

No. God upholds existence.

Justin are these two sentences equivalent?

God is existence.

Existence is God.

September 07, 2011 5:26 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: "I'm still waiting for you, Dawson, to tell me how do you justify using induction without begging the question or avoiding a circle. Well, Dawson you can't and this is something you keep trying to get around."

I've stated this before, and I have no problem stating again because it is my position. To the extent that I "need" to "justify" induction, I do so on the basis of the axioms, the primacy of existence and the objective theory of concepts. If you think this begs the question, you need to show how it does. You'll note in that case that I'm not trying to "prove" the validity of induction by means of a syllogism drawn from prior inductive inferences. So where's the circularity? Where's the fallacy? Where's the begging of the question?

The key that you're not seeing here is that the objective theory of concepts shows that, and why, time and place are omitted measurements, and this answers the common presuppositionlist charge of question-begging against non-Christians, since they tend (erroneously) to conceive of induction exclusively in terms of guestimating future outcomes based on present facts. But if time is an omitted measurement, then where's the problem?????? No theist has shown me that he can contend with this and preserve his apologetic. My prediction is that you, Nide, will fare no better than anyone else. But go ahead and try. Show me where the fallacy in my "account for" induction is.

Regards,
Dawson

September 07, 2011 5:47 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Ydemoc:

Thank you for kind words. I’m glad you appreciate my work as you do. I do my best to stick to the point and make my course of reasoning as clear and easy to follow as possible, provided the reader does his part and sticks with it. I try not to begin in mid-stream, so you’ll often find prefatory remarks in my introductions which are intended to help newcomers to my writings get up to speed on the issue I’ll be addressing. I do this not only in order to safeguard the relevance of what I’ll be discussing, but also as a courtesy to the reader so that he can quickly understand where I’m coming from.

As for the complaint that I’m “verbose,” I can understand in this day of pathetically short attention spans, where the general public has been raised on 30-second commercials and acontextualized soundbites, how difficult it is for non-intellectuals to see the value of developing a point with care and responsibility.

In recent weeks we had the pleasure of Sye visiting my blog and leaving several comments. He again made several efforts to express his frustration with the volume of writing that I have devoted to his argument. Of course he wanted to make a big deal, over and over again, about his live debate challenge. If you recall, with respect to his debate challenge, I asked him to point me to a debate of his in which he felt he presented his best case. I thought that if he wanted to take the discussion to a live forum, it’d be beneficial to review his performance in a previous live debate he’s participated in. He would not identify a debate that he felt was his best, but instead pointed me to his most recent exchange with Justin Schieber.

A transcript of his discussion with Schieber is available on Sye’s website. I copied it and pasted it to an MS Word document, and reduced the font size to 11 points. It came out to 20 pages of single-spaced text.

Meanwhile, for comparison’s sake, I copied my blog entry in which I examined Sye’s argument, and reduced it to 11 point font, and it was only 11 pages. So if my 11 pages is “verbal diarrhea” because of length, what do we call his 20 pages that he recommended? I can think of some colorful expressions, but perhaps the reader can think of some of his own.

Regards,
Dawson

September 07, 2011 5:48 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

You said; "If I were to play along though, I would say that your God is guilty of the most heinous crimes against mankind. To claim your God is moral is to erase all meaning of the concept "moral."

What crimes are you talking about?

How does God's morality erase morality if everyone is moral then on what basis could you possibly characterize anyone as immoral?


You gave this Qoute "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. Faith is the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. “Faith in reason” is a contradiction in terms. “Faith” is a concept that possesses meaning only in contradistinction to reason. The concept of “faith” cannot antecede reason, it cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason—it is the revolt against reason."
The Stolen Concept - Nathaniel Branden, PhD

1. Am I supposed to throw my hands up in the air and renounce God after reading this?

2. His defenition of Faith is wrong I already provided the defenition which atheist continue to misrepresent.

You can thank Nathan for another theistic "proof".

You said: Faitheist, here's a question for you: Would you "love" your God as much as you do if there was no hell?


Well, criminals are never trully sorry. If the judge let them go. They would go back and commit crimes.

A "Christian" that "loves" God because of hell is still a criminal.



Blessings

September 07, 2011 5:48 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Faitheist,

Again, would you please copy and paste the quotes and the names of those you are addressing in your follow-up replies? It helps us to know what it is specifically you are talking about. You were doing this for a while, but then you stopped for some reason.

Ydemoc

September 07, 2011 5:52 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Faitheist,

Thank you, for using the correct form in quoting people. Now if you continue this habit, it will be appreciated.

Ydemoc

September 07, 2011 5:55 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 07, 2011 6:08 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

You wrote: "Thank you for kind words. I’m glad you appreciate my work as you do."

You're welcome. I think comments like the one I posted are important, in that they serve to remind anyone who hasn't done so, to sit up and take notice of your blog.

You wrote: "So if my 11 pages is “verbal diarrhea” because of length, what do we call his (Sye's) 20 pages that he recommended?"

Perhaps getting rid of the word "verbal" might suffice.

Ydemoc

September 07, 2011 6:14 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Faitheist,

I'll get to your other objections to what I posted in due time. Until then:

I had written: "Would you "love" your God as much as you do if there was no hell?"


Faitheist responded: "Well, criminals are never trully sorry. If the judge let them go. They would go back and commit crimes."

This doesn't answer my question. Read it again. It says, "Would you "love" your God as much as you do if there was no hell?"

Why do you avoid answering this directly? I'm not attempting to trick you into anything.

Here, I'll supply some possible answers: Yes....No.....If there was no hell, then it wouldn't be God.

I kind of like the third answer.

But let's go back to the answer you did supply. You answered: "Well, criminals are never trully sorry. If the judge let them go. They would go back and commit crimes."

Is that right? Can you cite a study that supports this? Was Judas truly sorry for what he supposedly did? Was Jesus ever truly sorry? He was a criminal, was he not?

Faitheist wrote: "A "Christian" that "loves" God because of hell is still a criminal."

I've never heard of this doctrine before. That's interesting. So "Fear of the Lord" is the beginning of knowledge; but fear of hell is still a criminal? By criminal, do you mean sinner?

Would you answer this for me: Is God in Hell?

Ydemoc

September 07, 2011 6:50 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

BB,

Ok, Define induction.

Time and place are omitted measurements?

September 07, 2011 6:50 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I could be totally wrong, but I'm getting the sense that Faitheist is more than one person (kind of like claims he makes about his alleged God).

Though they are few and far between, there are times when his questions and responses seem lucid. Other times they are off the wall.

When he's lucid, it's almost as if he's consulting someone.

I'm not saying I find fault in this. Just that it's something I noticed.

Maybe I'm totally wrong though. Maybe at those times that he's lucid, it's just a product of him focusing a little more.

Ydemoc

September 07, 2011 7:03 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Christians love God for his goodness and mercy.
However, hell is not totally out of the picture. Christians are thankful that they will not go there but that is not what moves them to love him.

The lake of fire was created for Satan and his Angels.
Since men like to emulate Satan they get to go with him why would God separate them from the "God" they love.
See know that would be immoral.

If God is omnipresent then, yes, he would have to be in hell.

Yes, I mean sinner. Sinners are criminals.

September 07, 2011 7:17 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

I do the same you do I consult my religious books.

September 07, 2011 7:36 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Faitheist,

Faitheist wrote: "Christians love God for his goodness and mercy.
However, hell is not totally out of the picture. Christians are thankful that they will not go there but that is not what moves them to love him.

The lake of fire was created for Satan and his Angels.
Since men like to emulate Satan they get to go with him why would God separate them from the "God" they love.
See know that would be immoral.

If God is omnipresent then, yes, he would have to be in hell.

Yes, I mean sinner. Sinners are criminals."



Thank you for your answers. But you refrained from using my suggested style of replying to comments.

Even though it worked out okay in this particular exchange, I'm hoping that in the future you quote in a "You wrote" "I wrote" fashion.

I hope to respond to your comments in time.

Thanks.

Ydemoc

September 07, 2011 7:44 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Faitheist,

I intend to answer your other comments later. In the meantime, could you answer this: Are there any Christians that you would consider evil? Or would you consider that, since they're Christians and saved, that they are not evil even though they might do evil things? Are there any true Christians not guided by the Holy Spirit? Are you able to tell a true Christian from one who merely talks a good game? If so, how are you able to tell the difference?

Ydemoc

September 07, 2011 9:48 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Faitheist,

I had written: "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. Faith is the acceptance of ideas or allegations without sensory evidence or rational demonstration. “Faith in reason” is a contradiction in terms. “Faith” is a concept that possesses meaning only in contradistinction to reason. The concept of “faith” cannot antecede reason, it cannot provide the grounds for the acceptance of reason—it is the revolt against reason."
The Stolen Concept - Nathaniel Branden, PhD"

You replied: "1. Am I supposed to throw my hands up in the air and renounce God after reading this?"

Far be it for me to tell you how to react to reading and integrating something that enlightens, but if you want to go ahead and do what you describe, go for it.

Ydemoc

September 07, 2011 10:07 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Said:"Are there any Christians that you would consider evil? Or would you consider that, since they're Christians and saved, that they are not evil even though they might do evil things? Are there any true Christians not guided by the Holy Spirit? Are you able to tell a true Christian from one who merely talks a good game? If so, how are you able to tell the difference?"



From wikipedia: "Imputed righteousness is a concept in Christian theology that proposes that the "righteousness of Christ ... is imputed to [believers] — that is, treated as if it were theirs through faith." It is on the basis of this "alien" (i.e. from the outside) righteousness that God accepts humans. This acceptance is also referred to as justification. Thus this doctrine is practically synonymous with justification by faith."


Here is a website that may be helpful:

http://www.gotquestions.org/

September 08, 2011 6:43 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

I wrote: "Are there any Christians that you would consider evil? Or would you consider that, since they're Christians and saved, that they are not evil even though they might do evil things? Are there any true Christians not guided by the Holy Spirit? Are you able to tell a true Christian from one who merely talks a good game? If so, how are you able to tell the difference?"



Hezekiah wrote: From wikipedia: "Imputed righteousness is a concept in Christian theology that proposes that the "righteousness of Christ ... is imputed to [believers] — that is, treated as if it were theirs through faith." It is on the basis of this "alien" (i.e. from the outside) righteousness that God accepts humans. This acceptance is also referred to as justification. Thus this doctrine is practically synonymous with justification by faith."

I'm not sure this really answers my questions. What I want to know from you is how *you* have confidence that another Christian is saved? What, to *you*, is the "dead givaway" that a person is saved? Would there be anything they could do, while still professing Christianity and belief in their Lord and Savior, that would make *you* conclude that they are not really saved? If so, can you give examples?

Ydemoc

September 08, 2011 9:08 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

I went to the website you cited - gotanswers.org. And while browsing around a bit, I came across this interesting entry under my search query "What is faith?":

"Where does faith come from? Faith is not something we conjure up on our own, nor is it something we are born with, nor is faith a result of diligence in study or pursuit of the spiritual. Ephesians 2:8-9 makes it clear that faith is a gift from God, not because we deserve it, have earned it, or are worthy to have it. It is not from ourselves; it is from God. It is not obtained by our power or our free will. It is simply given to us by God, along with His grace and mercy, according to His holy plan and purpose, and because of that, He gets all the glory."

Note that this particular Christian website states that faith is *not* "something we are born with."

Now, would you mind explaining how one can say that, as I believe you essentially have, that faith is necessary for relying on our senses, if, as this Christian website states, we are not born with it?

Here is what you wrote in a response to Justin back on 9/1/11:
"I will say, I have to have faith in God to be able to use my senses and reason. The bible says
I was created in God's image which means I have an intellect. Since faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.(Hebrews 11:1)
I can wake up everyday and not have to "see" If by brain is working. So, to an extent the "atheist" has this same faith because he also wakes up and doesn't check to "see" if his brain is working."

There seems to be some disagreement between what you wrote and what gotquestions.org says.

But, hey, if you can't reconcile these differences, take comfort: This isn't the first time nor the last when Christians stand -- not only in opposition to reality -- but also in opposition to each other.


Ydemoc

September 08, 2011 9:49 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Current understanding of child neurological development show us that we have functional sense perception well before we have an innate sense of self. Perception precedes cognition.

September 08, 2011 10:20 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 08, 2011 10:20 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 08, 2011 10:24 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

(my previous comment deleted and edited due to my forgetting to quote text, like I have been urging Faitheist to do)

Justin,

You wrote: "Current understanding of child neurological development show us that we have functional sense perception well before we have an innate sense of self. Perception precedes cognition."

Thanks for this. Yet I'm sure someone will say it all depends on faith, yet this someone will be unable or unwilling to tell us how he or anyone else arrived at the concept "faith."

Ydemoc

September 08, 2011 10:37 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

I agree with them. Now you know why Christians should problably take their kids to the hospital.

However, I did make a distinction.

Common faith, saving faith , common grace , saving grace.

God didn't create love, faith , grace , goodness , etc.

These are all a reflection of his thinking and actions.
and since we are created in his image. We can love , be faithful etc. Our actions and thinking assume these things and Ultimately God.

We are born with a sense of these things.
They do not originate in us.







Enjoy

September 08, 2011 11:59 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

I wrote: "Now, would you mind explaining how one can say that, as I believe you essentially have, that faith is necessary for relying on our senses, if, as this Christian website states, we are not born with it?"

You replied: "I agree with them [gotquestions.org].

Well, let's see exactly how this plays out and what it is you agree with.

You wrote: "Now you know why Christians should problably take their kids to the hospital."

Come again? This doesn't follow. How does your agreeing to what the website says have any bearing on whether or not Christians should take kids to a hospital? Is there some kind of abuse going on in faith-filled households that would warrant having to take a child to the hospital?

In any event, I will attempt a guess at what you seem to be saying. You seem to be saying faith allows one to recognize that hospitals are probably the best place to take children when they are sick. Do I have this right? And you square this with Mark 16:18:

16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

If you choose squirm out of this by disregarding this particular section of Mark, please tell me what your standard is for dispensing with it. Beware that the standard you choose may also apply to numerous other texts of the bible.

You wrote: "However, I did make a distinction. Common faith, saving faith , common grace , saving grace."

Yes. I seem to recall you making a distinction, now that you mention it. But I didn't see you elaborate. Nor have I seen that distinction being made by the bible. And I surely do not see this distinction in what you have been sighting as your basis for the meaning of "faith," i.e., Hebrews 11:1. Who told you of this distinction? If no one told you, where did you read about this distinction?

You wrote: "God didn't create love, faith , grace , goodness , etc."

This is an amazing admission. Christians tell me all the time that God created *everything*. Now here you are, giving me a list of things he didn't create. Fascinating. And you know he didn't create these things, how exactly?

Perhaps, the people that told you to split faith, and grace into two camps, should also come up with a way to split the concept "everything" into to two camps. Because, from where I sit, everything means "every thing." You appear to need a new concept that describes what you have chosen to exclude from the idea of "God creating everything." Maybe this new concept will keep you hidden from the shining light of reason.


You wrote: "These are all a reflection of his thinking and actions."

A reflection? So God really isn't self-evident, we need a bouncing back of his "light" before we are able to notice him?

When God thinks, does he do it with a brain? Or is there some other process by which he "knows." If you resort to mystery, what basis do you have for ascribing "knowing" to God. Hint: You have no basis. You simply take "mystery" and use it as your starting point.

You continue on: "and since we are created in his image. We can love , be faithful etc. Our actions and thinking assume these things and Ultimately God."

What is an image?

You wrote: "We are born with a sense of these things.
They do not originate in us."

Really? We are born with a sense of love, faith, grace, goodness, etc? The bible says we are born into sin. We are depraved. Wretched. Yet we still have a sense of the things you list? And if we only have a sense of these things, how is it that we are able to acquire them fully, if our senses are hamstrung until we get them? -- and here I'm specifically talking about faith, as you understand it, sense you said it is a necessary basis for understanding anything.

Ydemoc

September 08, 2011 1:02 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

I wrote my last comment quite quickly. Any spelling or grammar mistakes, I place squarely on the non-shoulders of Hezekiah's imaginary super deity.

Ydemoc

September 08, 2011 1:07 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PqLH6A35Ss&feature=related


hey you guys, off topic, going back to Sye, here is a video of him going back and forth with a guy who has some good positions, many that we posit here often. I only wish the challenger would've went just a little bit deeper. I laughed really hard, I think all the atheists who post here will thoroughly enjoy this. He definitely had Sye backed into a corner. Worth a watch!

Here we can definitely see why Sye will not deal with Dawson here on his blog, as he will be left with nothing but evasive, silly one liners. A debate obviously makes it much easier to evade as we see in this video.

September 08, 2011 2:14 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 08, 2011 4:37 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Just a reminder you still have several questions you haven't answered. I'm still waiting for a response.

Ok,

You said: "In any event, I will attempt a guess at what you seem to be saying. You seem to be saying faith allows one to recognize that hospitals are probably the best place to take children when they are sick. Do I have this right? And you square this with Mark 16:18"


I said: "What I am saying is, as you read at gotquestions.org, faith can't be generated. However, some christians think that they can generate faith. They think that if they do certain things or pray long enough. It's suppose to somehow change God's mind. God has a will and plan that no one can frustrate. I have the "proof" text if needed.
I am not against praying for the sick etc.
I pray for them all the time. I know God can do "all" things.

Mark 16:8, as you know, does cause problems for some.

So, here are the options:

1. I can ,as you say, "squirm out of it". By pointing to its questioned authenticity.

2. Maybe Jesus was, specifically, referring to his disciples.

3. We can deal with it.

Paul was bit by a snake and didn't die.

The problem is why would a christian for no good reason pick up a deadly snake, or drink poison?

When an atheist ridicules or demands that a christian
do these things. They only show their ignorance of what the bible actually teaches.


Satan tempted Jesus, to an extent, he was also just as ignorant. He demanded that Jesus jump off a building. Jesus Knew that God could protect him. So, why didn't he jump? There was no reason to.

Here is the exchange:

Matt 4: "5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.


You said: "This is an amazing admission. Christians tell me all the time that God created *everything*. Now here you are, giving me a list of things he didn't create. Fascinating. And you know he didn't create these things, how exactly?

That would mean there was a time God was unloving, not good, unfaithful, illogical etc.

Get the picture?

Col 1: 16 "For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."

You said: "A reflection? So God really isn't self-evident, we need a bouncing back of his "light" before we are able to notice him?"


I said: I am not sure I understand what you are asking here.


Continued

September 08, 2011 4:38 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

You asked : "What is an image?


From merriam- webster:

Definition of IMAGE

1
: a reproduction or imitation of the form of a person or thing; especially : an imitation in solid form : statue
2
a : the optical counterpart of an object produced by an optical device (as a lens or mirror) or an electronic device
b : a visual representation of something: as (1) : a likeness of an object produced on a photographic material (2) : a picture produced on an electronic display (as a television or computer screen)
3
a : exact likeness : semblance
b : a person strikingly like another person
4
a : a tangible or visible representation : incarnation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/image


You said: "Really? We are born with a sense of love, faith, grace, goodness, etc? The bible says we are born into sin. We are depraved. Wretched. Yet we still have a sense of the things you list? And if we only have a sense of these things, how is it that we are able to acquire them fully, if our senses are hamstrung until we get them? -- and here I'm specifically talking about faith, as you understand it, sense you said it is a necessary basis for understanding anything.


Not sure if you missed what I said. We feel(sense) these things and they are manifested by our actions.

I guess you don't feel love, goodness, faith(I know you reject this one). However, is this your position?

I do believe sin, to an extent, has , as you put it, hamstrung our senses.

A great example that we see this in is the problem of evil.

It's only by God's restraining power that we haven't ran the world into the ground.

Blessings.

September 08, 2011 4:40 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

ActionJackson,

I just watched that video. Does Sye reside in L.A., or was this a road trip? Living not too far from Santa Moncia and a fequent visitor to the pier, if I would've run into him, I probably wouldn't have stepped up to the microphone, given the all-too-typical "carnival-like" atmosphere there.

Sye seems like he really, really needs an attention fix. It seems like he's pining for a reality show of some kind. And talk about "verbal diarrhea"!

Whoever the guy was that stepped up to the microphone, he did an admirable job, given the situation.

(I wouldn't be shocked if this guy was a plant. I'm not saying he was, but I wouldn't be shocked. Andy Kaufman used to do this sort of thing with shills. He'd have his manager pose as an audience member who heckles him. Then again, I think I might be giving Sye too much credit in even suggesting that this guy was a shill.)

One thing he could've asked Sye when Sye kept peppering him with, "How do you know that?" and "How do you know you're not wrong?" and "How do you know you're not a brain in a vat." Is ask him where he got the concepts that inform such questions. Where did he get the concept "Vat" and "Brain" and "Wrong."

Exchanges like this tend to be all about performance, saying things to get the crowd on your side, and less about substance.

But I enjoyed it.

Ydemoc

September 08, 2011 4:44 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc
Brain in a vat, what a blatant
stolen concept fallacy. This tactic is to ask unanswerable and or meaningless questions. How can that either demolish rival paradigms or advance his own? It is the tactics of a con artist.

September 08, 2011 4:58 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You wrote: "Brain in a vat, what a blatant stolen concept fallacy. This tactic is to ask unanswerable and or meaningless questions. How can that either demolish rival paradigms or advance his own? It is the tactics of a con artist."

Yep. He as attempting to discredit his opponents position so he can slip his god in there and think that he's won by default.

It's like people that say, "How do you know life isn't all just a dream." Uh, excuse me, but would you mind telling us where you got the concept, "dream". Dream as as opposed to... what, exactly?

Ydemoc

September 08, 2011 5:08 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

You wrote: "Just a reminder you still have several questions you haven't answered. I'm still waiting for a response."

Yep. I'm aware of that. Many of the questions you have asked me have been answered by Dawson or Justin or ActionJackson.

As for the ones that are still outstanding, I will seek them out and answer them in due time.

However, I do believe you skipped a few that I've also asked you.

Ydemoc

September 08, 2011 5:57 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

AJ hasn't answered anything he's obsessed with Sye which is a little strange.

Justin has admitted that he could be wrong about his position. Why should I take him seriously.

I am still waiting for Dawson to justify his use of induction.
He keeps evading the question with the little verbal games.


Point me to the questions that you feel I need to answer.

September 08, 2011 6:58 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Justin has admitted that he could be wrong about his position. Why should I take him seriously."

Because doubt is a virtue.

September 08, 2011 7:54 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Conversely given that Hezekiah has states that he can not admit he could be wrong I see no reason to take anything he says seriously.

September 08, 2011 7:56 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 08, 2011 8:02 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

the problem of induction is another one of those self made philosophical problems that people created and site around bemoaning that fact that they cant solve it in the mental straight jacket they have imposed on the them selfs. However even if we were to grant this problem a degree of validity, god did it is not an answer, in fact there can be no answer because the problem torpedoes cognition as such.

September 08, 2011 8:03 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 08, 2011 8:10 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

one last point, the so called problem of induction or your request for a justification amounts to yet another stolen concept fallacy in action.

September 08, 2011 8:11 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "Point me to the questions that you feel I need to answer."

Will do. Perhaps I will go back through past comments and compile my questions in one post. In due time.

You wrote: "I am still waiting for Dawson to justify his use of induction. He keeps evading the question with the little verbal games."

I really don't accept your characterization here. From what I've seen, Dawson hasn't evaded anything nor has he played "verbal games," if by "verbal games" you mean providing answers that are trivial or nonsensical. To the contrary. There are plenty of blog entries that he's written about induction. And in those entries he's responded to many, many comments. Have you read any of them thoroughly? Did you process what you read?

I'm sure if he wanted to play verbal games, he could do so, and quite skillfully.

I've read everything he's written on his blog. At no time have I seen him be dismissive or discourteous without justification, and even then it takes a while before he strikes back. Without fail, he has never attacked first; he always the first to get attacked.

And I think such attacks by some believers are inevitable, due to the nature of belief. When one wraps his identity, his raison d'etre into something that falls well short of certainty; when one makes a confessional investment in such a thing as belief, this can foster tremendous insecurity. And this insecurity can lead to lashing out at others who do not think the same as a believer does.

The bottom line? I'm sure if you would just demonstrate a modicum of cordiality on a consistent basis, perhaps you'd get plenty of answers to the questions you ask. In the past few posts -- with me at least -- you have done this. But you have a tendency to lapse back into a confrontational or baiting mode if something doesn't sit well with you, and this isn't conducive to having intelligent exchanges.


Ydemoc

September 08, 2011 8:14 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc,Dawson, AJ

What meaningful dialog can there be with someone that can not or will not admit they could be wrong. Additionally this someone places no value on reason and sees nothing wrong in continuing to use arguments that are shown to contain fallacies or be non sequitur. None is the answer I keep coming up with.

September 08, 2011 8:15 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You wrote: "What meaningful dialog can there be with someone that can not or will not admit they could be wrong. Additionally this someone places no value on reason and sees nothing wrong in continuing to use arguments that are shown to contain fallacies or be non sequitur. None is the answer I keep coming up with."

I agree with you to some extent, that after a while, it's best not to even engage those who deal in the arbitrary. And if *you* aren't getting thing out of these exchanges, I can understand any reluctance you may have for further dialogue with Hezekaih. But I enjoy reading your comments. And maybe, like I pointed out in an earlier comment, there are people lurking on this blog who are sitting on a fence between faith and reason. So perhaps it's best not to think of Hezekiah as the main beneficiary of these exchanges, but instead think of those who happen to be watching the goings-on.

Ydemoc

September 08, 2011 8:45 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

Justin said:

"What meaningful dialog can there be with someone that can not or will not admit they could be wrong. Additionally this someone places no value on reason and sees nothing wrong in continuing to use arguments that are shown to contain fallacies or be non sequitur. None is the answer I keep coming up with."

Very good point...I just enjoy the dialogue and Dawson's highly advanced perspicuity in writing and refuting the subject of presuppositionalism.

"AJ hasn't answered anything he's obsessed with Sye which is a little strange."

A little strange? Read the title line of this blog...that is why I frequent it. I enjoy Dawson's writings, and he's probably my favorite philosophical writer.

Yes I keep bringing up Sye because I'm trying to force a confrontation. Sye goes into other blogs and types pages upon pages of circular presup. gimmickry and then claims that Dawson is too verbose.

Well Dawson cleared that up for us with the transcript example he mentioned above. Furthermore, "Defense of the Faith" is a pretty huge book, do you disagree?

Hez, I really don't know what questions you are referring to, most of your questions just don't seem like they are sincere, and when I answer you usually just change the subject and ask absurd question after absurd question.

If you ask me a question that I think is sincere, and not a gimmick, I'll answer it.

September 08, 2011 8:54 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

AJ,

Absurdities are not possible find a new word.


AJ are lies true?

September 08, 2011 9:23 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

from dictionary.com

adjective
1.
utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.
noun
2.
the quality or condition of existing in a meaningless and irrational world.

the first definition would fit the Christian paradigm to a tee. Yet no one would doubt that that paradigm existed in the minds of those that believe in it.

September 08, 2011 9:32 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Yea and the second fits atheism.

September 08, 2011 9:40 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You quoted the definition of "absurd" from dictionary.com. I echo your sentiments about "absurd," particularly the first few words of the number one entry: "utterly or obviously senseless..."

As it applies to theism, this is so true: We're told that God is not able to be directly perceived. Apparently, we see this super-duper deity through reflections or nature. But it isn't accessed through the senses. Absurd indeed!

Ydemoc

September 08, 2011 9:41 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

notice how Hezekiah equates the second to atheism. This is the authoritarian mind set in action. If there is no sky daddy, aka super authority to make it so, then its all chaos. This sentiment of course is a stolen concept fallacy, namely the concept of identity.

September 08, 2011 9:50 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

I also have not missed how authoritarians can not deal with, in fact abhor doubt. I on the other hand have said more then once that it is a virtue, this under scores how futile a discussion is going to be between the two mind sets.

September 08, 2011 9:52 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Absurdities are not possible. Did you read the entire definition? But I see your only being faithful to the objectivist tradition of redefining words.

God has made himself known directly through all your senses. You know God exists. Your without excuse but let me save you the "rap" I have said enough to you already. I

Let me chat with Justin for a second.

Justin,

Your exactly right the "atheists" world is exactly as you have described it.

The objectivist, however, are some slick characters. To avoid the problems that philosophers have raised. They will say things like "a tree is a tree" it's always been that way. And the second you challenge them they accuse you of "stealing". Actually, they are the ones that are stealing.
I pointed this out yesterday. Appealing to experience to justify existence, awareness, and regularity already assumes them. So, I am still waiting for some refutation. Maybe you can provide it without stealing from my world.

September 08, 2011 10:52 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

I did not describe the "atheist world" in my last several posts. Do you know what a Buddhist, a Raelian, an Objectivist and a Communist all have in common? ill give you a hint. Beyond that one thing they have very little in common in terms of inessentials. There is no atheist world view or paradigm.

The objectivists maybe slick however they are correct on the issue of conceptual axioms. There is no way to argue for consciousness (cognition), identity, and of course existence without presupposing them already and thus committing the arguer to the stolen concept fallacy. There is no need to get sore over it. I have said it again and again and yet it bears repeating, reality is the final court of appeal. If there is no way to "account for" these axioms without using them, then thats the fact, crying about it or calling them slick wont change that. Published philosophers who disagree wont change that. If however they are wrong show it thru valid and sound argument, I for one would like to see one if you have one.

September 08, 2011 11:04 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc, Dawson and AJ

Just for fun what would happen if you put all four (a Buddhist, a Raelian, an Objectivist and a Communist) all in the same room together?

September 08, 2011 11:10 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

I see you enjoy playing a little clue.

I provided many arguments the problem is they are not the answer you want or are looking for.

Your correct there is a big conflict here. Honestly, you lost that conflict. You could be wrong as you have admitted.

I think me and you have ran our course.


Blessings.

September 08, 2011 11:16 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Hezekiah said....

"Your correct there is a big conflict here. Honestly, you lost that conflict. You could be wrong as you have admitted. "

You are correct I lost, I have come away from this knowing no more then I went in knowing. If you however had presented a valid and sound argument I would have won. For through that argument I would have gained a valuable insight into reality and acquired new knowledge. The so called loser of a debate is really the winner if he is honest with himself. You on the other hand place a premium on epistemological certainty. For you there is no doubt and thus no possibility or growth in knowledge or understanding or any chance of finding out if you are incorrect. A good friend of mine once said and I quot "All models are wrong, some are useful" Although I do not necessarily agree that all models are wrong, I do agree with the sentiment. So yup, I lost alright although there was no actual debate, no argument vetted in the court of reality, but I lost time and energy and know nothing more than I did at the beginning.

September 08, 2011 11:30 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

You know a lot more, actually, the problem is You, Ydemoc, AJ, Dawson, are all delusional.

I was reading by biology textbook today and the way they freely advertised evolution was such an obscenity to me I started to feel a little queasy.

September 08, 2011 11:45 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Evolution? what the hell does evolution have to do with whether god exists or not. What does it have to do with whether god is necessary to "account for" fill in the blank. In fact I have never mentioned evolution in our discussion. For the record I am not an atheist because I know about evolution nor did my lack of belief in god lead me to understand evolution. I had to study biology for that.

September 08, 2011 11:57 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

You know I find it very humorous that you would call me delusional. I am not the one hung up on convincing others of something that I can only refer to in my own imagination.

September 09, 2011 1:20 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Well Hezekiah sense you are such an authoritarian, I thought I would share this with you. Theodosius Grygorovych Dobzhansky is aruguably the single greatest figure in biology of the 20th century. He is greatly respected for his research that advanced our knowledge of biology. He is an authority and more to the point he has earned that title. Anyway this is a direct quot from him ."Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". Now I have a lot more confidence in someone actually using reason (the scientific method) to discover how the world works (reality is the final court of appeal) then I do of some 3000 year old middle eastern goat herders writing down what they image is going on.

September 09, 2011 8:20 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Dawson, Ydemoc, AJ

Dobzhansky also wrote an essay with the same title as the quoted line. It is worth the read.

September 09, 2011 8:24 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Im not a proponent of the intelligence from design argument. But I ,seriously, believe that anyone after studying or at least looking into, for example, the intricacies of the human body. Has to have a serious mental imbalance to come away with the conclusion that it's all evolution.

September 09, 2011 9:05 AM  
Blogger Admin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 09, 2011 9:18 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Hezekiah said...

"Has to have a serious mental imbalance to come away with the conclusion that it's all evolution."

argument form ignorance or incredulity.

I suggest you read up on non linear systems (chaos theory and related mathematics) and how emergent order can self organize.

September 09, 2011 9:24 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 09, 2011 9:54 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "I was reading by biology textbook today and the way they freely advertised evolution was such an obscenity to me I started to feel a little queasy."

This is interesting. I wasn't aware that they were doing advertising in textbooks nowadays -- and freely to boot!

I bet if you opened a physics book you might tell us that they were unrestrainedly plugging thermodynamics.

Strange how theists get "queasy" over things like this. It seems to strike a nerve, as if it poses a threat to their cherished beliefs; yet Evolution, Primacy of Existence Principle, the Law of Identity, Geology, Causality, Stem Cell Therapy, Stephen Hawking, on and on and on, were all allegedly put into place, and it's all being played out according to the grand plan of the god they worship. So why get queasy over it? Why not rejoice?

Ydemoc

September 09, 2011 10:15 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "Im not a proponent of the intelligence from design argument."

This is perhaps the smartest thing you've ever said on this blog -- even if you did say it unintelligently.

Ydemoc

September 09, 2011 10:19 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

"I bet if you opened a physics book you might tell us that they were unrestrainedly plugging thermodynamics."

say it aint so! A science book discusssing what the current model explains, why.... why.... that sounds logical.

September 09, 2011 10:27 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

You claimed I said something intelligent unintelligently.

Some atheist are really asses.

Ydemoc can a dog have elephants?

September 09, 2011 11:00 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 09, 2011 11:25 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

I'll post what you wrote, then what I wrote.

Hezekiah: "Im not a proponent of the intelligence from design argument."

In response, I wrote: "This is perhaps the smartest thing you've ever said on this blog -- even if you did say it unintelligently."

It's called "Intelligent Design Argument." That would be Design from Intelligence.

Then again, when I think about it, maybe I'm the one lacking in intelligence in this particular case (i.e., in reading and processing your comment correctly) Perhaps I didn't pick up on what you were really saying. Maybe I jumped the gun and accused you of jumbling up your words, when in fact, you intended to say just what you said. But you were just trying to be clever in doing so.

In my defense of any misunderstanding, I will say that you have had a tendency to not be as clear as you could be.

So is this the case? That you really are a supporter of "Intelligent Design" but were just playing clever "verbal games?"

If so, then I stand corrected in giving you credit for trying to say something smart (sorry, I cannot call proponents of "Intelligent Design" smart as it pertains to the premises they accept). However, I do give you credit for being clever, even if the substance of what you said lacks intelligence, and the way you said it lacks clarity.

Ydemoc

September 09, 2011 11:32 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Ydemoc can a dog have elephants?

why would you ask that, the answer obviously is not, but why ask?

September 09, 2011 11:49 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

To All,

I don't know if you have ever seen any of Brett Palmer's (aka The Bible Skeptic) videos on YouTube, but here's a link:

http://www.youtube.com/user/brettppalmer

Here's a summery of his site:

"The Bible Skeptic examines in rich, deeply researched detail and sober rationality, the many claims of biblical inerrantists, Christian apologists and creationists."

I enjoy his work, particularly his 14 part series called "What Genesis Got Wrong."

Ydemoc

September 09, 2011 11:50 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Ydemoc, thanks, ill look into it

September 09, 2011 11:52 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote, quoting something Hezekiah addressed to me: "Ydemoc can a dog have elephants?

Justin responded: "why would you ask that, the answer obviously is not, but why ask?"

Yes. I'd be curious to know why one would ask this. And given super-duper deity's great powers, why couldn't a dog have elephants?

Hoisted with one's own petard, indeed!

Ydemoc

September 09, 2011 11:57 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc
yes speaking of induction, in a metaphysically subjective christian world view there could be no law of identity. Anything and everything could happen including gods giving birth to cats. Claiming that this is counter to god’s plan is just an argument from ignorance for we could not know his plan. How could we verify his word when the very yard stick we would compare it to is under his complete control. If Hezekiah thinks there is a “problem of induction” Christianity inflates it an order of magnitude greater by positing god as the answer.

September 09, 2011 12:07 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You wrote: "yes speaking of induction, in a metaphysically subjective christian world view there could be no law of identity. Anything and everything could happen including gods giving birth to cats."

Yep. In a purely subjective world, I'm not sure how one could even be able arrive at the very concepts necessary to describe the chaos that would ensue. One really couldn't even describe it as chaos. On what basis would one do so?

A world where "anything and everything" can happen is the non-existent. It's a nothing. The closest one can come to describing it would be pure blank-out.


You wrote: "Claiming that this is counter to god’s plan is just an argument from ignorance for we could not know his plan. How could we verify his word when the very yard stick we would compare it to is under his complete control. If Hezekiah thinks there is a “problem of induction” Christianity inflates it an order of magnitude greater by positing god as the answer."

Indeed.

Ydemoc

September 09, 2011 12:24 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

gods giving birth to cats :).... I ment to say dogs, but this works to for the purposes of an example for how could we know there are no other gods if the universe is metaphysically subjective.

September 09, 2011 12:27 PM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

"can a dog have elephants?"

according to Hez's worldview yes. God could wish it and make it so.

God could say:

Ye canis lupus shall henceforth give birth unto thee elephant beast.

Then *poof* Holy baby jesus powers, a dog just gave birth to an elephant! IT'S A MIRACLE! HOLY SH&%!!!

Let us pray.

Now,

According to evolution ( and Objectivism ) NO a dog cannot give birth to an elephant and this just shows once again that Hez doesn't even have a smidgen of knowledge of what he is trying to refute. ( nor does he care to learn about the positions he fails at refuting )

Evolution does not make any claims even close to this. This also goes against Objectivism since a dog giving birth to an elephant would be against the nature of the dog.

September 09, 2011 12:51 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@AJ

I kind of suspect that is were he was heading with the question but I wanted to hear it from him in his own words. That old hopeful monster argument is a strawman plain and simple.

September 09, 2011 12:53 PM  
Blogger pattern recognition said...

"One thing he could've asked Sye when Sye kept peppering him with, "How do you know that?" and "How do you know you're not wrong?" and "How do you know you're not a brain in a vat." Is ask him where he got the concepts that inform such questions. Where did he get the concept "Vat" and "Brain" and "Wrong." "

How can such questions support any religion being true? What relevance does any of this have to existence of God?
The idea seems to be that if you can make up some kind of philosophical "problem" which your copponents cannot answer then you must be right even if the "problem" in no meaningful sense provides evidence for your beliefs.
What if the defense lawyer told the jury "You must prove that you are not a brains in a vat or otherwise my client is not guilty.". Would any jury buy that argument?

September 09, 2011 12:58 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

pattern recognition,

You wrote: "How can such questions support any religion being true? What relevance does any of this have to existence of God?
The idea seems to be that if you can make up some kind of philosophical "problem" which your copponents cannot answer then you must be right even if the "problem" in no meaningful sense provides evidence for your beliefs."

You are correct. Under the umbrella of the concept "God," theists are able to ambush the unsuspecting with so-called "philosophical problems." When the unsuspecting have no answer, the theist jumps in with God as the solution.

It's kind of like asking someone, "So, are you still beating your wife?" in that, like such questions from theists, it assumes facts that are not in evidence.

Ydemoc

September 09, 2011 1:10 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

It really is the tactic of a con artist, someone trying to fool you.

September 09, 2011 1:18 PM  
Blogger pattern recognition said...

In one other forum I argued with a person promoting "clarkian" presuppositionalism who had
"30 theses against empirism" and basically his whole argument came down to claiming that we can know nothing based on our natural senses or reason and therefore we can assume anything we want as a dogma.
He was asked why cant you just as well assume Islam or Hinduism and he said of course you can assume anything you want.
So in that form of presuppositionalism you can assume anything you want is real it is even crazier then this.

September 09, 2011 1:29 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Fine, I assume he is wrong then :)

September 09, 2011 1:31 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Said: "Strange how theists get "queasy" over things like this. It seems to strike a nerve, as if it poses a threat to their cherished beliefs; yet Evolution, Primacy of Existence Principle, the Law of Identity, Geology, Causality, Stem Cell Therapy, Stephen Hawking, on and on and on, were all allegedly put into place, and it's all being played out according to the grand plan of the god they worship. So why get queasy over it? Why not rejoice?


I said: It's interesting because a few days ago Dawson and Justin were complaining about how terrified they are of christians taking over. Ydemoc always seems to ignore these little things.


Ydemoc said: "This is perhaps the smartest thing you've ever said on this blog -- even if you did say it unintelligently.


Thanks for the correction. I don't waste my time with arguments for God. They are needless. We all know he exists.


AJ,

Your lost in the sauce.

My point is that absurdities are impossible. It's interesting because objectivist think they are.

For example, Dawson claims rationalizing irrationally is possible.

September 09, 2011 1:56 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Hezekiah said....

Thanks for the correction. I don't waste my time with arguments for God. They are needless. We all know he exists.



what a disingenuous cop out. And just how would you argue for this? Speaking only for myself I was not born with any knowledge of god. I first heard of God and Jesus when I was 7 and I have heard nothing in the last 33 years to convince me that they are real. Go around telling people what they believe and it is little wonder no takes you seriously here. This is a telling admission on your part that you dispence with reason.

September 09, 2011 2:08 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Wake up and smell the coffee.

I "proved" God. The problem is it's not the "proof" you want.

September 09, 2011 2:34 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

where?


what were the premises, what was the form of inference that leads to "and therefor god" what the heck was your syllogism? The concept proof means linking that which we can not see by a chain of fallacy free reason back to what we can. Seriously where have you put forth a argument that would stand up in a formal debate, and if you have not, then no, you have not proved anything tho you have given ample examples that you don't place any value on reason.

September 09, 2011 2:45 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 09, 2011 2:49 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

To be fair you are correct in a sense, what you provided is not what I want. I want actual proof, not what you think would suffice. I have standards to validating knowledge and you have not met them.

September 09, 2011 2:50 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Did you see the double quotation marks around proof?

September 09, 2011 3:08 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I gave you actual proof it seems you were asleep.

Maybe you should review my echange with Ydemoc. If you look hard enough you will see the "proof".

September 09, 2011 3:21 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

To be honest in my haste I did not. However what I said concerning standards of proof stands in any case. You may honestly think you proved god, but let me assure you in terms of logical debate you have not, to be fair you really have not tried. You just keep repeating a set of claims over and over, I could make a long list of the fallacies you are committed to, anyone of which invalidates your reasoning. You have indulged in begging the question, stolen concept, special pleading, non sequitur, argument from incredulity and many more. The really frustrating part for me is that you seem not to care. Being logical is not automatic, it requires constant effort and is of central value to me. It is the only way I validate knowledge that is not perceptually self evident. So like I said you are right what you offer is rejected because it does not measure up. I have standards for what I will accept as knowledge. If I did not any con artist snake oil salesman could sell me a bag of nonsense.

September 09, 2011 3:27 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@to any and all

has Hezekiah given a proper syllogism that ends in "and therefore god" and I missed it? If so please point out the post by time stamp and I will review it.

September 09, 2011 3:30 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin you told me a week ago that logic originates in humans.

Can you explain this to me.

September 09, 2011 4:30 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 09, 2011 5:05 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

You asked Justin: "Justin you told me a week ago that logic originates in humans. Can you explain this to me."

Is your last sentence a question or a statement? If it's a question, you left off a question mark. If it's a statement, then one could misconstrue it, and think that you are giving a command to a cylindrical metal container.

While you sort this out, here is some information for you...



Does Logic Presuppose the Christian God?

"This five-part essay examines the presuppositional case for the view that logic presupposes the Christian god, finds that case to be insurmountably wanting, and offers four fundamental reasons why the logic could not presuppose the Christian god."

http://katholon.com/Logic.htm

As Dawson explains, "In sum, the laws of logic are conceptual in nature, and this very fact, for the many reasons which I have presented here, indicates on several levels that their basis could not be the god which Christians describe in their religious beliefs."

Ydemoc

September 09, 2011 5:13 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Dawson is wrong. Logic is abstract, invariant, universal.
It's not extended in space.

Justin, it's a question.

September 09, 2011 5:14 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

You wrote: "Dawson is wrong."

Did your really read all those essays in one minute to enable you to come to this conclusion?

You wrote: "Logic is abstract, invariant, universal.
It's not extended in space."

Whatever you say, Kimosabe. But let's have Dawson set you straight:

...logic. (By logic I generally mean a set of principles that guide the mind in forming non-contradictory identifications.) Does logic presuppose that existence exists, that there is a reality? Sure it does. If nothing exists, then logic doesn't exist, either. And if nothing existed, there'd be nothing to be logical about, and there'd be no one to think logically. So logic undeniably presupposes the first axiom. Does logic presuppose that things have identity? Sure it does. The very foundation of logic is the law of identity, that things are what they are, that to exist is to be something specific, that a thing is itself, that A is A. It is because things are what they are that the principles of logic can be applied in the first place. Does logic presuppose that consciousness is consciousness of something? Sure it does. It would be illogical to say that consciousness can be consciousness of nothing. The alternative to consciousness of something is consciousness of nothing. This would mean that there is no object to consider. But without an object to consider, what would be considered? Obviously nothing. And if nothing were considered, there would be nothing to think about logically. Thus there would be nothing to which logical principles could be applied. So like science, logic clearly requires the truth of the axioms." (Bahnsen's Poof Revisited - November 28, 2005)


Ydemoc

September 09, 2011 5:31 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Maybe you were groggy. Here is my answer again.

Ydemoc,

Dawson is wrong. Logic is abstract, invariant, universal.
It's not extended in space.

September 09, 2011 7:08 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

Would you mind telling us where, as you say "Dawson is wrong" as it pertains to your statement that "Logic is abstract, invariant, universal"?

Please cite for us where Dawson has used this terminology and/or maintained that logic *is* extended into space?

Ydemoc

September 10, 2011 7:19 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Is logic abstract, universal and invariant?

September 10, 2011 7:57 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah,

You wrote: "Dawson is wrong. Logic is abstract, invariant, universal.
It's not extended in space."

I responded: "Would you mind telling us where, as you say "Dawson is wrong" as it pertains to your statement that "Logic is abstract, invariant, universal"?"

I also wrote: "Please cite for us where Dawson has used this terminology and/or maintained that logic *is* extended into space?"

To which you replied: "Is logic abstract, universal and invariant?"

I will be happy to answer your questions. But first, you made a charge against Dawson that he is wrong, and I have asked you to show where he is wrong as it pertains to your statement that "Logic is abstract, invariant, universal."

Please state his position on the abstractness, invariance, and universality of logic. Then tell me what is wrong with it.

Also, please cite for us where Dawson has used this terminology and/or maintained that logic *is* extended into space?

Ydemoc

September 10, 2011 8:26 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide wrote: “Dawson is wrong. Logic is abstract, invariant, universal.”

Nide, a few questions for you:

1) What specifically did I say in my statement which Ydemoc quoted from my blog, that you think is wrong, and why? Try to be specific. Quote me and show me what I said is wrong.

2) What do you mean by “abstract”? Try to be specific.

3) Is the word “abstract” found in the bible? If so, please cite book, chapter and verse. If not, where did you get this concept? How did you form it? What units did you integrate to form it?

4) What do you mean by “universal”? Try to be specific.

5) Is the word “universal” found in the bible? If so, please cite book, chapter and verse. If not, where did you get this concept? How did you form it? What units did you integrate to form it?

Please address these questions, as you have made the charge that I am wrong and you’ve proposed a view which you apparently consider to be an alternative to mine.

Regards,
Dawson

September 10, 2011 8:28 AM  
Blogger Dylan said...

I'll answer that.

"Is logic abstract,"

Yes.

"universal"

No. Logic is a human invention.

"and invariant?"

No. There are many different variants of logic.

I suspect that you, like all presuppers, are conflating logical axioms (A=A, etc.) with logic itself (system of thought derived from those axioms). I suggest you put down the Bahnsen for five minutes and read a textbook.

September 10, 2011 8:31 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan Said:

"No. Logic is a human invention."

You have a reference or a source?

Dylan said: "No. There are many different variants of logic."

Like?


Dawson,


You asked: "1) What specifically did I say in my statement which Ydemoc quoted from my blog, that you think is wrong, and why? Try to be specific. Quote me and show me what I said is wrong.


You said in your blog "(By logic I generally mean a set of principles that guide the mind in forming non-contradictory identifications.) Does logic presuppose that existence exists, that there is a reality? Sure it does. If nothing exists, then logic doesn't exist, either. And if nothing existed, there'd be nothing to be logical about, and there'd be no one to think logically.


1. Logic does not originate in the human brain.

2. Logic does not guide the mind it is the standard we look at to see if we are thinking(reasoning) correctly.

Dawson, before humans could there have been contradictions?

You asked: "2) What do you mean by “abstract”? Try to be specific.

Something not extended in space.

From Dictionary.com:

thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
2.
expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.
3.
theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.
4.
difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.
5.
Fine Arts .
a.
of or pertaining to the formal aspect of art, emphasizing lines, colors, generalized or geometrical forms, etc., especially with reference to their relationship to one another.
b.
( often initial capital letter ) pertaining to the nonrepresentational art styles of the 20th century.


You asked:3) Is the word “abstract” found in the bible? If so, please cite book, chapter and verse. If not, where did you get this concept? How did you form it? What units did you integrate to form it?


No the word abstract is not found in the bible. However, the words love, faith, joy, happy etc. are.
We know they are abstract. The word doesn't need to be there.

I have come to this knowledge because God is truth. Since me and you are created in his image we have a sense of truth.


4) What do you mean by “universal”? Try to be specific.



From Dictionary.com:

u·ni·ver·sal   [yoo-nuh-vur-suhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
2.
applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
3.
affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service.
4.
used or understood by all: a universal language.
5.
present everywhere: the universal calm of southern seas.


The word universal doesn't have to be there. For example, everyone knows that lies are not true. That's a universal truth.



I'm still waiting for you, Dawson, to tell me how you found out there is uniformity in nature.

September 10, 2011 9:20 AM  
Blogger Dylan said...

"No. Logic is a human invention."

-"You have a reference or a source?"

That's like asking for a source that music is a human invention. It's a demonstrable fact of history.

By most accounts, Aristotelian logic is the oldest form. It's possible there were older forms, but they either weren't recorded or didn't survive antiquity.

Any textbook will provide you with a source, if you really need one. I recommend Copi and Cohen.

"No. There are many different variants of logic."

-"Like?"

Aristotelian/syllogistic/classical logic, first order logic, second order logic, modal logic, Boolean digital logic etc. each of which have sub-forms of their own.

Again, this is stuff you can very easily get from a textbook.

September 10, 2011 10:10 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan,

Did Aristotle really exist?

Are his writings a fairy tale?

September 10, 2011 10:55 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 10, 2011 10:55 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

I think I understand what Hezekiah is trying to convey here. Back in 1999 I was in a debate where I used a counter factual. In this counter factual I proposed that the universe was emptied of everything, a vast empty void. The truth of the proposition that 2 + 2 = 4 would still be logically true even in the absence of anything to count. Thus I argued that in some way the laws of logic were transcendent or invariant to the actual facts of existence. A very Platonic view as I was later to learn. The problem with my example of course is that it commits me to using the stolen concept fallacy. In order to think the thought 2 + 2 = 4 I would at the very least have to exist in this hypothetical void. Further if I was in this void there would have to have been at least one other object at least sometime in the past to say nothing of oxygen in order for me to have integrated the concept of addition. I of course can image any such void or other counter factual I like but we must deal with reality.

Hezekiah, toddlers in the age range of 1 - 3 develop logic by a process of direct interaction with their environment through use of perception. Thus they don't use logic to develop logic. This logic works because it reflects the inherent nature of the world they are a part of. We formulated the law of identity, not because the tree is logical, but because the tree's existence is an unconditional fact of existence. Our relationship to it is strictly objective. It is a tree whether I am aware of it or not, or whether I choose to look at it or not, nor do my feeling in and of them selfs effect it either. If this were not the case we would not have th concept law of identity. So logic is not in the tree nor is the tree logical. How I choose to relate to it and think about is what is logical. Note this is not meant to convey that the tree can not change. Logic is a cognitive tool, method of making it possible to understand an objective universe, not some set of Platonic forms out there waiting to be discovered and treating logic like that is just another stolen concept fallacy.

Dylan had already pointed out their are multiple forms of logic. I would like to point out that the Aristotelian logic does not work so well for quantum physics tho I suspect Dawson would disagree. So this one form of logic is not universal or invariant. At least this is the interpretation of the facts.

September 10, 2011 10:59 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Hezekaih

"Dawson is wrong. Logic is abstract, invariant, universal.
It's not extended in space."

Your help here please. This line of yours sparked a discussion between myself and my roommate. He charges that the line is meaningless, no semantic content. I argued that you were trying to convey the idea like in my void universe counter factual. That 2+2=4 is an absolute truth even if there was nothing to count at all.

September 10, 2011 11:14 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Your friend is delusional.

I'll me more than happy to help. What exactly is it that you need help with?

September 10, 2011 12:05 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

clarification on what you meant by

"Logic is abstract, invariant, universal.
It's not extended in space."

September 10, 2011 12:12 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You wrote: "...toddlers in the age range of 1 - 3 develop logic by a process of direct interaction with their environment through use of perception. Thus they don't use logic to develop logic. This logic works because it reflects the inherent nature of the world they are a part of. We formulated the law of identity, not because the tree is logical, but because the tree's existence is an unconditional fact of existence. Our relationship to it is strictly objective. It is a tree whether I am aware of it or not, or whether I choose to look at it or not, nor do my feeling in and of them selfs effect it either. If this were not the case we would not have th concept law of identity. So logic is not in the tree nor is the tree logical. How I choose to relate to it and think about is what is logical. Note this is not meant to convey that the tree can not change. Logic is a cognitive tool, method of making it possible to understand an objective universe, not some set of Platonic forms out there waiting to be discovered and treating logic like that is just another stolen concept fallacy."

Well put! I'm guessing any fence-sitters who happen to be lurking and read what you wrote, just jumped off and landed on the rational side of the property.

Ydemoc

September 10, 2011 12:23 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 10, 2011 12:40 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

and yet the slippery slide into Platonism is all to easy. I once argued the very same thing. This is why I want clarification on the issue from Hezekiah. I would still argue he is wrong but I would have a better understanding of where he is coming from. It is a mistake I to have made.

@Hezekiah

Oh my roommate is not delusional, tho he did once try to install windows vista:). He has kicked my ass in debates on matters of ethics and politics and as a result I have learned a great deal from him. In that sense I am the winner:) Do you know what made our debates possible. Both my roommate and I agree that we are in a strictly objective universe in regard to our conceptual relationship to it. He gave and defended his preemies,showed a valid inference and led to a valid conclusion. Lastly and most importantly he showed how his conclusions compared to actual existence and thus convinced me. Reality is the final court of appeal, not my wishes or desires.

On a completely different note, as a fellow programmer I saw this on a shirt and thought you might find it funny if you know anything about unix that is.

chown -R us ./base

September 10, 2011 12:41 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

sorry, the first part of my last post was directed at you, I did not make that clear. Thank you for your compliment. Still I made a grammatical mistake. I meant to say "How I choose to relate to it and think about "IT" is what is logical.
Also I wanted to hammer on the point that logic is a method, a process, a way of thinking, not an entity or some non material supernatural internally perfect form. Platonism seems to me to just be a con, a way of trying to define things into existence as it that would work.

September 10, 2011 1:07 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Thanks for the clarification.

Ydemoc

September 10, 2011 1:12 PM  
Blogger pattern recognition said...

Many philosophers have argued Platonism but only the presuppositionalists have ever suggested Platonism is somehow evidence for God. Bertrand Russel was an atheist and believed in abstract mathematical entities.
I argued about Platonism with an atheist mathematician who claimed that the majority of mathematicians believe in some kind of abstract mathematical entities. If an atheist finds the arguments for Platonism convincing then there is no contradiction in believing in the existence of impersonal abstractions and not believing in a personal creator.
The major positions on the question of abstract entities or universals are Platonism, Conceptualism and Nominalism. Conceptualism is what is being argued here. Nominalism says abstractions are a product of language use. Platonism is the theory that abstractions can exist independently from particular things or human minds. None of these philosophical positions really say anything about God.
When the presuppositionalists want you to give an answer to some old philosophical problem. They should be asked to first explain the relevance of it to the existence of God or Christianity. How does the philosophical problem prove Christianity true one way or another?

September 10, 2011 3:21 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@PR

Thank you for the clarification. I had forgotten about the dichotomy between Nominalism and Conceptualism. And you are right regardless of which side of that debate you take it is really hard to go "and then therefore god", but as we are conceptualists the entire presup argument hits a brick wall. It is back to the old we are not asking the fallaciously complex questions they think lead to god as the answer. I would like to see a nominalist atheist come in here and interact with Hezekiah. In fact 10 years ago I would have been considered one.

September 10, 2011 3:56 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Since Nide reacted to my quoted statement about logic by saying I’m wrong, I asked Nide: "1) What specifically did I say in my statement which Ydemoc quoted from my blog, that you think is wrong, and why? Try to be specific. Quote me and show me what I said is wrong.”

He responded first by quoting a brief portion of what was originally quoted from my blog: "(By logic I generally mean a set of principles that guide the mind in forming non-contradictory identifications.)”

Is this where Nide thinks I’m wrong? Does he disagree that logic is a set of principles, and/or that those principles guide the mind in forming non-contradictory identifications?

Nide quoted more of me: “Does logic presuppose that existence exists, that there is a reality? Sure it does.”

Does Nide object to this portion of my statement? Does he think logic does not presuppose that there is a reality? Does he disagree with the view that the existence of reality is a metaphysical precondition for a set of principles used in guiding the identification of what exists in reality?

And Nide quoted me some more: “If nothing exists, then logic doesn't exist, either. And if nothing existed, there'd be nothing to be logical about, and there'd be no one to think logically.”

Does Nide object to this? Does he think that logic would still exist if nothing existed? Does he think that there’d still be something to be logical about and/or that there’d still be someone who could think logically, even if nothing existed?

It would be helpful if Nide would make his objections to what I actually wrote clear. But he doesn’t.

Nide then wrote the following: “1. Logic does not originate in the human brain.”

It’s not clear to me what it would mean to say that logic does “originate in the human brain.” But as you’ll see from what I wrote and what Nide quoted from me, this is not a position which I affirmed in the first place. So it’s not clear why he leads off with this would-be counterpoint.

Then again, notice that Nide does not provide any reason for taking what he states as truth. He apparently expects people to accept what he says on his own say so.

[Continued…]

September 10, 2011 5:15 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide continued: “2. Logic does not guide the mind it is the standard we look at to see if we are thinking(reasoning) correctly.”

Here Nide seems to be objecting to something I wrote above, and yet what he does say is rather confusing. He says, contrary to what I’ve written, that “logic does not guide the mind” (again, no argument here, just an assertion that we’re apparently supposed to take on his say so). But then he says that logic “is the standard we look at to see if we are thinking (reasoning) correctly.” It’s not clear how these are exclusive of one another. The difference that may be lurking here is that the view which I have presented (namely that logic is “a set of principles that guide the mind in forming non-contradictory identifications”) suggests that logic ideally operates concurrently with thinking, while the counter-proposal which Nide has offered suggests that one thinks first (presumably not logically), and then checks with logic to see if he's reasoned correctly, almost like a trial-and-error approach to epistemology (even though the damage has likely already been done). This seems very much to be Nide’s understanding of the proper use of logic, since he has explicitly stated that logic does not guide his mind. (Yes, I take it that he is speaking for himself when he says that “logic does not guide the mind.”)

I suggest that Nide try using logic as a guide for his mind. It's done wonders for me. But then again, logic has helped show me why theism is false, and I don't think Nide wants to accept this truth.

Nide: “Dawson, before humans could there have been contradictions?”

Contradictions are not metaphysical, Nide. They don’t exist as concretes in the first place, even concurrent with human existence. Contradictions are epistemological: they occur when the law of identity is ignored in the process of identification. Hence our need for logic *as a guide* for the mind’s identificatory activity.

I asked: "2) What do you mean by ‘abstract’? Try to be specific.”

Nide responded: “Something not extended in space.”

Hmmm.... When I imagine Blarko the WonderBeing, is Blarko extended in space, or not? What do you think? How would you establish that what I imagine *is* extended in space?

How about concepts? Are they extended in space? If you recall, my view is that “the laws of logic are conceptual in nature” (as Ydemoc kindly quoted from my website). You’ve stated that I’m wrong about logic. And this is a key aspect of my view of logic. So I’m guessing that you think that the laws of logic are *not* conceptual in nature. Is that right? And yet, they’re “abstract,” which you define as “not extended in space,” whatever that supposedly means. Perhaps you do not have a conceptual understanding of logic?

[Continued…]

September 10, 2011 5:22 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide then provide several definitions from an internet dictionary:

“1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.
3. theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.
4. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.
5. Fine Arts . a. of or pertaining to the formal aspect of art, emphasizing lines, colors, generalized or geometrical forms, etc., especially with reference to their relationship to one another. b. ( often initial capital letter ) pertaining to the nonrepresentational art styles of the 20th century.”

Curiously, I do not see Nide’s definition (“not extended in space”) amongst these definitions. Is he trying to redefine ‘abstract’ for us? Why quote these definitions? Which one does he think applies, and why? How does any of this show that my view of logic is wrong??????

I asked: “3) Is the word ‘abstract’ found in the bible? If so, please cite book, chapter and verse. If not, where did you get this concept? How did you form it? What units did you integrate to form it?”

Nide: “No the word abstract is not found in the bible.”

Indeed, it’s not. It seems to be a concept completely foreign to the bible.

Nide: “However, the words love, faith, joy, happy etc. are.”

What relevance does this have to my question? Either “abstract” is in the bible, or it’s not. Nide has conceded that it’s not.

Nide: “We know they are abstract.”

Who’s “we” here, and how do “we know they are abstract”? By what process of identification? Can you step us through that process, beginning with the starting point? Let’s see the step-by-step process by which you came to this knowledge. Also, please clarify which of the above definitions of ‘abstract’ you’re assuming here. Is it the fine arts definition?

Nide: “The word doesn't need to be there.“

The issue is not whether or not the word ‘abstract’ *needs* to be in the bible, but whether or not its authors in fact used this word in their treatments, and whether or not the bible can account for its use. Since the word ‘abstract’ is not found in the bible, it’s unclear how anyone could think that the bible could be recommended as a source which provides an account for things that are abstract, however it may be defined.

Nide: “I have come to this knowledge because God is truth.”

This does not indicate the process by which you supposedly came to whatever knowledge it is you’re claiming for yourself. Saying “because God is truth” is most unhelpful, and could be used in the very manner that you’ve used it here to justify anything one wants to claim as knowledge. One could just as easily say something like, “The moon is made of green cheese. I have come to this knowledge because God is truth.” Or, one could say: “The people of Paraguay are a scourge of the earth, and must be annihilated. I have come to this knowledge because God is truth.” It’s just a way of trying to put the seal of truth on a completely arbitrary viewpoint.

Nide: “Since me and you are created in his image we have a sense of truth.”

This is just as arbitrary as the previous statement, and could likewise be used to justify any notion one wants to affirm. For instance, the Blarkist could say: “Nature is uniform and all men know it. Since we are created in the image of Blarko, we have a sense of truth.” I don’t see how inserting the Christian god in place of Blarko here fares any better. Both are equally arbitrary.

[Continued…]

September 10, 2011 5:26 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I asked: “4) What do you mean by ‘universal’? Try to be specific.”

Nide again quoted from an internet dictionary:

“1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
2. applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure.
3. affecting, concerning, or involving all: universal military service.
4. used or understood by all: a universal language.
5. present everywhere: the universal calm of southern seas.”

Again, it would be helpful if Nide clarified *which* of the definitions he’s cites applies to the topic at hand. He says that logic is “universal,” and when asked what he means by this, he gives us these five definitions that he’s copied from an online source. Since Nide won’t tell us which one applies, let’s check through them one by one:

Proposal 1: Logic is “characteristic of all or the whole.” So, logic is “characteristic of all or the whole” *what*???? Nide does not say.

Proposal 2: Logic is “applicable everywhere or in all cases; general.” What would this mean, on Nide’s view, and how would he know this? Would he make more appeals to the imaginary to validate his position? Don’t be surprised. Was logic applicable to the case of Mohammed Atta and his gang when they hijacked four aircraft 10 years ago and flew them into the Twin Towers?

Proposal 3: Logic is “affecting, concerning, or involving all.” Again, “all” of *what*? How would Nide know, especially if “abstract” merely means “not extended in space”?

Proposal 4: Logic is “used or understood by all.” This seems rather unlikely. Nide himself seems to be a counter-example of this very view, for he seems neither to use logic, nor to understand it very well. Were Mohammed Atta and his gang using logic? Did they understand logic? These are questions that Nide needs to answer, since we are trying to understand *his* view of logic. Since we can’t find any discussion of the nature of logic in the bible (its authors seem to have been rather ignorant of what logic is – just check out some of Paul’s arguments sometime), we have little option but to consult Christian believers to give us their understanding of logic. Then we can explore it and see if it has any value. So far, any value it might be said to have seems stubbornly elusive.

Proposal 5: Logic is “present everywhere.” This would seem to defy the claim that logic is also “abstract” in the sense that it is “not extended in space,” for everywhere I look, I see things that are extended in space (can one see anything that is “not extended in space”?). In order for logic to be “universal” in the sense that it is “present everywhere,” it would have to be present where these things that I see exist. And yet how can something be present with something extended in space when it is not itself extended in space? Do we just imagine it’s there and – presto – it’s there because we imagined it there?

It would seem that Nide has some homework to do on this matter.

For some of my thoughts on the nature of universality as it pertains to the discussion of the nature of logic, see my blog Demystifying Unviersality.

[Continued…]

September 10, 2011 5:30 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “The word universal doesn't have to be there.” (I.e., in the bible)

I suppose someone arguing for a specifically Muslim basis for logic could say, when asked if the qualities ascribed to logic are given in the Koran, that “they don’t need to be there.” So the fact that the holy storybook in question does not offer any intelligence on the matter is of no concern to the theist.

Nide: “For example, everyone knows that lies are not true.”

How do you know what “everyone” knows? How about a 2-month-old infant? Certainly “everyone” would have to include him. Do you think infants have such knowledge? If so, what justifies this belief of yours?

Nide: “That's a universal truth.”

“universal” according to which definition above, and how do you know?

Nide: “I'm still waiting for you, Dawson, to tell me how you found out there is uniformity in nature.”

Easy: by means of an objective process of identification and integration. That’s how. So now you have your answer.

Regards,
Dawson

September 10, 2011 5:31 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Dawson

"
Easy: by means of an objective process of identification and integration. That’s how. So now you have your answer."

yes either he trusts his senses or he does not. If he does not, what is the point?

September 10, 2011 8:40 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dawson,

You said: " The difference that may be lurking here is that the view which I have presented (namely that logic is “a set of principles that guide the mind in forming non-contradictory identifications”) suggests that logic ideally operates concurrently with thinking, while the counter-proposal which Nide has offered suggests that one thinks first (presumably not logically), and then checks with logic to see if he's reasoned correctly, almost like a trial-and-error approach to epistemology (even though the damage has likely already been done). This seems very much to be Nide’s understanding of the proper use of logic, since he has explicitly stated that logic does not guide his mind. (Yes, I take it that he is speaking for himself when he says that “logic does not guide the mind.”)

My position is exactly precise. People make mistakes all the time and later find out their wrong. How about you Dawson you ever mistakes? Does logic guide people into making mistakes?

God is Logic. He is logical and since me and you, Dawson, are created in his image we have a sense of logic. Since, me and you , Dawson, make mistakes we know logic is not extended in space.

Dawson how did you learn to stay away from fire did you conceptualize it first? Did you merely have to integrate fire into your brain to know it's hot and maybe you shoulnt touch it? Did Logic guide you into touching the flames?


You said: "Hmmm.... When I imagine Blarko the WonderBeing, is Blarko extended in space, or not? What do you think? How would you establish that what I imagine *is* extended in space?

Well, you already admitted blarko doesn't exist. So, yea, your imagining things.


You said: Perhaps you do not have a conceptual understanding of logic?


Since objectivist have their own definitions of things I will wait to you define concept/conceptual.


You said: "Who’s “we” here, and how do “we know they are abstract”? By what process of identification? Can you step us through that process, beginning with the starting point? Let’s see the step-by-step process by which you came to this knowledge. Also, please clarify which of the above definitions of ‘abstract’ you’re assuming here. Is it the fine arts definition?


The first definition. See that? Actually, the process is quite simple. People aren't always loving, happy, etc. That assumes there are standards that transcend the material part of existence. Unless of course love grows on a tree or something.


continued

September 10, 2011 9:11 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dawson,

You said: "Proposal 2: Logic is “applicable everywhere or in all cases; general.” What would this mean, on Nide’s view, and how would he know this? Would he make more appeals to the imaginary to validate his position?fifes Don’t be surprised. Was logic applicable to the case of Mohammed Atta and his gang when they hijacked four aircraft 10 years ago and flew them into the Twin Towers?


Actually, your the one with the problem. Since you say Logic guides the human mind. I guess logic guided the hijackers right into a brick wall. That must of really hurt.
Logic was applicable. Men have a sense of truth. However, they choose to ignore it as in this case. We all saw the end result thousands of people lost their lives because of a selfish act grounded on a false view of God.


You said: "How do you know what “everyone” knows? How about a 2-month-old infant? Certainly “everyone” would have to include him. Do you think infants have such knowledge? If so, what justifies this belief of yours?

Infants are created in Gods image too. They have a sense of truth. Their senses may not be developed like an adults but they know.

It amazes me the extremes you take to deny truth. I'm not surpised. You did say rationalizing irrationally is possible.

How about lies are they possible?

Square circles maybe ?


So, your appealing to experience to tell me that nature is uniform. I see you like question begging and circles.





So,

September 10, 2011 9:49 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Hezekiah said....

"
So, your appealing to experience to tell me that nature is uniform. I see you like question begging and circles."

you just don't get it. Concepts exist in a hierarchy. The uniformity of nature is just another way of saying the axiom of identity, so no, it is not question begging. I am beginning to think you are completely blind to the stolen concept fallacy. You made many more logical blunders as well but I'll focus on that one.

September 10, 2011 10:11 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc, Dawson, AJ, PR and others

OK guys, I am going to start keeping a record of all the logical fallacies Hezekiah/Nide/whatever.. commits, but with special attention to the stolen concept fallacy. I am counting on you guys to help me out as I might miss one now and again. We will keep a running tally. I will start with his next post, Interested?

September 10, 2011 10:20 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

I don't accept your view of reality or existence. So, actually, it's you that doesn't get it. You keep open your mouth which assumes that you think your memory is realiable and so forth. See the "proof" for God Justin?

September 10, 2011 10:33 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

What is logic?

September 10, 2011 10:36 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Hezekiah said....

"You keep open your mouth which assumes that you think your memory is realiable and so forth. See the "proof" for God Justin?"

One fallacy, non sequitur

total for post = 1

September 10, 2011 10:43 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Your seriously delusional. I have noticed though that older programmers are a little whacky. I guess it comes with the territory.

September 10, 2011 10:49 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

I comes from having to learn Pascal, please forgive me. Oh and on this post it was just your opinion which may or may not be correct, so I award you zero fallacies.

Total for post = 0

September 10, 2011 10:55 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Could you be wrong about being Justin Hall?

September 10, 2011 11:05 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

To any atheist,

What is logic?

September 10, 2011 11:07 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Hezekaih said.....


Could you be wrong about being Justin Hall?

in other words could A be not A, stolen concept fallacy

Total fallacies for post = 1
Total to date = 2

September 10, 2011 11:11 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Let's be serious for a min. You can play with yourself later.

You told me last week that you could be wrong about your position. Wouln't that include self-awareness?

September 10, 2011 11:16 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Hezekiah said....

"You told me last week that you could be wrong about your position. Wouln't that include self-awareness?"

In this insistence, short answer no. Again this is stolen concept fallacy, mainly trying to posit concepts prior to consciousness that depend on it such as doubt and uncertainty. Any attempt to question consciousness has to presuppose it in the first place

You are now at 3

stolen concept fallacy = 2
non sequitur = 1
Total = 3

September 10, 2011 11:29 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “My position is exactly precise.”

Your position is that “logic does not guide the mind.” In other words, logic does not guide your mind. I think we got that, Nide. But thanks for making it explicit.

Nide: “People make mistakes all the time and later find out their wrong.”

Yes, that’s true. As I indicated in a previous message, I don’t think the reliance on logic as a guide concurrent with thinking is incompatible using logic as a corrective after the fact. It is you who seems, for reasons that you have not stated, to think that these are incompatible applications.

Nide: “How about you Dawson you ever mistakes?”

I sure have. And I can make more. That’s why I need logic as my guide. I’m neither infallible nor omniscient, so logic is something I need.

Nide: “Does logic guide people into making mistakes?”

It can, if they have the wrong inputs, such as falsehoods or arbitrary notions instead of relevant facts. Logic by itself is not going to give you knowledge. You need to discover facts from reality and integrate them in a logical fashion.

Take for example, the following:

Premise 1: All Christians have a third nipple.
Premise 2: Nide is a Christian.
Conclusion: Nide has a third nipple.

Given the material it has to work with, the logic here is impeccable: we have a valid argument. A valid argument is a deductive argument whose conclusion follows necessarily from its premises given its adherence to a formal method of inference.

The problem here is that the first premise is not true. So the argument is not *sound*. The logic is not what’s in question here, it’s the truth value of the argument’s first premise which is in question.

Nide: “God is Logic.”

First your god was faith, then your god was existence. Now your god is logic? Do you mean to say that you worship logic? I can’t believe that, for you don’t use it, even to guide your own mind!

By saying, as you did in a previous thread, that “God is faith,” and now “God is logic,” you’re essentially equating faith with logic. God is faith is logic. But earlier you scolded Objectivists for allegedly relying on faith, which on the latest iteration of your continually evolving view could only mean that we are also relying on logic. But then again, it was clear from the context of your statements and accusations at the time that you meant “take for granted” by faith, which is certainly not the same thing as logic.

You’re all over the board here, Nide. You seem so confused that it’s comical. (As I’ve pointed out before, Christians *are* the entertainment here on IP.)

But there are more than sufficient reasons to reject the claim that your god has any positive association with logic. For one, as I’ve pointed out before, your god is a contradiction several times over. I’ve pointed out before that the Christian notion of the trinity is caught in the throes of inescapable contradiction (see here). Also, the second person of the trinity itself, Christ, is a jumble of contradictions (see here). This has been pointed out to Nide before, but he has not interacted with any of this.

[Continued…]

September 11, 2011 12:18 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You wrote: "OK guys, I am going to start keeping a record of all the logical fallacies Hezekiah/Nide/whatever.. commits, but with special attention to the stolen concept fallacy. I am counting on you guys to help me out as I might miss one now and again. We will keep a running tally. I will start with his next post, Interested?"

It looks like are doing a great job at the "Hezekiah Fallacy Tally" or "HFT" for short. I'm looking forward to many, many more.

And even though Hezekiah claims I have no basis for stating that the future will resemble the past, meaning that I have no reason for expecting that he will, indeed, supply us with any more fallacies, I'm pretty confident he won't disappoint.

Ydemoc

September 11, 2011 12:19 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “He is logical”

Not if we go by what the bible says.

Tell us, Nide, is it ever “logical” to sacrifice the ideal for the sake of the non-ideal? Is it logical to expect the non-ideal to accept the sacrifice of the ideal?

Is it logical for a perfect creator to create imperfect creatures? Is it logical to condemn all of the human race for sin, and save only a tiny handful of persons (like 8 or so), and expect that to take care of the sin problem? Is it logical to make a wager with the devil, as we find in the book of Job? Is it logical to promise that people will get what they ask for if they ask in Jesus’ name, when in fact such a promise is never kept? I could go on, but you get the point. Logic is as compatible with the Christian worldview bleach is delicious on cornflakes.

Nide: “and since me and you, Dawson, are created in his image we have a sense of logic.”

That’s not why we “have a sense of logic,” Nide. Logic rests on the subject-object relationship, and it is our interaction with the world as well as the development of our sum of identifications of that world which give us “a sense of logic.”

Logic is about validating knowledge. But a mind which already possesses all knowledge would have no use or need for logic. Logic simply wouldn’t apply.

Nide: “Since, me and you , Dawson, make mistakes we know logic is not extended in space.”

How does this at all follow? It does not follow for other items. Consider:

“Since, me and you, Dawson, make mistakes we know that footballs are not extended in space.”

How does it follow for logic, but not for footballs? What premises are you hiding?

Nide: “Dawson how did you learn to stay away from fire did you conceptualize it first?”

It was so long ago, and my mind so young at the time, that I don’t remember specifically. Also, I didn't take notes at the time. Very likely, I perceived fire directly first. I doubt very much that I formed my initial concept of fire on indirect input, such as a description from someone who had a fully developed concept of fire. Likely, I perceived it directly, probably felt its heat, and at that point recognized based on firsthand evidence that it was best to stay away from it. Why?

Nide: “Did you merely have to integrate fire into your brain to know it's hot and maybe you shoulnt touch it?”

Very likely I formed my initial concept of fire in my first encounters with it. Integrated into my concept was the fact that fire is tremendously hot and can cause pain, and is therefore very dangerous. Why do you ask?

Nide: “Did Logic guide you into touching the flames?”

No. On the contrary, logic applied to my knowledge of fire measured against my values hierarchy guided me into staying clear of fire’s flames.

[Continued…]

September 11, 2011 12:26 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I asked: "Hmmm.... When I imagine Blarko the WonderBeing, is Blarko extended in space, or not? What do you think? How would you establish that what I imagine *is* extended in space?”

Nide: “Well, you already admitted blarko doesn't exist. So, yea, your imagining things.”

Yes, I happily acknowledge that things which I imagine are imaginary, and that the imaginary is not real. As I’ve stated before, that’s a primary reason why I know Christianity is not true.

But you don’t seem to grasp my question, so I’ll rephrase it. When I imagine something, is my imagination of that something “extended in space,” or not? If I read a Harry Potter novel, and as I’m reading the story I imagine the characters and events depicted in the story, is what I’m imagining “extended in space,” or not? Unless it’s physical, tangible or perceptible to others, I don’t see how it can be “extended in space,” since “extended in space” is typically taken to mean physical, material or concrete in some respect. It seems that the things I imagine are “not extended in space.” You disagree? What other option is there? Clearly, as a faculty of selectively recreating aspects of reality and other products of imagination, my imagination exists, does it not? It's part of my consciousness, and my consciousness exists. How would I be able to imagine things as I do if my imagination did not exist?

I asked: “Perhaps you do not have a conceptual understanding of logic?”

Nide: “Since objectivist have their own definitions of things I will wait to you define concept/conceptual.”

Here you go, from your favorite internet dictionary:

conceptual (kənˈsɛptjʊəl)

— adj

1. relating to or concerned with concepts; abstract
2. concerned with the definitions or relations of the concepts of some field of enquiry rather than with the facts

Notice that word "abstract" in the first definition? As I've pointed out, logic is conceptual in nature. But you've said that I'm wrong about logic, and then go on to say it's abstract. And here abstract is offered as a synonym for conceptual.

Problems, problems, Nide.

And from the philosophy of reason:

A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.” (Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 13)

Does that help?

[Continued…]

September 11, 2011 12:31 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I asked: "Who’s ‘we’ here, and how do ‘we know they are abstract’? By what process of identification? Can you step us through that process, beginning with the starting point? Let’s see the step-by-step process by which you came to this knowledge. Also, please clarify which of the above definitions of ‘abstract’ you’re assuming here. Is it the fine arts definition?”

Nide: “The first definition.”

(One wonders why Nide didn’t just quote the first definition by itself to begin with…)

Okay, let’s look at the first one. It reads as follows:

“thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.”

Hmmm…. This definition seems to describe concepts. Concepts are the units of thought, they are formed by means of a process called abstraction, and they are distinct from the concrete units which they integrate.

But when I say that logic is conceptual in nature, Nide says I’m wrong. And yet here he’s saying logic is abstract, and defines ‘abstract’ in a way that very strongly indicates the conceptual realm of human cognition.

Plus, as we just saw in my previous message, the very internet dictionary which Nide himself has repeatedly cited for his definitions, treats conceptual and abstract synonymously.

Talk about double face-palm!

So again, we seem to have more confusion dished up as some kind of theistic truth.

Nide: “Actually, the process is quite simple.”

Then please identify the steps, beginning with the first step. (Hint: What you offered below is not a step by step process.)

Nide: “People aren't always loving, happy, etc. That assumes there are standards that transcend the material part of existence.”

How so?

On your worldview, Nide, can love be measured? If so, how? You have stated that love is abstract, not extended in space, etc. How can you measure something that is not extended in space?

Nide: “Unless of course love grows on a tree or something.”

Is the “or something” here supposed to suggest that you’re open to considering alternatives than love growing on trees?

[Continued…]

September 11, 2011 12:34 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I wrote: "Proposal 2: Logic is ‘applicable everywhere or in all cases; general’. What would this mean, on Nide’s view, and how would he know this? Would he make more appeals to the imaginary to validate his position? Don’t be surprised. Was logic applicable to the case of Mohammed Atta and his gang when they hijacked four aircraft 10 years ago and flew them into the Twin Towers?”

Nide: “Actually, your the one with the problem. Since you say Logic guides the human mind. I guess logic guided the hijackers right into a brick wall. That must of really hurt.”

No, the problem is in your distortion of what I stated. Look at what I wrote again. Here it is:

“By logic I generally mean a set of principles that guide the mind in forming non-contradictory identifications.”

This does not in any way suggest that all individuals at all times guide their minds by logic. This is a description of what logic is, not a statement about what people actually do. The principles which inform logic guide the mind as opposed to driving buses, digging trenches, traveling in space, floating in tide pools, picking carrots, etc.

Nide: “Logic was applicable.”

Logic *was* applicable? Why only past tense? Is it no longer applicable?

Nide: “Men have a sense of truth.”

This seems very vague. What specifically do you mean by “a sense of truth” and in what form do men have this? How can we check your answers to see if they’re true?

Nide: “However, they choose to ignore it as in this case.”

Exactly: since thinking is volitional, we must choose to guide our thinking by logic. Logic will not force itself into our thought process. But this is just another reason to reject your equation of logic with the Christian god. According to Christian theism, the Christian god, through “the holy spirit,” does force itself into a person’s mind and commandeers his thinking. This was the point that you affirmed over and over in one of the initial discussions you participated in. Remember? You stated that you could no convince us of your beliefs, that this was something only the holy spirit could do. I.e., by hijacking a person’s mind and forcing it to accept certain ideational content.

Nide: “We all saw the end result thousands of people lost their lives because of a selfish act grounded on a false view of God.”

So flying an airplane into a building and blowing yourself up is “selfish”? Really? How so? Can you explain this?

[Continued…]

September 11, 2011 12:36 AM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

I asked: "How do you know what ‘everyone’ knows? How about a 2-month-old infant? Certainly ‘everyone’ would have to include him. Do you think infants have such knowledge? If so, what justifies this belief of yours?”

Nide: “Infants are created in Gods image too.”

This is a statement of faith. It does not explain the *process* by which you know what other people know.

If you’re saying that 2-month-old infants know that lies are not true, do you have anything more substantial than a bald-faced appeal to a faith belief to support this claim?

I trow not.

Nide: “They have a sense of truth.”

Again, this is vague. But still it does not tell us the *process* by which you can have knowledge of what other people know.

Nide: “Their senses may not be developed like an adults but they know.”

Actually, their senses are quite well developed by this point; as it was pointed out earlier in the thread by Justin, our sense perception is developed long before we develop our cognition. What is not developed at this stage of life is a sum of knowledge capable of recognizing that lies are not true.

On your view, Nide, the very concept of learning is out the window. Which can only mean: you could not learn what other people know. Talk about stolen concepts! Your skin is crawling with them! This is liable to overload Justin’s fallacy counter.

Nide: “It amazes me the extremes you take to deny truth.”

What “truth” am I denying? I’ve pointed out to you numerous times that I reject the view that imaginary things are real. I would have to deny the truth to accept much of what you say.

Nide: “So, your appealing to experience to tell me that nature is uniform. I see you like question begging and circles.”

I’m glad you revisited this issue. As I point out in my blog entry above (something you’ve not interacted with, by the way):

“In the case of the uniformity of nature, the question that I raise with theists who want to make this matter a topic of debate, is whether the uniformity of nature is something which consciousness establishes in nature on the one hand, or a feature of nature which obtains independent of conscious activity. Theists of course, in particular presuppositionalists for whom the uniformity of nature is an apologetic centerpiece, typically avoid discussing the matter in these terms.”

I was right: theists typically avoid discussing the matter in terms of whether or not the uniformity of nature is something which obtains independent of consciousness or is a result of conscious activity.

So, for the record, Nide, pick your poison:

a) the uniformity of nature obtains independent of consciousness

or

b) nature’s uniformity is the result of some conscious activity

What’ll it be?

As for your stale charge that I’ve begged the question, I must ask: Do you know what begging the question is? It is an inferential error, which means it can only occur when one attempts to draw a conclusion from prior premises. Where did I attempt to draw the conclusion that nature is uniform? Show me specifically where I’ve begged the question. If you can’t show us this, then your charge of fallacy has no teeth. It’s just a canned slogan which you repeat in ignorance not only of what my view holds, but also of what the fallacy you’re charging me with is.

More Nidean lunacy, served up piping hot as usual.

Regards,
Dawson

September 11, 2011 12:41 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 11, 2011 3:17 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Hezekiah

Dawson said....

So, for the record, Nide, pick your poison:

a) the uniformity of nature obtains independent of consciousness

or

b) nature’s uniformity is the result of some conscious activity

What’ll it be?

Well I am very interested in how you will answer this. Given that the two metaphysical positions are mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive, you will have to pick just one. If you go with subjectivism you torpedo the law of identity and thus induction and any possibility of knowledge. You will if you are honest be left with literally nothing to say. If however you choose objectivism, well then you just put your god in the unemployment line, there is nothing form him to do. I guess is that you will evade the question with mental gymnastics that turn logic into a pretzel. This should be fun, although you may just choose to ignore the question altogether. That to would be telling.

September 11, 2011 3:19 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,


Prov 26:4 " Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him."





Blessings

September 11, 2011 6:38 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Hezekiah said.....

"
Prov 26:4 " Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him."

Fallacy, appeal to authority.

Stolen concept = 2
Non Sequitur = 1
Appeal to authority = 1

Total = 4

September 11, 2011 9:18 AM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

"Stolen concept = 2
Non Sequitur = 1
Appeal to authority = 1

Total = 4"

This is so awesome, hilarious, and a HUGE RESPONSIBLITY. Thanks for taking on this beast of a task.

Dawson thanks for your continuing patience and educational posts/ comments in dealing with presup. always appreciated here.

September 11, 2011 9:23 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

To All,

I was going to post this earlier, but I didn't want to derail Dawson's decimating reply to Hezekiah.

I was curious about the origin of "abstract." According to the Online Etymology Dictionary: "abstract" (adj.)
late 14c., from L. abstractus "drawn away," pp. of abstrahere "to drag away; detach divert," from ab(s)- "away" (see ab-) + trahere "draw" (see tract (1))

abstract (v.)
1540s, from L. abstractus or else from the adjective abstract. Related: Abstracted; abstracting, abstractedly.

So it's origin is essentially "draw" and "away."

Just thought this was interesting.


Ydemoc

September 11, 2011 10:20 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Proverbs 26:5 "5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
   or he will be wise in his own eyes.


Ydemoc you keep opening your mouth which assumes your memory is reliable on what basis are you doing this?

September 11, 2011 2:20 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "Ydemoc you keep opening your mouth which assumes your memory is reliable on what basis are you doing this?"

Not on an imaginary basis, that's for sure. You see, I have the primacy of existence, as well as the axioms to check my premises against. For instance, I can say that fairy tales are not true. On the other hand, one can only imagine what your standard would be that would allow you to distinguish between a fairy tale and the bible.

Do me a favor and please tell me it's the bible that you turn to for your standard, or that it's the bible that informs your standard. This way, Justin can add at least one more fallacy to his "HFT."

By the way, you accuse me of opening my mouth. One doesn't have to open one's mouth to communicate with words. I'm typing, not talking.

Ydemoc

September 11, 2011 2:41 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 11, 2011 3:06 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

It is another appeal to authority. The bible said so therefore fill in the blank are pretty easy.

So we now have

Stolen concept =2
Appeal to authority = 2
Non Sequitur = 1

Total = 5

reposted to fix spelling goof

September 11, 2011 3:09 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

Are you , seriously, appealing to experience? How about Aristotle is he a fairy tale?


Justin,

I understand you can't handle the "arguments" the least you can do is try.

September 11, 2011 3:17 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 11, 2011 4:16 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

September 11, 2011 4:35 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "How about Aristotle is he a fairy tale?"

Why would you think that I would ever consider Aristotle a fairy tale? In what way do Aristotle's writings and ideas contradict the primacy of existence and the axioms? Can you tell me? Can you also tell me in what ways his writings and ideas *do not* contradict the primacy of existence and the axioms?

Perhaps then I can tell you whether or not I think that all or some of what Aristotle wrote was, in fact, a fairy tale.

Also, keep in mind what I wrote: "...one can only imagine what your standard would be that would allow you to distinguish between a fairy tale and the bible."

Care to tell us how you distinguish between the bible and fairy tales?


Ydemoc

September 11, 2011 4:35 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Hezekaih said.....


"I understand you can't handle the "arguments" the least you can do is try."

odd, I do not recall you ever producing an argument in proper syllogistic form with premises, and inference and formal conclusion. What I do recall is you saying you could not convince anyone of god's existence. This is not something someone would say if they had proper valid and sound arguments.

September 11, 2011 4:36 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Hezekaih

May I recommend Irving M. Copi's Introduction to logic. It is really a great introduction to logic and how to construct an argument.

September 11, 2011 4:38 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

I'm not asking you about the axioms. Did Aristotle exist?

Dylan was asked the same question and he never came back.


You asked: "Care to tell us how you distinguish between the bible and fairy tales?


Well, we have abstractions which indicate there is an immaterial part of existence. There is more than what we can perceive or see.

The problem is your view of reality or existence is different from mine. If you don't see it you don't believe it.

Your precommited to only believe what is extended in space. So, I can't answer your question because any response I give your going to reject. That's your inclination.

Ydemoc, since you believe abstracts exist in concretes where is love?

September 11, 2011 4:41 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

What would it matter if Aristotle was a real person or not. The set of rules we call Aristotelian logic either stand on their own merits or they do not. I think I just found your 6th fallacy, red herring


Stolen concept = 2
Appeal to authority = 2
Non Sequitur = 1
Red herring = 1

Total = 6

September 11, 2011 4:49 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Everyone,

Here’s something to try. Go back through the record and see how many times Nide posts comments where he says something to the effect that he’s “still waiting” for someone to reply to some question he’s posted. You can do this by using the ctrl-F button and searching for the keyword “waiting” throughout the discussion. Time and time again Nide makes statements like the following:

“Dawson,

“One of your followers decided, last night, to put God on trial. I am still waiting for him to present his case. Have you seen him?” (6 Sept., 7:48 pm)

Nide is like a Grim Reaper in training: he’s practicing the task of reminding people that he’s standing right over their shoulder, waiting for some moment of demise. “I'll be waiting,” he says to Ydemoc (September 07, 2011 4:12 PM).

It’s all part of the cult of intimidation that lives in the core of Christian apologetics.

The irony is that it's the death of his own worldview that he resists acknowledging.

On 10 Sept., at 9:20 am, Nide posted this one:

“I'm still waiting for you, Dawson, to tell me how you found out there is uniformity in nature.”

Nide has continually sought to bring the discussion back to the uniformity of nature, something I’m happy, indeed eager, to discuss.

Now that I’ve asked him a simple question bearing on the relationship between consciousness and the uniformity of nature, he’s reluctant to answer. All of a sudden now he wants to pretend to be worried that he’ll be answering “a fool according to his folly.” Christians use verses like this to conveniently justify their evasions. Nide makes no effort to show that my question to him is folly in spite of its direct pertinence to the issue he’s continually sought to spotlight in the discussion.

Nide is at least intelligent enough to recognize that answering this question will spell death to the presuppositionalist case as it centers around induction, for the uniformity of nature is the central issue in that apologetic scheme. If the apologist has to address the question of whether nature is uniform independent of consciousness on the one hand, or the uniformity of nature is a product of consciousness on the other, all the air will be taken out of his case. As Justin rightly pointed out, if he answers that nature is uniform independent of consciousness, he sides with the Objectivist and puts his god out of a job. If he answers that the uniformity of nature is a product of conscious activity, he openly acknowledges the subjectivism of his position, and we can all go home at that point. The bulwark of Christian presuppositionalism has been brought down from its very foundations, for this is the underlying premise in the presuppositionalist case: that some form of consciousness is needed to “account for” the fact that nature is uniform, since nature could not be uniform on its own (for reasons that are never articulated).

So Nide is right on schedule with his tail-turning evasion.

Regards,
Dawson

September 11, 2011 5:19 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "I'm not asking you about the axioms."

In a sense, you are, since the axioms and the primacy of existence always apply, whether or not you choose to recognize this.

You wrote: "Did Aristotle exist?"

What would make you ask me such a question? Does his existence or non-existence violate the axioms? Did he or his followers in the writings we have about him, make any claims of supposed miracles like walking on water or turning water into wine or raising the dead? Did he make a donkey carry on a conversation? Did he or his followers claim that he rose from the dead after a day-and-a-half, or was it three days? Did Aristotle walk through walls, yet a stone was rolled away for his exit from the tomb? Are there any contemporary writings about Aristotle? Or did people write about Aristotle many, many years later?

Now, if all the things I listed about Aristotle were claimed, even if millions of people believed such things, then that, in my view, would be evidence against the existence of Aristotle. One could still maintain he existed, but not with attributes I've alluded to by the questions above.

So, sure, he existed. Nothing about his existing contradicts the axioms. You see how reality is the final arbiter?

Also, I recall Dawson giving a much better answer than I in response to a similar question you asked about Plato.

More responses to your other comments later.

Ydemoc

September 11, 2011 5:22 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “I'm not asking you about the axioms. Did Aristotle exist?”

Given all that is available about Aristotle, the evidence points to him being an actual person in history. That a person with the name Aristotle lived in the 4th century BCE does not in any way contradict any knowledge that I have validated. Similarly, that such a person lived in the 4th century BCE, was an active thinker, and penned his thoughts in books, in no way contradicts any knowledge that I have validated about the world. So given the evidence for his existence and the lack of any evidence that I know of contradicting his existence, I’d say he very likely did exist.

But I think Justin makes a more important point: it really doesn’t matter if Aristotle was a real person. Just as some theories propose that the plays commonly attributed to William Shakespeare were really written by someone else, it really doesn’t matter if the writings commonly attributed to Aristotle were written by the man historians have accepted as an actual figure in the history of the world, or by someone else. In both cases, we have the writings themselves: we have the plays attributed to Shakespeare, and we have the philosophical writings of Aristotle. None of us were around during either Shakespeare’s time or Aristotle’s time. So none of us have had the opportunity to gather the kind of evidence to which only contemporaries would have access, such as firsthand acquaintance with the person in question, or some indirect counterpart to the same.

As Justin rightly points out, what’s important is the fact that we have the writings commonly attributed to Aristotle, and their validity as philosophy stand or fall on their own merits, not on whether or not the man Aristotle actually existed and penned them.

This is quite unlike Christianity, for their supposed validity requires as a non-negotiable the supposition that the characters described in the New Testament actually existed and actually did what those writings describe them doing. The situation for Christianity is quite unlike that of Aristotelian philosophy, for supposing it were revealed that Aristotle really did not exist, the writings attributed to him would still have inherent value for their philosophical discoveries. But in the case of the New Testament, there’s nothing of any value, philosophically speaking, to be gleaned from its pages. They contain narratives steeped in mysticism and swaddled in a worldview seated directly on the primacy of consciousness. Such a worldview cannot be a legitimate rational value for man qua worldview. And an examination of history will bear this out: observe how Christianity stagnates western civilization when it takes a dominating role in a culture.

I see that Ydemoc has also added his thoughts to this matter. So hopefully now Nide is satisfied. He should no longer “be waiting” for anyone to answer his question of questionable relevance.

Regards,
Dawson

September 11, 2011 5:48 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dawson,

Only for you. Nature is uniform because there is a sovereign God who has promised to keep it uniform.
You can thank him on the way Home.

I'm really excited no more Dawson to distort my words.

Justin,

How did humans get here?



Ydemoc,

So, if the bible didn't have any miracles you would except it as true. ok

Have you ever met Aristotle?

September 11, 2011 6:01 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide: “Nature is uniform because there is a sovereign God who has promised to keep it uniform.”

Good. You’ve come out of the closet on the matter. You’re affirming that nature is not inherently uniform independent of consciousness, but that some form of conscious activity (“promising”) is required to make nature uniform. This is the option known as subjectivism, for it posits that a knowing subject holds metaphysical primacy over the entire universe.

So on your worldview, wishing really does make it so, and there really can be no distinction between reality and imagination.

Nide: “You can thank him on the way Home.”

Your god’s “promises” have turned out to be utter duds. Just take a look at John 14:14.

The view that you have expressed here, Nide, that “nature is uniform because there is a sovereign God who has promised to keep it uniform,” could be used for any invisible magic being one imagines. The Blarkist can just as easily say that “nature is uniform because there is a sovereign Blarko who has promised to keep it uniform.” Your worldview cannot even compete with one which is acknowledged to be based on imagination. But that’s because you’ve already accepted the primacy of consciousness and consequently cannot consistently distinguish between what is real and what is merely imaginary.

And you’re going on about the foundations of logic? Please, don’t make me laugh like that. My soda just came out my nose!

Nide: “I'm really excited no more Dawson to distort my words.”

Nope, no distorting of words on my part. You’ve had more than sufficient opportunity to speak for yourself and clarify your position. I'm just going on what you choose to say for your position.

Regards,
Dawson

September 11, 2011 6:24 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hezekiah wrote: "So, if the bible didn't have any miracles you would except it as true. ok"

Did you mean "accept" here instead of "except"?

I "except" it (i.e., I leave bible out) from what is considered truth. The bible's message, with its commitment to the primacy of consciousness, as well as its violation of the axioms gives me enough not to "accept" it as truth.

If the bible contained no miracles, if it didn't advance a primacy of consciousness metaphysics, then it would hold more weight for me in terms of its historical accuracy.

If I'm not mistaken, Thomas Jefferson excised every miracle in the bible.

Lo and behold, it appears I'm not wrong. From Wikipedia:

"The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1][2]

1. ^ Kosselak, Jeremy (November 1998). The Exaltation of a Reasonable Deity: Thomas Jefferson’s BIBLE of Christianity. (Communicated by: Dr. Patrick Furlong). Indiana University South Bend - Department of History. Archived from the original on 2007-02-08. http://web.archive.org/web/20070208113540/http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/1999/Paper9.html. Retrieved 2007-02-19.
2. ^ R.P. Nettelhorst. Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State. Quartz Hill School of Theology. http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm. Retrieved 2007-02-20.

Hey, Hezekiah, was Thomas Jefferson a fool? Are some fools smarter than you?

Ydemoc

September 11, 2011 6:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home