Tuesday, November 01, 2011

A Reply to Dustin Segers’ Dismantled Blog Entry on Objectivism

Dustin Segers, who attempted to refute the primacy of existence in a podcast with Sye Ten Bruggencate and the folks at Fundamentally Flawed, also posted an entry on his blog restating and to some extent elaborating on the refutations he gave in that podcast. Unfortunately Segers has subsequently decided to remove his blog entry after I brought to his attention that he had made a fundamental error (namely confusing the principle of the secondary objectivity of consciousness with the primacy of existence). This was not what I had expected or even desired, for it is always good to have examples of failed critiques of Objectivism on the web to learn from.

Luckily I was able to save a copy of Segers’ post before he removed it from his blog. I have reposted it on my personal website here: Dustin Segers’ Failed Attempt to Refute the Primacy of Existence. My repost of Segers’ blog entry includes all the comments which I know were submitted to his blog, including his own final comment announcing his decision to take it down.

I have already interacted with Segers’ objections to the principle of the secondary objectivity of consciousness (i.e., the position that consciousness can in fact have itself as an object, but only after it has acquired awareness of objects other than itself) in a previous blog which can be accessed here: Has the Primacy of Existence Been Refuted?

In the present entry I will explore some of the issues which he brought out in his blog entry on the topic that were not covered in his initial statement of his refutation on the Fundamentally Flawed podcast.

In his podcast, Segers quotes Ayn Rand, the discoverer of the secondary objectivity of consciousness principle, as follows:
A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it (the “I”) could identify itself as a consciousness, it (the “I”) had to be conscious of something.
In his blog posting, Segers responded to the Rand quote with the following points:
* False, one of the first things a conscious mind is conscious of is itself. Thus, this argument fails to show a contradiction.
* Self-Refuting: Rand refutes her own “primacy of existence” argument by presupposing the primacy of her own consciousness in order to argue against the primacy of consciousness! In other words, if you claim you need something to be conscious of to be conscious, then you have to first presuppose that the conscious “I” or “self” is the one doing the conscious observing in order to claim that existence is primary over consciousness.
* Begging the Question: (1) She assumes her own conclusion implicitly as her own premise. It would be akin to saying “A consciousness that isn’t conscious of anything but itself is a contradiction in terms because it isn’t conscious of anything.”
* A posteriori epistemology: I.e., they believe only those things that are empirically verifiable exist and this is the fundamental assumption behind their definition of “existence”. They are defining all that exists as all space, time, energy, and matter that we can observe. God isn’t made of space, time, energy, and matter that we can observe. Therefore God doesn’t exist (John 4:24; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16). However, like logical positivism, this is self-refuting since it claims a priori that the only way we can know things are through the five senses when that proposition itself isn’t known through the five senses.
* For Rand, the primacy of existence equals the material world and not consciousness. But why must the only the material world count as what actually exists instead of a non-material entity like an all-knowing, personal, and self-sufficient conscious Mind?
Segers offers nothing new in his first and third points, so I’m content to rest on my response to both in my previous blog entry. I will instead focus on his second and fourth points, as well as his last paragraph and concluding remarks, which contain new claims in need of correction.

In the case of his second point, Segers adds something new to what he originally stated in his presentation on the Fundamentally Flawed podcast. In the restatement of Segers’ second point below, I have underlined the portion which was not present in the podcast:
Self-Refuting: Rand refutes her own “primacy of existence” argument by presupposing the primacy of her own consciousness in order to argue against the primacy of consciousness! In other words, if you claim you need something to be conscious of to be conscious, then you have to first presuppose that the conscious “I” or “self” is the one doing the conscious observing in order to claim that existence is primary over consciousness.
Numerous points can be made against this.

First, notice that Segers offers no reason for supposing that one needs “to first presuppose that the conscious ‘I’ or ‘self’ is the one doing the conscious observing in order to claim that existence is the primary over consciousness.” Even more importantly, Segers gives no reason why one’s identification of himself as a conscious subject (as the “I” or “self” performing the conscious activity) cannot be a later discovery, a discovery made after the subject has experienced awareness of objects distinct from itself. This is in fact what can be observed in human children as they develop. Their first conscious experiences are of the objects which they see, touch and hear around them. In fact, in the case of my own daughter’s first moments outside the womb, her conscious state was as primitive as they come, operating purely on the sensory level of consciousness. She did not have the ability to distinguish different objects from each other qua <>entities - this would come much later in her cognitive development. Specialists who have investigated the matter scientifically have even identified various stages in the cognitive development of infants and toddlers. They certainly do not come out of the birth canal knowing propositions, language, mathematics, logic, etc. If that were the case, why would we send our children to schools?

Take a non-human organism which possesses consciousness as an example. For instance, the family dog. A dog is an organism possessing consciousness, namely in the form of sensations and perceptions. Unlike man, however, it does not have conceptual ability. It will never form the concept ‘I’ or ‘self’, and yet this does not preclude its ability to be conscious of objects. It does not “presuppose that the conscious ‘I’ or ‘self’ is the one doing the conscious observing,” it just perceives the objects it perceives in its environment without knowing that it is conscious. It does not introspect (i.e., turn its consciousness inward on itself), so its own consciousness is not one of the objects it’s aware of – its consciousness remains focused on primary objects (things which it immediately perceives with its senses) without the secondary objectivity of consciousness ever becoming an issue.

Man also has consciousness in the form of sensation and perception, but also possesses along with this the ability to form concepts. This ability allows him greater latitude and refinement in focusing on objects and distinguishing them from others, retaining them in memory, and of course identifying and integrating them in the form of concepts. It also enables him to introspect once he’s explicitly grasped the fact that he is conscious. But before he can do this, he needs to be conscious of something in order for his consciousness itself to be an object to be identified and examined via introspection.

A more detailed answer to Segers’ unargued objection is found in the objective theory of concepts. Concepts for nouns such as ‘self’ and pronouns such as ‘I’ are not first level concepts – they are complex abstractions integrating numerous more primitive concepts, including but not limited to the axioms – and thus their formation or the mind’s grasp of these concepts could not in any way be preconditional to consciousness of objects independent of one’s own conscious activity. To insist that such is the case would simply collapse into stolen concepts –it would be using higher abstractions (i.e., concepts such as ‘self’ and ‘I’) while denying or ignoring their genetic roots.

I suspect that Segers’ confusion lies in failing to distinguish between conscious activity as such (such as direct perception of objects in one’s immediate environment) and one’s discovery and identification of this activity. These two activities are not the same, nor do they occur simultaneously. On the contrary, the former must occur before the latter can ever be possible, and in fact, it may be the case (and is the case with children, for instance, and many adults unfortunately) that the former occurs while the latter never occurs. For one thing, perception of objects needs to take place before it can be an object of one’s own consciousness. I made the case for this in my previous reply to Segers. If one does not first perceive some object(s), his activity of perceiving them will not have happened, and thus cannot be something one discovers and identifies. If you come to a swimming pool and there’s no one swimming in it, there’s no swimming (an activity) to be aware of, simple as that.

Let us also not forget the inescapable fact that the former activity – direct perception of objects in one’s immediate environment – is in fact autonomic, non-volitional cognitive activity (if I’m awake and my eyes are open, I cannot help but see; also, we cannot turn off pain at will, or expect to feel pleasure when pressing the palm of our hand on the surface of a hot stovetop). By contrast, identifying what one discovers (whatever it might be) is a volitional process, meaning one would have to choose to perform this activity once he’s capable of it, and nothing will force an individual to make this choice. Many in fact choose not to identify important facts, especially if they implicitly sense the fact that doing so would compromise a commitment they hold on faith.

Segers himself is a case in point. It’s clear that he’s aware of the fact that he’s aware, but he has failed to identify and integrate this fact in an objective manner. His denial of the secondary objectivity of consciousness is proof of this: he doesn’t want consciousness inherently to need to be conscious of objects other than itself before it can be available to itself as a secondary object. Rather, he wants it to be the case that a conscious mind can be its own first object, apparently unaware of the absurdities that such a view leads to. And he wants this to be the case because it’s clear that the alternative has fatal implications for his god-belief, and that’s what’s important to him: protecting his god-belief. Since he is essentially acting on what he wants to be the case (rather than on what he can discover in reality by means of an objective method), he is attempting to replace facts with fantasies, as if fantasy could substitute for fact, which means his argument reduces to an expression of subjectivism.

Quite simply, Segers’ confessional investment compels him to accept an innumerable series of contradictions, and this is one of them.

So not only would I contend that Rand in fact does not “presuppose that the conscious ‘I’ or ‘self’ is the one doing the conscious observing in order to claim” either that existence enjoys metaphysical primacy over existence, or that consciousness requires an object independent of its own activity in order to be available as an object itself, I would argue that such a feat would actually not be possible given the fact that she makes this identification on the basis of self-evident facts and through an objective process.

Segers’ fourth point in his dismantled blog entry also included additional material that was not present in the version of his “refutation” that he gave in the Fundamentally Flawed podcast. The underlined text below represents the content which is unique to his blog entry:
A posteriori epistemology: I.e., they believe only those things that are empirically verifiable exist and this is the fundamental assumption behind their definition of “existence”. They are defining all that exists as all space, time, energy, and matter that we can observe. God isn’t made of space, time, energy, and matter that we can observe. Therefore God doesn’t exist (John 4:24; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16). However, like logical positivism, this is self-refuting since it claims a priori that the only way we can know things are through the five senses when that proposition itself isn’t known through the five senses.
The portion of text without underlining, which likens Objectivism to logical positivism, has already been dealt with in my previous reply to Segers.

As for the text which is underlined above, what is noticeable right off is that Segers attributes a position to Objectivism without citation or supporting quotes. If Segers had read such views being affirmed in the Objectivist literature, it seems he should give some references; indeed, it’s probably the first thing he would have done! But the Objectivist literature does not affirm what Segers attributes to it, so he is either casually assuming that it does, or is simply misrepresenting Objectivism for the sake of making for an easy kill.

The fact is that Objectivism nowhere affirms that “only those things that are empirically verifiable exist,” nor is such a view “the fundamental assumption behind their definition of ‘existence’.” Nor does Objectivism define “all that exists as all space, time, energy, and matter that we can observe.” Had Segers any genuine familiarity with the basics of Objectivism, he would recognize that the concept ‘existence’ is in fact an axiomatic concept, which means (among other things) that it is not definable in terms of prior (i.e., more fundamental) concepts. Because of this, it is entirely inaccurate to charge Objectivism with “loading” the concept ‘existence’ with underlying assumptions which supposedly – even surreptitiously – inform its meaning. Therefore it is important to point out that, on Objectivism’s own terms, its fundamental axiom could not mean what Segers says it means.

Objectivist philosopher Leonard Peikoff reminds us that the axiom of existence “does not tell us anything about the nature of existents; it merely underscores the fact that they exist.” (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 4). The axiom of existence – constituting a formalized recognition of a general fact at the fundamental level of thought – makes no claim about the constitution of the things which actually exist. Knowledge of this sort will come later, after reason has been systematically applied to what we discover in the world around us. To make the point clearer, it may in fact be discovered that all that exists is some kind of matter or another, but even then, as a later discovery, this would not be an axiomatic truth; it would be a truth founded on an enormous hierarchy of more fundamental truths.

Elsewhere Peikoff makes the following point:
Existence is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it—and no alternative to it. Existence exists—and only existence exists. (“The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,” Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 109)
Seriously, I cannot for the life of me understand how a rational adult could think there’s any legitimate dispute against the position expressed here. Occasionally objections against this view arise from an attempt to understand it through a prism which informs key concepts involved in its statement with conspicuously non-Objectivist notions, and these can typically be easily corrected by explaining what specifically Objectivism means by its key terms. I’ve performed such corrections numerous times on my blog and elsewhere, so I’m somewhat of an old hand at it. But when Objectivists state “Existence exists – and only existence exists,” as Peikoff does here, many “thinkers” bristle in reaction to the tone of certainty contained in that statement, and it is this – the mere presence of certainty in affirming one’s position, especially at the fundamental level of thought – that some individuals find objectionable, even threatening. Such certainty as is found in Objectivism is commonly met with a mixture of resentment and envy – both arising from the same cause: such certainty is something Objectivism’s detractors wish they had in their fantasies, but realize in their conscience that they’ll never achieve it.

But speaking directly to the matter: If one denies the view that “existence exists – and only existence exist” – what other than existence does he think exists, and why? By what means would one have awareness of it? How would one discover it? Do not expect direct answers to such questions at this point. Rather, understand that what will be offered in place of answers will be a series of evasions, rationalizations, highfalutin-sounding counter-questions, murky notions, perhaps even name-dropping and maybe even faltering attempts at poetry. For at this point, knowledge of reality is not the legal tender securing such transactions.

So Segers will not find any support for his claim that Objectivists begin their worldview with the “presupposition” that “only those things that are empirically verifiable exist.” I have never read this claim in the Objectivist literature. What Objectivism denies is the supposition, secretly implicit in theistic worldviews, that the things which the mystical mind imagines are real. While Christian apologists prefer to frame the debate between theism and atheism as a contest between materialism and immaterialism, the real issue is in fact the proper orientation between the subject of consciousness and its objects, and the worldview perspectives which result from the primacy of existence (i.e., the objects of consciousness hold metaphysical primacy over the subject of consciousness) and the primacy of consciousness (i.e., the subject of consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over its objects). The former (i.e., the worldview which is based on and consistently applies the primacy of existence) is the objective view of the world (since the object(s) of consciousness hold metaphysical primacy) while the latter (i.e., the worldview which grants metaphysical primacy to some form of consciousness, whether one’s own, to some alleged “group consciousness,” or to some imagined supernatural consciousness) is the subjective view of the world (since in either case the subject of consciousness holds metaphysical primacy). The objective view (informed consistently by the primacy of existence) is the position which recognizes that wishing does not make it so. The subjective view (which grants metaphysical primacy to consciousness in some capacity at some point) is the position which ultimately reduces to: wishing does make it so. This is the issue of metaphysical primacy which Segers portrays himself as tackling, but in fact seems not even to understand to begin with.

Given these points, it’s hard to see how one might seriously suppose that the Objectivist response to theism would be to concoct an argument such as Segers suggests:
Premise 1) All that exists is space, time, energy, and matter that we can observe.
Premise 2) God isn’t made of space, time, energy, and matter that we can observe.
Conclusion: Therefore, God doesn’t exist.
I’ve never seen such an argument in the Objectivist literature, and given the fact that Objectivism in fact does not inform its fundamental concepts as Segers mistakenly assumes it does, one should not expect to find such an argument in the Objectivist literature to begin with. And indeed, it is no surprise that Segers nowhere cites an Objectivist source endorsing such an argument. In fact, while individual Objectivists may in fact produce arguments which secure the conclusion that theism is irrational, Objectivism as such recognizes no obligation to devote time to the matter since the claim that a god exists is ultimately arbitrary. Besides, there are far better reasons to reject theism than arguments such as the one illustrated above, and Objectivism supplies them.

If Segers wants to examine an argument against theism informed with Objectivist principles, perhaps he might have a look at my article How Theism Violates the Primacy of Existence. Instead of interacting with positions to which Objectivism does not subscribe and calling it Objectivism, Segers can rectify his course of worldview analysis by examining what I have argued from specifically Objectivist premises.

In his blog entry, Segers offered an additional statement which I would like to address:
For Rand, the primacy of existence equals the material world and not consciousness. But why must the only the material world count as what actually exists instead of a non-material entity like an all-knowing, personal, and self-sufficient conscious Mind? [sic]
Statements like “For Rand, the primacy of existence equals the material world and not consciousness,” only tell those of us who are informed on the issues involved here, that Segers simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The primacy of existence has to do with the relationship between consciousness and its objects. Preconditional to such a relationship is the existence of both consciousness and something for consciousness to be conscious of. There is nothing in the Objectivist literature which equates the primacy of existence with “the material world and not consciousness,” or suggests that only “the material world” is real and consciousness is simply a non-issue. Existence exists. Consciousness also exists. It is part of existence. Consciousness is an attribute of those organisms which possess it. These are facts which Objectivism is content to take into account in developing its philosophical perspective on reality, man, and knowledge.

Segers asks: “But why must the only the material world count as what actually exists instead of a non-material entity like an all-knowing, personal, and self-sufficient conscious Mind?” If Segers governed his thought by means of reason, he would not have to ask others to help him with this question. We know without any doubt that “the material world” exists. Why suppose that something else “actually exists instead of” the material world?

As I stated above, since Objectivism is built self-consciously on the primacy of existence metaphysics, Objectivists recognize that figments of the imagination are not real. If I imagine a giant four-legged man walking down the beach juggling 747s in his bionic arms, I would have to be dishonest to suppose that what I am imagining is actually real. Similarly, when I imagine Segers’ god creating the universe out of nothing by an act of will and incarnating itself in the form of a human being in first century Palestine, I would have to be dishonest to suppose that what I’m imagining is actually real. We can, along with Segers, imagine the “all-knowing, personal, and self-sufficient conscious Mind” that he mentions, but it would be beyond foolishness to mistake what we imagine for what is real. Part of the problem which apologists like Segers face but cannot overcome is the fact that their apologetic program provides no objective alternative to the imagination as the means by which one can apprehend what he calls “God.” Another part of the problem he faces, which again he cannot overcome, is the fact that the worldview informed on the basis of such beliefs, assume the primacy of consciousness, a metaphysical perspective which is self-contradicting given the fallacy of the stolen concept which undergirds it.

As part of his “Biblical Refutation” – i.e., a response which explicitly presupposes precisely what is in question – Segers baldly asserts:
God existed logically and temporally prior to the existence of the material world as a non-material, personal entity (cf. John 17:5). This is possible because God’s own nature possesses the attribute of aseity; i.e., God is sufficient in His own being and so needs nothing external to Himself. God is eternally triune and eternally interpersonal (cf. John 17:5), thus, the three persons of God enjoyed eternal consciousness of each other within the community of the Trinty.
Of course, we can, along with Segers, imagine his god existing “logically and temporally prior to the existence of the material world as a non-material, personal entity”; we can imagine that what Segers calls “God” has a nature which “possesses the attribute of aseity”; we can imagine that Segers’ “God is sufficient in His own being and so needs nothing external to Himself.” But the problem is that we have no alternative but rely on our imaginations in order to apprehend these claims. Accepting these claims would also commit us to a series of stolen concepts as well as require us to ignore a plethora of facts that we can in fact know about consciousness and related matters for certain, such as that consciousness is biological in nature, that consciousness does not hold metaphysical primacy, that consciousness is finite and operates on the basis of specific means, that those means are identifiable, that consciousness terminates with the expiration of the organism possessing it, etc. We would also have to ignore the fact that the Christian notion of “the Trinity” is internally incoherent, and that accepting such as notion as knowledge of reality constitutes a fundamental departure from reality and the norms of knowledge as defined by the objective theory of concepts – something Christianity does not have.

Segers concluded that
the assumption that there must be a dichotomy between the primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness and that because of this dichotomy God must necessarily not exist is a self-refuting argument that is easily answered by Scripture and reason.
Several points can be made here, and hopefully they will help to enlighten Segers on some of the profound mistakes which his attempt to refute Objectivism occasion:
* Objectivism does not assume that “there must be a dichotomy between the primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness”; rather, Objectivism recognizes that there is an unbridgeable antithesis between the two perspectives, and also that anyone attempting to affirm the primacy of consciousness as a truthful metaphysical account would, if only performatively, have to assume the truth of the primacy of existence metaphysics (since the alternative would be to affirm openly that one thinks the primacy of consciousness is true because one *wishes* it to be true). 
* The primacy of existence teaches us that the objects of consciousness are not only distinct from the activity by which a subject is aware of those objects, but also that those objects obtain independent of the activity by which it is conscious of them. This axiomatic recognition provides for many subsequent implications, including the recognition that the subject does not create its own objects, but in fact achieves consciousness of them by some specific means which also obtain independent of their present operation (just as a bulldozer exists independently of someone operating it; operating a bulldozer does not result in its existence). Thus the idea of a conscious “mind” creating the universe by an act of will clearly trades on the primacy of consciousness and is dismissable on this basis alone. 
* Segers has not shown that either the principle of the primacy of existence, its discovery, its validation, or its application to any claim (including the claims of theism) is in any way “self-refuting.” Segers asserts this on the basis of his own wishing, which only tells us that he’s desperately trying his best to be consistent with the primacy of consciousness metaphysics which underwrites his theistic confessional investment. 
* If by “Scripture” Segers means the Christian bible, he couldn’t be more wrong in claiming that this compilation of ancient poetry, narrative, letters, genealogies, legal records and prophetic musings have anything of substance or value to offer in reply to arguments consistently applying the primacy of existence principle. For one, no passage in the bible self-consciously addresses the issue of metaphysical primacy (i.e., the proper relationship between the subject of consciousness and its objects), and two, no biblical doctrine could survive for an instant in a worldview which is loyal to the primacy of existence. 
* Segers is unclear on the metaphysical basis of reason. Reason does not operate on the assumption that “wishing makes it so,” but rather endorses the principle which tells us why wishing does not make it so, which is: the primacy of existence.
Of course, Segers’ statements are so pregnant with pernicious philosophical implications that I could go on and on here, but I simply do not have the time, and I admit that I’m confident that anyone who takes the time to review my two blog entries devoted to Segers’ attempt to refute a fundamental truth discovered by Ayn Rand , will see that his position has no avenue of recovery open to it. So I am happy to close with this.

by Dawson Bethrick

Labels: , ,

202 Comments:

Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I just saw your new post, and I am looking forward to reading it.

Ydemoc

November 01, 2011 6:40 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Hello Ydemoc,

I hope you enjoy my new blog. Don’t forget to check out the dismantled post from Segers’ blog that I resurrected by myself!

I submitted the comment below to a post that has not (yet) been dismantled from Segers’ blog. It is still waiting for moderator approval (even though two comments have since appeared on the blog since I submitted mine). I’m guessing that Segers doesn’t like being corrected. What does the holy storybook say?

”Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.” (Proverbs 15:10)

Here’s my comment currently held in moderator purgatory:

For anyone who’s interested, I have posted two replies to Dustin Segers on his attempts to refute the primacy of existence on my blog Incinerating Presuppositionalism.

The first is in response to Dustin’s verbal presentation of his refutation on the Fundamentally Flawed podcast, and can be found here: Has the Primacy of Existence Been Refuted?

The second is in response to Dustin’s blog entry on the issue (since it contained some additional points not given in his statement in the podcast – yes, I like to be thorough!) which he has since removed from the Grace in the Triad blog. This can be found here: A Reply to Dustin Segers’ Dismantled Blog Entry on Objectivism.

I’m happy to take any questions on these issues.

Regards,
Dawson

November 01, 2011 7:34 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

from our discussion on the previous blog. Did you see the link I posted, thought you might find funny, here it is again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dW-bt_1LzY

also, just at the end, Nide pulled a duzzy of a non sequitur. It made my head hurt to read it.

November 01, 2011 7:48 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

duzzy, hehe, ment dozy:)

November 01, 2011 7:49 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

I haven't had a chance to look at that video yet. I was too busy writing a response to Trinity. But when I get a chance I'll take a look.

Did you read my last response to Trinity on the previous page. If so, am I missing something in my response to him?

Ydemoc

November 01, 2011 7:53 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 01, 2011 7:56 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc


Nope he tripped over his own feet there, but not for the first time. Nide seems to also believe that because I believe in some things that are invisible that as a result I am stating god does not exist. I am reminded of that old REM song lyric, "you cant get there from here"

November 01, 2011 7:57 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dear Dawson,

Just an update everything on the blog has been good. Don't worry about anything I have been keeping your henchman in check. However, Ydemoc has been really embarrassing himself. Maybe you should talk to him and explain to him atheist etiquette. Thanks for the new post.
Lord willing I will get to read it one day it's a little long but thanks for always thinking about us.

In Christ,
Elijah

November 01, 2011 8:09 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Thanks for looking at my post. I wasn't sure if I had it exactly right.

You're right about "you can't get there from here." That describes it perfectly, because of how all knowledge is grounded in the axioms and Primacy of Existence. So any assertion that tries to go above or beyond reality is like "trying to get there from here" when, in fact, there is no basis for such a claim. There is no "there" there, nor is there a basis for asserting that there is.

Ydemoc

November 01, 2011 8:14 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

here that! we are henchmen! Ever see the venture brothers cartoon? Well if you have I claim number 23 now :)

November 01, 2011 8:34 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Unfortunately, I haven't seen that cartoon.

By the way, I wasn't aware of this "atheist etiquette" that Trinity speaks of. Perhaps it's comparable to "Christian etiquette" where one vomits up insults like "stupid" and "retard"? If so, perhaps I should employing more Christian-like manners in my interactions with him.

Then again, maybe I'll just take the high road and ask anew the questions I posed to him before -- the ones that seemed to cause him some discomfort.

Trinity seems like a very bitter person. I wonder what he's bitter about?

Ydemoc

November 01, 2011 8:48 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

I went over to http://katholon.com/Doofusman.htm -- and I caught this little nugget of yours:

"If intellectual honesty were a consistent motivating factor in Segers’ online blogging activity, it seems that he should not stop with dismantling just one post from his blog, but in fact carry this action to its logical conclusion and shut the whole thing down altogether. But I predict this won’t happen."

Great! Well said!

Ydemoc

November 01, 2011 8:56 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Gadget,

Remember what Dawson said a few weeks ago. Orthodox Christianity commands their followers to insult others. He even called me a heretic for objecting to insults.

So, am I still a heretic or are you a dumb brute?

I'm not bitter I'm having fun insulting you. Thanks Dawson. You opened my eyes to "true Christianity".

November 01, 2011 9:02 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

You wrote over on http://katholon.com/Doofusman.htm:

"4) One would not need to take down a blog entry in order to do “further research” on a topic. So when Segers states that he “took the article down so that [he] could do further research,” it sounds like he’s suggesting that the presence of his entry on his blog was somehow preventing him from doing further research, which would be, to say the least, quite a stretch. Indeed, it seems that the time he needed to take the blog entry down could have been devoted to that “further research.” At any rate, I hope that “further research” is going well."

What Segers says here kind of reminds me of O.J. saying that he was going to go out and look for the real killers.

Ydemoc

November 01, 2011 9:27 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

Why don't we *both* try and stay on topic for a change, instead of us straying off the theme of the blog post?

Dawson did a tremendous amount of work and produced a superb piece of writing. The least we could do is stay on the topic this time.

Just a suggestion. What do you say?

Ydemoc

November 01, 2011 9:36 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ok Great,

What's the topic?

November 02, 2011 6:28 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

I had written: "Why don't we *both* try and stay on topic for a change, instead of us straying off the theme of the blog post?

Dawson did a tremendous amount of work and produced a superb piece of writing. The least we could do is stay on the topic this time.

Just a suggestion. What do you say?"


Trinity responded: "What's the topic?"

Dawson's examination, interaction with, and correction of Segers' mistaken views regarding the Primacy of Existence Principle along with other errors Segers makes regarding Rand's philosophy; Segers addressing his errors and his subsequent explanation for making them, as presented on the "Fundamentally Flawed" program and on his dismantled blog entry, this after Dawson corrects him; Segers' mischaracterization of Rand's philosophy, his failure to refute any part of it, along with the philosophical implications of what Segers does say.

Ydemoc

November 02, 2011 7:27 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Dawson

Well I have finally had time to fully read your latest post. Thank you, yet another informative offering that furthers my understanding of objectivism. It is clear to me that Segars like many before him, he is simply conflating objectivism with materialism. A simple case of theistic tunnel vision.

November 02, 2011 9:45 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

I saw that video you linked to. Funny! Thanks! I posted a comment to you on the previous comments' thread.

Ydemoc

November 02, 2011 9:51 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

glad you enjoyed it. I remembered that old video when I was pointing out to Nide where the onus rightfully belonged.

November 02, 2011 11:20 AM  
Blogger NAL said...

Dawson, did Rand ever use the term "principle of the secondary objectivity of consciousness?"

November 03, 2011 5:29 AM  
Blogger Luiz Claudio said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 15, 2011 11:35 PM  
Blogger Luiz Claudio said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 16, 2011 1:45 AM  
Blogger Luiz Claudio said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 16, 2011 1:48 AM  
Blogger Luiz Claudio said...

Hi Dawson,
As always, I loved your post.

About the trinity solution

How come these "three consciousnesses" are aware of each other if they have
no means of percepcion? When human beings form the concept "consciousness" they implicitly assume the existence of percepcion and MATERIAL objects, because consciousness is consciousness of something and being couscious of another consciousness is being conscious that something is conscious of something else through perception. We are not directly conscious of other BEINGS consciousness (humans or not) but only of their fisical activities.

Also, Christians say the three persons of trinity "think and feel the same", they have the same essence, the same personality. This is a trick to separate one thing in three while keeping it single, in other words, three are one and one is three is just a form to evade the fact that there can be no consciousness only conscious of itself. This solution to the problem of devine loneliness is deshonest, ilogical, schizophrenic and dangerous to human psicological sanity, like all mistic philosophies, because it ends up where it began whatever rationalization you use to solve it.

If nothig is done, religion will dominate, detach humans from reality and bring psicological and material caos to the world, while pretending to be saving it. A world of people living in their own "divine loliness" while reality goes on unchecked. You are one of the few people I know combating this insanity and our powerful ideas will one day be recognized as the truth they are, invulnerable as their god idea will never be. On this day "satan" will be thrown from haven to hell and stay there forever. with all his resentment and "holy" envy.

November 16, 2011 1:51 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Luis,


"There are those, of course, who deny that they need any form of authority. They are the popular atheists and agnostics. Such men say that they must be shown by 'reason' whatever they are to accept as true. But the great thinkers among non-Christian men have taken no such position. They know that they cannot cover the whole area of reality with their knowledge."- Cornelius Van Til



Happy Thanksgiving.

November 16, 2011 7:28 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"There are those, of course, who deny that they need any form of authority. They are the popular atheists and agnostics. Such men say that they must be shown by 'reason' whatever they are to accept as true. But the great thinkers among non-Christian men have taken no such position. They know that they cannot cover the whole area of reality with their knowledge."- Cornelius Van Til"

Translation

"I really really resent the fact that some people base their knowledge on what can be know by reason alone and not on their feelings. Rejecting the arbitrary claims of self proclaimed authorties, refusing to accept their claims on their mere say so."

November 16, 2011 7:40 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

Where did you and Van Til get the concepts "need" "men" "reality" and "knowledge"? Can you tell me how such concepts are arrived at?

Happy Producers Day

Ydemoc

November 16, 2011 7:44 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

Can you tell us how you and Van Til arrived at the concepts "men," "need," "knowledge," and "reality"?

Happy Producers' Day

Ydemoc

November 16, 2011 7:48 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Can you tell us how you and Van Til arrived at the concepts "men," "need," "knowledge," and "reality"?


By airplane


Merry Christmas

November 16, 2011 10:27 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

evasion!!!

November 16, 2011 11:27 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

I don't arrive at certain things. I just know that I know.

Nobody ever explained to me what 'know' is I always have known what know is.

It's interesting because YHWH has always known .

It's a glimpse of omniscience. In other words intuition is a glimpse into omniscience.

Happy Holidays.

November 16, 2011 12:03 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 16, 2011 12:29 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 16, 2011 12:34 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Hezekiah Ahaz

There is a difference between implicit recognition of a concept and explicit recognition. At some point in your life you became conscious of the concept “to know” and at that point your awareness became explicit. Before this however it was implied in all acts of your cognition that were based on knowing something and thus it was implicit. Regardless however, an any case your conception either implicit or explicit was built up upon earlier concepts beginning with the self evident preception of existence, and thus consequently based on the axiomatic concept existence. You don't just know because you know. There is a chain of thought going back ultimately to sensory input. Your post reveals just how much Christianities lack of a theory of concepts compromises your thinking.

November 16, 2011 12:35 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin remember God is existence.

So, There you have it:

The proof of YHWH is that without YHWH you couldn't prove anything.

Justin you need existence to prove things.


Happy Holidays.


Justin Hall,

Said: "You don't just know because you know."


The burden is on you.





“We must rather reason that unless God exists as ultimate, as self-subsistent, we could not know anything, we could not even reason that God does not exist, nor could we even ask a question about God”- Cornelius Van til

November 16, 2011 2:56 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

"We must rather reason that unless Blarko exists as ultimate, as self-subsistent, we could not know anything, we could not even reason that Blarko does not exist, nor could we even ask a question about Blarko." - Corny Von Tilted.

Ydemoc

November 16, 2011 3:33 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

“Justin remember God is existence”

You have stated this repeatedly and it has been repeatedly pointed out that this is a fallacious equivocation. Existence is the sum total of all that exists, has existed or will exist. God is proposed to be a singular personal being. One thing is not equal to the sum of all things.


I said You don't just know because you know.

You replied “The burden is on you.”

Knowledge is knowledge of something by some means. The claim that you can just know you know is a case of the fallacy of pure self reference and arbitrary as well. I have no burden to justify my rejection of such lines of reasoning.



“We must rather reason that unless God exists as ultimate, as self-subsistent, we could not know anything, we could not even reason that God does not exist, nor could we even ask a question about God”- Cornelius Van til

This is a claim repeated ad nauseum, another logical fallacy. Further you have not nor could you ever provide a logically sound argument for this claim. The reason being that god belief violates the principle of metaphysical objectivity resulting in the fact that the very claim god exists is a contridiction.

November 16, 2011 3:44 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

I am just waiting for you to ask me to prove my last point, go ahead please:)

November 16, 2011 3:47 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Said: "The claim that you can just know you know is a case of the fallacy of pure self reference and arbitrary as well"

And this is the fallacy of manufacturing fallacies.


Ok,

Prove it.



P.S. God is the sum of all that exists.

November 16, 2011 4:40 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

The fallacy of pure self reference is when you make a statement that is its own referent. Example, “this statement is true”. It lack any real semantic meaning. I deem statements such as I know that I know to fall into that category because what you claim to know refers to the very knowledge you claim to know, it refers to its self.

you might find this link instructive

http://www.reocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/LTYA/LTYA06.htm

if god is the sum that all that exists, well then you are a pantheist and not a christain, my mistake sorry, all this time I thought you were a christian

November 16, 2011 4:54 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

I enjoyed your above response to Trinity. I hope he doesn't think I've forgotten all the questions I've asked him that he has yet to answer.

Ydemoc

November 16, 2011 4:54 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

you said OK prove it.

I am bailing from work, it is 5pm and I am out of time. I will post more later. Say a few hours from now.

November 16, 2011 4:59 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

thank you, I'd love to post more but I got to get out of here if I want to catch my train, talk later

November 16, 2011 5:01 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

A lot of what you say is arbitrary.

Self-Authentication is valid.


You say I am a pantheist well the burden is on you.


Ydemoc what questions?

November 16, 2011 5:25 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

What questions? Jeez, Trinity, I'm not going to list all 58 of them right now. Good grief! They are on the previous thread and the one before that and the one before that...

I think one of them was: Is sarcasm a reflection of your god's character and action? That's just one of many you didn't answer with anything that could be comprehended. This is really no surprise, really, since your god is supposed to be incomprehensible, isn't it?

Ydemoc

November 16, 2011 5:32 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Self-Authentication is valid."

Not when it comes to knowledge. Knowledge is either justified or it is not. If it is not, it is not a valid claim to knowledge. If you know something, by what means, actual valid testable means did you acquire it by?

"You say I am a pantheist well the burden is on you."

you said god is existence.

from wikipedia

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.

seems clear to me

November 16, 2011 7:06 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 16, 2011 7:07 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Now for an argument

first premise

Metaphysical subjectivism and metaphysical objectivsm are the two ways of understanding the relationship between consciousness and the objects external to it that it can be aware of. Further the two stated relationships are mutually exhaustive and mutually exclusive.

Second premise

claims to objective knowledge are premised on the validity of metaphysical objectivism. In making the statement x is y you are implicitly assuming metaphysical objectivism.

Third premise

Christians hold to the belief that god created all of existence apart from himself (they are not pantheists and do not equate god to existence). This means that the relationship between god and existence would be subjective. The identities of everything that makes up existence would depend on and are therefor subject to god's will.

Conclusion

The statement god exists is a stolen concept fallacy or preformitive inconsistency. For while the form of the statement is x is y which implicitly affirms metaphysical objectivism the actual content of the statement explicitly affirms metaphysical subjectivism. However see premise one and we see that we have a contradiction within the very statement. Thus the statement god exists refutes its self.

November 16, 2011 7:09 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

speaking of not forgetting questions. I have not forgotten Nide's attempt at linguistic unpacking when he asked me the question "is Justin home the same thing as A is B". Nor have I forgotten when he took my statement that there are things that I can not see but accept to mean that sense I don't accept the claim to god's existence that I automatically was saying god does not exist. That is one heck of a non sequiter!

November 16, 2011 7:22 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

God and existence are not identical.

However, God is existence.


So, your argument can't be evaluated because it has a false premise. Specifically premise 3



Justin logic can only be applied to humans. In other words it's for us to understand the world.



Remember God can "hear" 100 million plus prayers at one time.

Also, He is here and not here.



However, Logic is sound.

In fact God is Logic

However, he's not equivalent to logic.




Happy Holidays

November 16, 2011 7:33 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

God and existence are not identical.

in other words A is not B

However, God is existence.

in other words A = B

so A is A and not A in the same respect at the same time? So much for the law of identity. If I am to hold you to this and expect you to be consistent you have just destroyed any way you have for communicating anything. If A is not always A how do I know what you are saying is in fact what you are saying?

November 16, 2011 7:42 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 16, 2011 7:56 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

God is Logical.

He has ,eternally, existed logically.

He's the source of existence and logic.

Hence he is existence and logic.

November 16, 2011 8:00 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 16, 2011 9:15 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

what you have posted does not in anyway answer my objection in my last post concerning the law of identity. In fact your latest post is neither correct nor incorrect. It is incoherent. If you desire coherency I suggest you apply the law of identity to your writings.

November 16, 2011 9:16 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

You are exactly right.

God is incoherent to the natural man.


Justin is self-authentication valid?

November 16, 2011 10:06 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

second question first

"is self-authentication valid?"

this statement is vague and lacks any context so I will not make blanket statements about its validity. However within the context of what I was discussing that is knowledge, I have this to say. Conceptual knowledge ultimately is validated against the only yardstick we have, reality, not anything else. And it is thru interacting with reality that we gain this conceptual knowledge in the first place. Any discussion of knowing concepts based on anything else is when you get right down to it literally non-sense, as in no sensory input. Which is not to say we cant validate knowledge in reference to other prior knowledge, but somewhere it eventually gets back to sensory input. So if you mean self validation as in "I know this knowledge to be valid because I know it to be valid" well yeah, this is what I call BS! Take note however that perceptual knowledge is the starting point. I know its dark outside because I can damn well see that. I don't require proofs or reference to prior knowledge for that. In any case I sincerely doubt you have any real interest in a theory of concepts and knowledge so I will leave this as it is your first point that I really want to get to.

"God is incoherent to the natural man."

Then what the hell are you talking about? If god is incoherent to the nature of man and you are a man, then this must mean you literally don't have any clue as to what you speak of! Please come back when and if you ever have any real knowledge of what you speak.

November 16, 2011 11:04 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

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

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 16, 2011 11:18 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

“You are exactly right.

God is incoherent to the natural man.”

So are you not a natural man Nide?


Justin is self-authentication valid?

This statement is vague and without context so I will not make any blanket statements about it. Perhaps you would expand and clarify it.

November 16, 2011 11:22 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "God is incoherent to the natural man."

Who told you this, Trinity, and how do you verify it?

Is Blarko incoherent to the natural man?

Ydemoc

November 16, 2011 11:59 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Asked: "So are you not a natural man Nide?"

I am a living soul.

By the way have you ever seen existence?


For Ydemoc,

TABASH: "Well, Dr. Bahnsen, since you said that it is your purpose to defend Christian
theism, I wanted to ask you about the fundamental fairness of a God that would, and it
says in the New Testament in many places talk about damnation, hell fire, blake of fire,
inflaming vengeance, taking vengeance on flaming fire...all those who believe now Jesus.
If in fact Jesus is the only modality to salvation for our eternity, shouldn't God give more
direct evidence by directly appearing to each of us? Isn't it fundamentally unfair for
instance, for as many Christians, if said, my mother, an Awschwist survivor, miserable
life, dies, and winds up in Hell?"

BAHNSEN: "I'm not sure. Perhaps you've been asleep at the wheel of your studies. The
Christian claim is precisely that God has made direct appearance to us and He's done so
in any number of ways. First of all, He has done so in every single one of your sensory
experiences that you try to appeal to or to make intelligible in your reasoning. He does
so because without His existence, you cannot make sense of the inductive principle by
which you reason from past experience to the future. I'll rebut your answer in a minute,
so I don't want to be unfair to you, but what I was getting at was is that God hasn't left
himself without a witness. He testifies to you in the very fact that you're trying to reason
and debate tonight and to reason in a uniform fashion. God has appeared in the person of
His son Jesus Christ. That's the Christian claim. We can get into that later, but to say
"why doesn't God directly appear," is to miss the whole point. God has directly
appeared. You wish to know about the fundamental fairness of God. The strange thing
about that question is that within the world view of Atheism where all reality is matter
and motion, there is no fundamental fairness about anything. That there are no ethical
notions whatsoever; there's just matter and motion. Things happen and that's all there is
to it. And so for an Atheist to try to raise a moral consideration against God is itself
contradictory. It's to give up your world view, presume on mine for a while to get an idea
6
of fairness, and then turn around and try to use that against my world view as well. God
is fundamentally fair because He has given abundant evidence to all men; in their use of
science, their use of morality, their understanding of human dignity, God has made
Himself abundantly clear to all men and God will not, according to the teaching of
Scripture, send anybody to Hell for not knowing better."



Blessings

November 17, 2011 1:28 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa207.htm#n29

November 17, 2011 1:59 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 17, 2011 2:58 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

Do you believe in miracles? Do you believe in a mischievous evil agent who can cause chaos, resulting in nature going out of whack? If so, whence then is yours, Brian Knapp's, Chris Bolt's, Bahnsen's, Van Til's, et al. basis for affirming nature's uniformity?

As Dawson notes:

"In his essay “Induction and the Unbeliever,” for instance, Brian Knapp sought to defend Christianity against the objection of “the possibility of [miracles] presenting a challenge to the Christian’s claim that induction presupposes Christianity” (The Portable Presuppositionalist, p. 139) on the basis that such an argument would be “sound only if [Christian theism] assumes that nature is absolutely uniform, which it does not” (Ibid., p. 140). In other words, on the Christian view, nature is not inherently uniform; any uniformity which nature happens to exhibit is put there by some force “outside” of nature, by means of intentional activity on the part of a supernatural consciousness, which can only mean one thing: that nature is inherently non-uniform on the Christian view. The most that Christians affirming this view could say is, not that nature is uniform, but the way in which their god manages it is uniform. But even this would compromise the Christian doctrine of miracles, so – following Knapp – Christians would have to add the caveat that the way their god manages nature is not absolutely uniform: sometimes it departs from its “normal” ways of managing nature in order to exercise abnormal “procedures” for some purpose or another." (Incinerating Presuppositionalism, March 22, 2010, "Bolt’s Pile of Knapp, Pt. 4)

Objectivism does not suffer from such fickleness, Trinity.

And thank you for telling me where you get your programming, and who it is that fills your head with ideas that serve as the filter between you and reality.

Meanwhile, can you tell me how you verify your statement that, "God is incoherent to the natural man."

Also, is Blarko incoherent to the natural man?

Finally, to borrow the form of one of Dawson's past inquiries: Where did you get the concept "incoherent"? What does it refer? What does it denote, and what is included in it's content?

Ydemoc

November 17, 2011 3:00 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

"Sayzzz": "And thank you for telling me where you get your programming, and who it is that fills your head with ideas that serve as the filter between you and reality."

No,Thank you

By the way "Greg Bahnsen is the man!!!!!"



Who's Blarko?

I verify "God is incoherent to the natural man."

Throught sensory experience. I use my God given senses like everyone else. What other way do you think these things work?

I told you already I "get" all my concepts by airplane.

How about you?


P.S. Yea, I believe in miracles.

November 17, 2011 3:21 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"I am a living soul"

This does not answer my question. Allow me to rephrase. You implied that I am a natural man. I want to know if there is anything that is fundamentally different between us on this point. Am I a natural man and you are not, or are we both natural men?

"By the way have you ever seen existence?"

I see examples of existence most of the time. In fact anytime my eyes are open. So in that sense yes I see existence. This however should not be taken to mean that I have see everything that was, is or will be. Why would you ask this again? you have asked this before and you have been answered in the same manor before, did you not understand the first time?

November 17, 2011 4:02 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

I am a natural man and not a natural man. It's a mystery.


Justin,

I am not talking about existants but existence itself. How do you Justify the phrase "Existence exists" if you can't see existence(presumably) Remember God is invisible.


Justin are you invisible?

November 17, 2011 4:22 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"I am a natural man and not a natural man. It's a mystery."

This is further examples of A is A and not A at the same time and in the same respect. If you are not going to be logical don't be surprised when no one believes you, or even understands you

"I am not talking about existants but existence itself. How do you Justify the phrase "Existence exists" if you can't see existence(presumably) Remember God is invisible."

you still don't understand the meaning of axiomatic concepts. Existence exists is a necessary and unavoidable tautology. It is a conceptual foundation and thus an epistemological issue. Existence in this sense of the word is not something in particular. It is not a material or substance, action or method. Existence is not a thing, it is the sum total of everything. However the tautology says nothing about what the identity of existence or any existant is. So when I see the computer infront of me, that is an example of existence. Please stop confusing epistemological issues with metaphysical ones.

Back to the first point. So Nide is a natural man and not a natural man at the same time and within the same respect? Nide if you cant be intelligible you are never going to get anywhere here.

November 17, 2011 4:37 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@everyone else

Nide has all but come out and said the law of identity, the foundation to non contradictory identification (logic) does not apply to his reasoning. I can only come to the conclusion then that Nide is implying by extension that he is not logical, but of course we have know this for some time. I however will never knowingly accept any proposition for anything less then logical reasons. So far from advancing the claims for Christ the only thing Nide has accomplishes here is to show he places no value on logic, interesting in what this has to say about theism in general.

November 17, 2011 4:46 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

And you need to stop confusing Logic with mystery.

No, It means its incomeprehensible
the natural and not natural man.

It can't be explained like other things.

No, when you see your computer you see an existant.

Can you describe something immaterial?

November 17, 2011 4:52 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

it is coming up on train catching time again, will talk later

November 17, 2011 4:54 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

I said this yesterday that logic is good for human language.

It shows how the human mind understands things.

How am I suppose to explain to you that God can hear a million plus prayers at once without you charging me with some fallacy that only exists in your mind?

Some things are unexplainable to the human mind.

November 17, 2011 5:05 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide said.... “And you need to stop confusing Logic with mystery”.

I suspect your objection is not that I confuse the two, but that I apply logic to the mystery. You see I know what mysteries are. They are limitations in our knowledge concerning a given subject that may also include seeming contradictions. However I know that real contradictions cant exist in reality. They arise out of our limited knowledge concerning it. Now you may be happy with this state of affairs, enshrining ignorance. I however am not, while a given mystery may not be a problem per se, it is something to be solved. Further we solve it by applying logic to the mystery. For all the current mysteries out there, there is a horde of them that once were and are now solved by reason.
So Nide, when you say god is existence and not existence I realize either the statement is incoherent and unintelligible (means nothing) or it is a seeming contradiction and god is either existence or he is not and further investigation could in principle sort this out. All of this assuming of course god is real in the first place and that is not an assumption I am making.

Nide said... “No, It means its incomeprehensible
the natural and not natural man.”

It is incomprehensible? Nide do you realize what you are saying here? If the nature of man and the nature of god are incomprehensible then you literally have no clue what you are talking about. By your own admission you have admitted you are not qualified to discuss god. It is after all incomprehensible to you, is it not? Consider this counter factual and imagine that someone came up to you and you observed the following exchange.

Blarkist... I believe in blarko and so should you

Rational person... what is blarko and why should I believe in him

Blarkist... I have no clear idea of what barko is. Blarko is incomprehensible and you should believe in him because this book about Blarko says you should
Rational person... Wait a minute! If blarko is incomprehensible then how do you know that what you pro port to believe in is actually barko? For that matter your book is just a self referential claim that may or may not actually pertain to blarko, man you are making no sense here

Blarkist... Logic cant be used to understand blarko, you just have to accept it because without blarko you could not use logic or morality or make sense of the world
Rational being.... Oooouuuukkeeeeyyyyyy, I am leaving now

Nide said... “It can't be explained like other things.”

Actually if it is incomprehensible it cant be explained at all. Further as a consequence there is no reason to believe in it at all. Nide I dont have any interest in the arbitrary, I dismiss it out of hand. The real question here is not how we cant know god but how we can know god. If it is not by logical means I am not interested.

November 17, 2011 7:42 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide said... “No, when you see your computer you see an existant.”

which is an example of existence. Use the word universe if it helps. The computer is not the universe but it and everything else is so when I see them I am seeing the universe. I cant see all of Oregon but I see parts of it every darn day, so in a real sense I am seeing Oregon. This is simple enough.

Nide said... Can you describe something immaterial?

Sure, information, concepts, processes just to name some categories that would fit the bill of immaterial. Bear in mind tho that immaterial is not that descriptive. It tells you what something is not, not what it is. The concepts information, concepts and processes actually are descriptive. Further immaterial as a concept presupposes and only has meaning in relation to the material.

Nide said.... “I said this yesterday that logic is good for human language.”

It shows how the human mind understands things.”

Yes Nide and if I am to understand what it is I would be believing in then I must apply logic to the question does god exist.

Nide said.... How am I suppose to explain to you that God can hear a million plus prayers at once without you charging me with some fallacy that only exists in your mind?
Nide I have worked on servers that can handle that load.... lol. God does not have to be infinite to hear the prayers of all 7 billion of us, only really really really powerful. Honestly if you cant explain god to me I really dont care. Not to sound callous but I file that under not my problem.

Nide said... Some things are unexplainable to the human mind.

I cant say you are wrong with that statement. However it raises the question, how do we learn of them and understand them then? Knowledge of the unknowable is a contradiction in terms. If I were to grant that you are right just because I cant rule out the possibility that you are right, well then how do I discriminate against all the other arbitrary claims that are out there. That is the obstacle you face. Even if you are correct you claim can not be separated out from all the other arbitrary claims that are in error.

November 17, 2011 7:43 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Dawson

on a completely different topic, have you been following the occupy protests that have been happening here over their in Thailand? If so what is the general opinion of the Thais to this? just curious

November 17, 2011 8:23 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote: "Rational being.... Oooouuuukkeeeeyyyyyy, I am leaving now"

This response to Trinity made me laugh. And as far as "incomprehensible" is concerned, Thorn has some interesting thing to say about this and other attributes of such alleged non-imaginary beings. From http://www.oocities.org/athens/sparta/1019/Morgue/Walker.htm:

"I have gathered below a number of those attributes from the second chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as well as a few which I have found by reading other sources, including the Bible itself, and have examined the question of whether or not those attributes are pre-conditional to induction.

They are:

[a] God is incomprehensible: The Westminster Confession of Faith cites I Kings 8:27 as substantiation of the claim that God is incomprehensible. Thus incomprehensibility must be an attribute of the biblical God. The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines 'incomprehensible' as 'impossible to comprehend' and 'unintelligible'. How can something which is supposed to be incomprehensible qualify as a pre-condition to induction? Mr. Walker does not say. But clearly, induction as a means of gaining understanding about the world would not be possible if it were true that its foundations were unintelligibility and if the impossibility to comprehend reality were an absolute. Were the foundations of induction unintelligibility and the impossibility to comprehend reality, then induction would not only be impossible, it would not achieve anything for man. Perhaps Mr. Walker neglected to specify this attribute of God for a good reason."

***end quoted material***

I would also ask Trinity where he got the concept "unexplainable." Something could only be unexplainable if there were first things that were, in fact, explainable.

Ydemoc

November 17, 2011 8:54 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 17, 2011 10:08 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Why does Ydemoc keep asking where I get "concepts" from?

Through sensory experience. We as humans have the ability to understand language. Didn't you know this?

Justin,

The human mind is incomprehensible, however, that doesn't stop you from using it. Of course you can disagree but as usual and the burden will, really, be on you this time.

But let me ask:

Do you Justin fully and completely understand the human mind?

If yes you're gonna have a lot of explaining to do

If no then how do you justify using it?


P.S. We know and We don't know God.

November 17, 2011 10:10 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

You said one doesn't have to have an infinite mind to hear 7 billion prayers at once. You are exactly right. But can a finite mind listen to and make sense of 7 billion prayers?

November 17, 2011 10:20 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

How do you remember things?

Is memory incomprehensible?

November 17, 2011 10:23 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

the human mind is to a large degree a "mystery". It is a problem to be solved by the application of logic. In this case the scientific method. We have all ready learned a tremendous amount about how the brain functions in the last 30 years, in my own life time. What the mind is not is logically incomprehensible. There is no A and not A at the same time and within the same respect. Axions don't fire and not fire at the same time and within the same respect. Neurons don't grow new dendrites and not grow new dendrites at the same time and within the same respect. We don't have to completely understand every little nuance about something for it to be comprehensible to us. I program but don't know all the ins and outs of how a CPU works. But the cpu is the cpu, A is A. What is not going on is the cpu is the cpu and not the cpu at the same time and within the same respect.

Nide it is not your lack of understanding about god, there can be gaps in your knowledge thats fine. But what we do know has to be comprehensible. Remember what I said, you resent that I apply logic to your mystery. That is what rational people do. That is what scientists in the field of neurology are doing, and they are getting results. What they don't do is go around saying the mind works and does not work at the same time and within the same respect and we don't know how and could not be bothered to try and find out.

It appears to me that you are confusing incomplete knowledge with logical contradictions. Additionally even when our limited knowledge produces logical contradictions, further knowledge will resolved them. So in the end god cant be both existence and not existence at the same time and in the same respect, only appear to be with our limited knowledge. Oh wait, we don't have any knowledge of god that can be justified. All I have to go on his your description of him. Unlike my limited description of the human brain yours of god appears to be chock full on logical contradictions rendering it incomprehensible to me. I literally do not understand what you mean when you say god is and is not existence. Compare that to when a neurologist says “This part of the brain has higher blood flow when you speak, however we still do not know exactly what it is doing when you speak. This statement conveys the ignorance we have but does not violate the law of identity.

November 18, 2011 5:52 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

you seem real hung up on “the burden” Disregarding all the side issues we have explored don't forget for a moment that no one has any burden to justify there lack of belief in your god. Project much?

November 18, 2011 5:54 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 18, 2011 5:57 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"You said one doesn't have to have an infinite mind to hear 7 billion prayers at once. You are exactly right. But can a finite mind listen to and make sense of 7 billion prayers?"

short answer yes. infinite is not some really big number, it is greater then any number. So yes a sufficiently powerful yet finite mind could deal with 7 billion requests. Now our minds can at best deal with about 2 things at once so I can only imagine such a scaled up mind, but it would not be logically impossible, unlike say being A and not A at the same time and with in the same respect:)

November 18, 2011 6:00 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 18, 2011 6:04 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 18, 2011 6:06 AM  
Blogger Nide Corniell said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 18, 2011 7:36 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 18, 2011 7:38 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

I never asked you to justify your "non-god belief"

I asked you to justify you using your mind or even talking about it.

The human mind is incomprehensible. Yet you still talk about it.

So, then what is the problem with me talking about God?


The law of contradiction is one of the ways we understand the world and which is necessary for survival.



So, yea we Know God to an extent. In other words we know and don't know. The same goes for the mind.







P.S. God is a non-physical person.

November 18, 2011 7:38 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide

Further considerations. Mysteries can create seeming contradictions, however they are not real, they result only from our limited knowledge. Therefor god can not actually be existence and at the same time and within the same respect not existence. Further investigation if there is anything real to investigate that is would in principle resolve this. This leaves you with only two possibilities, neither is good for your case. One, god is actually synonymous with existence and taht means pantheism. Two, god is not synonymous with existence, he is just one existant among many. If that is the case then the subjecive metaphysical relationship between him and all the other existants comes into play and my argument that god belief is invalid stands a a valid argument. If you however maintain that the contradiction is real, then you have reduced your position to unintelligibility and I really could care less what you are saying at this point. Compare this to science, say neurology that says “we don't understand how completely how the mind works, lets try and figure it out by comparing our ideas against reality (the final court of appeal) and see which ones if any are correct. Those ideas are logical, they conform to the law of identity, because well have have to be intelligible, or comprehendable if you like. You should have used quantum mechanics as you example and not neurology. The Copenhagen interpretation can be interpreted to mean a violation of the law of identity and I have been very eager to explore the topic with someone that is willing to discuss it honestly.

November 18, 2011 7:39 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

i reposted to fix grammar errors, sorry

November 18, 2011 7:40 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

In repsonse to your last comment:

God is existence. However, he is not equivalent to existence.


There is nothing contradictory about that statement.

I don't know anything about quantum mechanics.
But at the same time I do. It's a mystery

November 18, 2011 7:42 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

“I never asked you to justify your "non-god belief"

good, glad we have this clarified.

“I asked you to justify you using your mind or even talking about it.”

I don't have to justify my use of my mind. My mind is a process of me. In a real sense it is me. You still fail to integrate axiomatic concepts. I have to presuppose my mind in order to justify anything. It is a precondition of proof. Consciousness is a concept that the concept justify relies on for its very meaning. Asking me to justify my use of my mind is a stolen concept fallacy and thus the question is fallacious. As for talking about it. We have as I said made grate strides in understanding the human mind. Have you investigated at all with published liditure on how the brain works? It is far from incomphrensable. There are no mind boggling logical contradictions in our understand like say in quantum mechanics. Are you actually saying neurologists don't know what they are talking about? Are you more qualified to discuss the human mind then a peer reviewed published neurologist?

November 18, 2011 7:50 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"God is existence. However, he is not equivalent to existence."

please clarify this for me. Is god equivalent to the sum total of existence or not. This is a yes or no question.

November 18, 2011 7:52 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 18, 2011 7:57 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

reposted to fix grammer and spelling. sorry guys I will slow down:)

“I never asked you to justify your "non-god belief"
good, glad we have this clarified.
“I asked you to justify you using your mind or even talking about it.”
I don't have to justify my use of my mind. My mind is a process of me. In a real sense it is me. You still fail to integrate axiomatic concepts. I have to presuppose my mind in order to justify anything. It is a precondition of proof. Consciousness is a concept that the concept justify relies on for its very meaning. Asking me to justify my use of my mind is a stolen concept fallacy and thus the question is fallacious. As for talking about it. We have as I said made great strides in our understanding of the human mind. Have you investigated at all the published literature on how the brain works? It is far from incomphrensable. There are no mind boggling logical contradictions in our understand like say in quantum mechanics. Are you actually saying neurologists don't know what they are talking about. Are you actually saying neurologists don't know what they are talking about?

November 18, 2011 7:59 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@everyone

I am really starting to hate google docs. Its spell check if full of fail and even copy and paste fails in weird ways. I apologize for any errors in my posts. like the last sentence in my last post being repeated, that was not my intent

November 18, 2011 8:08 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"God is existence. However, he is not equivalent to existence."

This is an attempt at linguistic unpacking. Like I was eluding to earlier. When I said I see Oregon all the time, I do not mean I see all of it, but when I see parts I am in a sense seeing Oregon. So yes if god exists he is in a sense existence as in he is part of existence, one thing among many. In that case however there is a relationship between god and the rest of existence and the issue of metaphysical subjectivism comes into play. If god is existence, as in equal to and synonymous with the sum total, well that is not Christianity, that is pantheism. So Nide, are you a Christian or are you a pantheist? If you ar a christian you cant avoid the problems of metaphysical subjectivism.

November 18, 2011 8:24 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

"I would also ask Trinity where he got the concept "unexplainable." Something could only be unexplainable if there were first things that were, in fact, explainable. "


Yup, same thing as immaterial requiring the concept materal first. Thankyou for compiling that list. I wish Anton was as active as he once was.

November 18, 2011 9:37 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

If I was to ask a neurologist how he remembers do you think he will be able to answer?

How about you how do you remember or is memory an axiom?


Justin your definition of existence is flawed.

God is part of existence. However he is existence.

The way he exists is not the way we exists. For example,
I am not omnipresent.

Language is limited as we have seen in your example about Oregon. You see Oregon but at the same time you don't see it.


If God "died" we would all die. Hence he is existence.

Can you define metaphysics and epistomolegy?

I have a feeling your throwing around words and using them loosely.


P.S. Neurologist don't know it all. Why do you think they can't manufacture a mind.

November 18, 2011 10:17 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

You're welcome. Thorn is great, and it's good that his stuff is still available via a simple search on Google.

Ydemoc

November 18, 2011 10:23 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide said.... “If I was to ask a neurologist how he remembers do you think he will be able to answer?”

I am not a neurologist so I can not speak for them. What I do know however is regardless of how limited our knowledge of how memory works, no neurologist is saying the brain function like x when we form memories and does not function like x when we form memories at the same time and within the same respect. Having limited knowledge about something is not a license to accept logical contradictions.

Nide said..... “How about you how do you remember or is memory an axiom”?

No it is not. The only axiomatic concepts are existence, identity and consciousness. Memory is a function of consciousness and requires it but is not axiomatic itself. I have to check my knowledge or what I think I know all the time against reality.

Nide said “Justin your definition of existence is flawed.

You may not like my definition but it would help a lot if you would explain what it is that you find objectable.

Nide said.... “God is part of existence. However he is existence.”

sorry but this sentence is unintelligible. I really have no idea what you are saying here.

Nide said ..... “The way he exists is not the way we exists. For example,
I am not omnipresent.”

This is irrelevant. Existence is identity. What is... is. Your identity does not have to be like or similar to god’s identity. Only that whatever god is, that is what god is. Only whatever you are, that is what you are. A is A

Nide said.... “Language is limited as we have seen in your example about Oregon. You see Oregon but at the same time you don't see it.”

Yes and this is why I am at pains to make clear my meaning. Existence in the parlance of objectivism is the sum total of existence. I see how you have evaded my question, is god synonymous with the sum total of everything or not. See I used a different word, didn't use existence. If god is the sum total of everything well we still have pantheism. If god is not everything then there is a relationship between him and everything else and we have metaphyiscal subjectivism. Come to think of it, if god is equal to the sum of everything but is a consciousness volitional being then we still have metaphysical subjectivism. Everything becomes just what god is thinking about, now that is metaphyiscal subjectivism!!



Nide said...... “If God "died" we would all die. Hence he is existence.”

can you say metaphysical subjectivism?

Nide said...... “Can you define metaphysics and epistomolegy?

Metaphysics deals with what is. Thus the question of what the identity of existence is, is a metaphysical issue. Epistemology is the study of how we know what we know, or the means and methods for gaining an understanding of metaphysics. The tautology existence exists is the foundation to our conceptual framework that is epistemology.

Nide said ..... “I have a feeling your throwing around words and using them loosely.”

I may make mistakes in terminology, in fact I know I will, I do strive to minimize this however, if you think I have made a mistake, call me out on it but be as articulate as you can be.


Nide said..... “P.S. Neurologist don't know it all. Why do you think they can't manufacture a mind.”

I never said neurologists know it all. We don't have to know it all (be omniscient) to be able to justify our knowledge. The point I was making is that far from the human mind being a complete mystery we actually now know a lot about how it works. My second point was that regardless of the state of our knowledge concerning the human mind no neurologist was espousing a violation of the law of identity and then justifying it by hiding behind what they don't know yet about how the mind works.

November 18, 2011 11:48 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Ok it could be cleaned up and each premise is actualy a mini arguement in itself.

first premise

Metaphysical subjectivism and metaphysical objectivsm are the two ways of understanding the relationship between consciousness and the objects external to it that it can be aware of. Further the two stated relationships are mutually exhaustive and mutually exclusive.

Second premise

claims to objective knowledge are premised on the validity of metaphysical objectivism. In making the statement x is y you are implicitly assuming metaphysical objectivism.

Third premise

If god died everything else would die too. This is because god created everything that there is apart from himself or that god is everything directly. Thus god enjoys a metaphysically subjective relationship with the things he has created and that depend on him for there continual existence. Or alternately god is everything that exists. Everything is simply the thoughts of god in which case the relationship is still metaphysically subjective. Either way its subjective.

Conclusion

The statement god exists is a stolen concept fallacy or preformitive inconsistency. For while the form of the statement is x is y which implicitly affirms metaphysical objectivism the actual content of the statement explicitly affirms metaphysical subjectivism. However see premise one and we see that we have a contradiction within the very statement. Thus the statement god exists refutes its self.

November 18, 2011 12:06 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

you see Nide no matter how you try to redefine words or evade it, the central issue here is that god controls everything... comopletely as your bible defines him. That is metaphyical subjectivism in a nut shell. After I realized that, I knew it was not so much that I had not heard of a logical argument for god but that there could not be a logical argument for god.

November 18, 2011 12:21 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 18, 2011 2:07 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc and Dawson

This is important and relevant to the recent discussion. Quantum mechanics and its Cophangan interpretation that have long been held up as a real world case of the law of identity being violated may no longer helps those that have a problem with logic. it turns out the wave function may actually be a physical thing onto its self as I have suspected as soon as I learned about this subject. Please give it a read.

http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-theorem-shakes-foundations-1.9392

November 18, 2011 2:09 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Thanks for that link. I read the article, but I'm afraid I am so fricken' uninformed when it comes to most of what they are talking about, that I really can't make heads or tails of it. (reference intended)

Maybe when you get a chance and it's not too much trouble, you can explain some more about this in layman's terms (if that's possible) so that I might have at least a rudimentary grasp of the issues involved (no rush). I mean, I have come across writings about Quantum Mechanics, but I get lost pretty quickly in the much of the scientific talk.

Then again, maybe I should go out and get myself the book, "Quantum Mechanics for Dummies," though that might actually be too far advanced for me where this issue is concerned.

Ydemoc

November 18, 2011 2:40 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 18, 2011 3:26 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc
thanks, ill try:) Basically the wave function is a mathematical model used to express the probabilities of what the identity of a particle is going to be over space and time. It is what tells you what the chance is of finding an election with properties x,y, and z at this location at this time. The Cophengan interpretation says that when we are not actually measuring the properties of the election that it is not actually anywhere within the area defined by the wave function but is also everywhere in the area. Also it does not have any of the properties it could have and has them all. Basically until you measure it, X is X and not X at the same time within the same respect, or so goes the interpretation. It is very convenient however that we cant actually check on this as as soon as you do you have measured it and the wave function collapses to certain particular values. A because A and only A. However if the wave function is an actual physical thing its self then A is always just A. The wave function is a certain thing of its own with its own identity and only that identity and it changes to something else as a result of being measured. The interactions resulting from the act of measuring it causes it to be altered and no longer be a wave function and instead just be an election with properties x, y and z. The law of identity is not then actually violated at all.

November 18, 2011 3:27 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

I lack belief in your sanity.

I have explained to you over and over what the "God is x statements" mean.

The only one evading here is you. I asked "how do you remember" I haven't seen a clear answer you ever going to give one?


Justin your thoughts are they metaphysically subjective?

If so does that mean you are a contradiction?

Arguments assume Logic. God is logic and so on we have been through this allready.


P.S. Ayn Rand the "philosopher" who was literally full of smoke and eventually died because she was full of smoke.
Hence, objectivism is full of smoke.

November 18, 2011 3:54 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide said... “I lack belief in your sanity.”

I could honestly care less what you think concerning my sanity

Nide said.... “I have explained to you over and over what the "God is x statements" mean.”

Yes, and I still do not comprehend what it is that you mean. The statement seems to contradict its self, perhaps you could explain your meaning at some length.


Nide said... The only one evading here is you. I asked "how do you remember" I haven't seen a clear answer you ever going to give one?

Strictly speaking I don't see the relevance to our current discussion. The actual mechanics of memory is a subject for neurology, so go ask someone qualified to answer, like oh I don't know, say a neurologist? And even if we don't have a step by step understanding it is something that we self evidently have and to some degree works. This question is along the same lines of your earlier questions about how do we know that we can see, or think. Some things are self evident thru direct perception or experience. If god falls into this category for you, just remember one, there is no such thing as second hand revalation and two it is not necessarily something experience by anyone else.

Nide said “Justin your thoughts are they metaphysically subjective?”

metaphysical subjectivism is about the relationship between consciousness and the objects of that conciousness. It is about the relationship which when dealing with things external to my mind is objective. Now I do enjoy complete control over what I imagine, Say I wish to imagine a pink dragon, then the dragon I imagine is pink, this is subjective. What you don't see me doing is claiming the pink dragon has any existence outside of my own mind. In is imaginary. So if everything is in the mind of god, that that is subjective

Nide said... “If so does that mean you are a contradiction?”

No, but I can imagine things that are contradictory. Such as a creature like a pink dragon with little stubby wings that could never fly on earth.

Nide said...... “Arguments assume Logic. God is logic and so on we have been through this allready.”

Yes we have been down this already. However you never provided any logical defence of these assertions. Further now that I understand god belief is inherently metaphysically subjective it would appear that there can be no such arguments even in principle which would account for why you have not provided any.




Nide said.... “P.S. Ayn Rand the "philosopher" who was literally full of smoke and eventually died because she was full of smoke.
Hence, objectivism is full of smoke.”

classic, when all else fails resort to ad hominem. Am I supposed to be impressed by this. Get ahold of yourself Nide.

November 18, 2011 4:29 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Thanks very much for your reply -- it was very helpful. The last thing you said, about the "act of measuring it"... this seems to be on par with what I remember Dawson talking about in "Does the Double Slit Experiment Refute the Primacy of Existence?" (January 29, 2011). I should go back and read it to make sure.

Thanks for taking the time to explain these things to me. I appreciate it.

Ydemoc

November 18, 2011 4:38 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Is it rational to smoke yourself to death?

It can't be ad hodminem because it's true.

Justin if I say something true about you is it ad hominem?


You say that the statement "God exist" is contradictory can you explain this again?

How do I verify it?

P.S. Ydemoc science is not the only thing you are clueless about.

November 18, 2011 4:55 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 18, 2011 7:04 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide said... “Is it rational to smoke yourself to death?”

No Nide it is not rational to continue a habit even one as hard to break as smoking until it kills you.

Nide said.... “It can't be ad hodminem because it's true.”

Whether the acusation is true or not is not what makes it an ad hominem. What makes it an ad hominem is you insinuated that a character flaw of Ayn Rand invalidates her philosophy. This is what you said
“P.S. Ayn Rand the "philosopher" who was literally full of smoke and eventually died because she was full of smoke.
Hence, objectivism is full of smoke.”

inference, Ayn Rand did something irrational in another context therefor her arguments in this context are invalid. That is a text book example of an ad hominem.

Nide said.... “Justin if I say something true about you is it ad hominem?”

Nope, you could call me a long haired hippy liberal for all I care. But if you said “your argument is invalid because you are a long haired hippy liberal” that would be an ad hominem.


Nide said... “You say that the statement "God exist" is contradictory can you explain this again?”

You can scroll up, the argument has been posted twice now. Tho I must confess I really want to clean up the wording and make it better so I will repost sometime tomorrow.

Nide said.... “How do I verify it?”

The argument was deductive, not inductive. If the inference is sound from correct premises the conclusion naturally follows. If you have objections they would be in either the premises or the inference.

Nide said... “P.S. Ydemoc science is not the only thing you are clueless about.”

Really? Was that called for? You choose to not get involved in that brief exchange between Ydemoc and myself on the issue of quantum mechanics but you feel it is necessary now to insult him now?

November 18, 2011 7:07 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@everyone

can anyone somehow please explain to me what this sentence means?


"God is part of existence. However he is existence."

November 18, 2011 7:11 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 18, 2011 7:51 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

(oops, in my deleted comment, I wasn't quite clear in attributing quoted material)

Justin wrote: "can anyone somehow please explain to me what this sentence means?"

And then, quoting Trinity, Justin wrote: "God is part of existence. However he is existence."

I think for me it's probably best just to remain clueless as to what Trinity is talking about.

All his attempts to explain and rationalize his god belief has him tied up into epistemological knots -- and that's just when he can be halfway understood -- never mind when he can't be.

Ydemoc

November 18, 2011 8:15 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 18, 2011 8:23 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

probably:) Still I hold out hope that he actually has a coherent point to make and maybe is just struggling with the right vocabulary. He may yet articulate it.


Anyway I am going to work on a proper syllogism for the god belief is invalid argument. Anton did this already but I thought it was too long winded and took to long to get to the point. I am trying to make something simple and elegant, your help would be appreciated.

November 18, 2011 8:24 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

it is kind of amusing how we high jacked Dawson's blog, anyone remember what the topic of this thread was... lol

November 18, 2011 8:26 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Yea where is Dawson?

Hey Dawson is it rational to smoke yourself to death?

What happened to values.



Justin,

Existence exist is an arbitrary claim. Rand made this up. Like a lot of other things. The only one stealing "concepts" is her.

Maybe you should scroll up and read Greg Bahnsen's devastating reply to Tabash.


So, I will be waiting for your syllogism. Remember syllogisms assume God.


Hey Ydemoc on what basis do you, since I can't remember, assume tomorrow will be like yesterday?







P.S. Justin are you admitting Rand was irrational?

November 18, 2011 9:22 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "it is kind of amusing how we high jacked Dawson's blog, anyone remember what the topic of this thread was... lol"

I know. Early in the comments I asked Trinity if he would agree that we both stick to the blog-entry topic. Well, it seems we both have gotten sidetracked. Oh well...

As far as your new syllogism, I look forward to your posting it and will offer input in whatever way I can.

Also, I remember you posting some question in a previous thread about the idea of babies' fear of heights and whether or not that qualifies as knowledge (or something like that). Your questions got me thinking, and I had some strictly armchair thoughts on this, but I'll hold off until I get them into shape.

For now, I will throw this out for you to ponder: Would a blind baby experience a fear of heights? Would a sightless baby falling from a great height experience the same fear that a baby with normal eyesight would?

Ydemoc

November 18, 2011 9:41 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Trinity wrote to you: "Maybe you should scroll up and read Greg Bahnsen's devastating reply to Tabash."

Yeah, Justin! And after your done reading that, you might want to read a transcript of the whole debate and judge for yourself how devastating or not Bahnsen really was -- even with Tabash not working from an objectivist perspective. Maybe Trinity can provide the link for you from where he copied and pasted this so-called "devastating" excerpt?

Ydemoc

November 18, 2011 9:54 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Again, two comments ago I attributed to Trinity something you wrote. Apologies to both you, and Trinity.

Ydemoc

November 18, 2011 9:55 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

The debate should be up on YouTube. The transcript is incomplete and also has typos. However here is the link

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_Ath/Bahnsen_Tabash.pdf


Ydemoc here is another question for you to evade

Is it rational to smoke yourself to death?


Justin,

http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/the-metaphysics-of-quantum-mechanics


Your thoughts.

November 18, 2011 10:30 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

well much has been posted and I will get around to answering. However I just got up and saw the article you posted.I have skimmed it and will read thru it in detail. One thing jumped out at me tho that I thought I would share.

from the article

"The third is the fallacious nature of the claim that the observer ‘creates’ reality by collapsing a wave function. In fact, the only control the observer asserts is to increase the accuracy of measurement of a particle attribute at the expense of decreasing accuracy in a partner attribute. These pairs of variables appear in the famous Heisenberg uncertainty relation, and multiplied together have the units of ‘action’. Thus pairs such as energy x time or position x momentum multiplied together have a minimum uncertainty equal to Planck’s constant divided by 4p. Properly understood, this is a limitation on human knowledge compared to the previous classical view, as opposed to a promotion in human importance."

All I can say is right the hell on!! This is what I have been saying all along. This guy is on the ball. Quantum mechanics is not a threat to anyone, Christianity or otherwise. The Copenhagen interpretation however is a threat to us all. It undermines the very meaning of none contradictory identification and thus logic. If you want to see the logical outcome of taking this interpretation seriously all you have to do is listen to that loon Depak Champra, no wait on second thought don't, it would be a waste of your time Nide. However if the wave function is a physical thing onto its self as new evidence implies then we will have to profoundly rethink our understanding of quantum mechanics, either way I don't think the Copenhagen interpretation is going last much longer as the generally accepted model. Anyway good morning all, thanks for the article Nide and I will have more to post later.

November 19, 2011 9:30 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 19, 2011 10:02 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 19, 2011 10:07 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 19, 2011 10:08 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 19, 2011 10:08 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 19, 2011 10:10 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 19, 2011 10:11 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 19, 2011 10:18 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

ok sorry guys for all the deleted posts. I have made annoying grammatical mistakes that I just had to clean up

Nide said... “Existence exist is an arbitrary claim. Rand made this up. Like a lot of other things. The only one stealing "concepts" is her.”

Existence exists is just the tautology that expresses explicitly the perceptually self event fact that something is there. Look around and see something. This tautology is used epistemologically to recognize this as the starting point for knowledge, thats all. Now arbitrary is defined as....

from dictorary.com
subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

Now the first thing that jumps out at me is for this word/concept to have any meaning I would first have to understand the concepts individual, will, judgment and so on. And in order for me to have integrated these concepts I would have to have interacted with examples of them, which means....... they would have to exist. So that means........ They presuppose the concept existence which means....... arbitrary as a concept rests on the concept existence. Thus to claim the tautology existence exists is invalid because it is arbitrary is just another example of the stolen concept fallacy! Concepts are integrated and exist in a hierarchy. You cant use any concept to invalidate existence, that is like cutting your own legs out from under you. As a presuper I would think you of all people would not have a problem with understanding foundationalist logic.

Nide said.. “Maybe you should scroll up and read Greg Bahnsen's devastating reply to Tabash.”

Note to sound to dismissive but again once I gained the understanding that Christian god belief is another example of metaphysical subjectivism I realized there is not much to be learned from its apologists. However sure I will read thru it because you asked me to, however I am going to take Ydemoc's advise and fine the whole thing Ok:) However I suspect the I will find the article on quantum mechanics you referred me to far more interesting.

Nide said... “So, I will be waiting for your syllogism. Remember syllogisms assume God.

Yeah, I need to get on that, I am never satisfied with my work, same thing with writing programs. Do you ever just finally go, “all right it works, sort of, to heck with it” I know you believe syllogisms assume god, heck in your world view everything assumes god right? However you have not given me a valid and sound reason to accept this.

Nide said...... “P.S. Justin are you admitting Rand was irrational?”

Within the given context of continuing to smoke knowing (if she did know) the health risks, yeah that is irrational. Are you claiming that if someone made even one mistake, one irrational act in their life that that invalidates all of the conclusions that they ever made? Talk of the poisoning the well fallacy. Arguments stand on their own or not at all. If Joseph Stalin told me 2+2 = 4 he would be no less right because he murdered 4 million Ukrainians. In fact tho I have said this before it may come as a surprise to you Nide to learn that I do not always agree with Ayn Rand. In fact I very much disagree with her on matters of ethics and especially politics. I am convinced of the soundness of the primary argument for existence because of the argument its self, I honestly could care less who said it first or from whom I learned it. It is the reasoning itself that is important.

November 19, 2011 10:31 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

Ok that did not take long. All I see Bahnsen doing is the same thing you are doing. Asserting over and over again, ad nauseum that god is a precondition for logic, morality, etc, but providing no actual argument for this. Now earlier I have claimed that existence is the actual precondition for logic and laid out an argument for this. My argument was not that existence exists for that would be circular reasoning, Id have to have existence already as a premise. No, my argument was that existence was an unavoidable precondition to logic. Bahnsen should have been able to do the same, however that would be his second argument, first he would have to argue that god exists in the first place before it could be used as a premise in his second. This is a heavy burden indeed. Compare that to me, all I have to do is say look around buddy:) There is existence and then proceed to showing it is a precondition to logic.

November 19, 2011 10:49 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Hey Justin,

I am not objecting to existence.

But to Rand's arbitry claim that existence has always been?

Or the eternality of existence?

Where is the "evidence"?

Is it valid to draw a conclusion from something you have never experienced?


My favorite one is, and one which we have talked about in the past,
Is the after life why should I believe that nothing happens after we die?

Where is the argument?

November 19, 2011 12:22 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

Nide said.... “I am not objecting to existence.But to Rand's arbitry claim that existence has always been? Or the eternality of existence? Where is the "evidence"?”

Well first off I do not necessarily hold to the view that existence has always existed (in the sense of infinite temporal regress) as Rand does. After some careful thought on the matter I realized it does not matter either way. Either way there is no need for god to explain anything

First possibility, Rand is right and existence has always existed (infinite temporal regress). The evidence for this would be that anything you propose to have created existence would also its self have to exist, thus all you have done is move the goal post further back. It amounts to the impossibility of the contrary. Think of it as Occum's razor. If you claim the universe had to have a beginning therefor god and then say god has always existed this is a case of special pleading and the introduction of an unnecessary element to the discussion, if you allow for the possibility that something can always have been, why not existence?
On the other hand there is a second possibility. Rand is wrong. There is not an infinite temporal regress in our past. The big bang is the beginning of existence. However even this sentence has problems as well see. If the big bang is a sense can be thought of as the beginning then there literally is nothing before it in time, no existence. This raises a problem for how we word this. Time is a property of existence it is not something existence is within. Time is a measurement of change effecting something. Thus time presupposes existence. No existence, no time. What is the consequence of this? It is meaningless to ask what happened before the big bang. It is akin to asking what is 5 miles north of the north pole. There is nothing to have created the big bang and the big bang cant be said to be an event as such. In fact quantum physics tells us that 10 -43 seconds is the shortest meaningful unit of time and nothing less and any real identity. Thus prior to 10 -43 seconds after the big bang neither prior or after would have any meaning. Our language fails us when dealing with the big bang.

What does all of this boil down to. Either existence has an infinite regress in the past or it does not, but either way there is no room for or need for god. In the first case existence has always been so there is no prior to existence. In the other existence has a finite regress but sense time is a property of existence it is still meaningful to say existence has always existed. For any give moment in time there was existence, only that like its expanse in space its expanse in time is finite. Please remember that treating nothing as if it was something is the logical fallacy, Reification of the Zero which is just a sub species of stolen concept fallacy. This is the fallacy at the heart of the question why is there something instead of nothing. No matter how you cut it, you will always have to start with existence.

November 19, 2011 1:09 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide said..... “Is it valid to draw a conclusion from something you have never experienced?”

context..... sometimes yes, sometimes no.



Nide said.... “My favorite one is, and one which we have talked about in the past,
Is the after life why should I believe that nothing happens after we die?

Where is the argument?”
right here

The science of neurology has shown that consciousness is a property of the brain. Changes to the brain have profound effects on consciousness. See stroke victims for example or neurological development of children. All the evidence we have about consciousness supports the idea that it is a process of the brain. Now if the brain stops functioning, its processes stop to, that means consciousness. Consciousness bears the same relationship to the brain as driving does the car. Destroy the car you ain't driven.....

November 19, 2011 1:10 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

It turns out that our sense of falling comes from our inner ear, so I suspect that someone blind even from birth would have some idea they were in trouble if they were falling.

November 19, 2011 1:11 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 19, 2011 1:12 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 19, 2011 1:13 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

correction

Consciousness bears the same relationship to the brain as driving does "to" the car. Destroy the car you ain't driven.....

November 19, 2011 1:13 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 19, 2011 1:20 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Ok, I think we have to break this down to two different interlocking arguments



fist argument

1. Logic is the non contradictory identification of existence. In order to be able to non contradictory identify there must be an existence with identity and our relationship to it must be objective. That is no consciousness by thought alone could change or alter the identity of existence.

2. There is an existence with identity directly available to us thru sense perception. It is perceptually self evident thus does not require proof to be accepted.

3. Consciousness is consciousness of something, that is, it is identification, not creation. we can not force or make things external to our minds change by simply thinking about them. No other form of consciousness that we known to exist has this ability.

Conclusion. Given that there is an existence with identity and our relationship to it is objective it follows that logic is possible.

Second argument

1.There are two forms the relationship between consciousness and the objects external of consciousness can take. Metaphysical objectivism or metaphysical subjectivism. The two forms are mutually exhaustive and mutually exclusive.

2.If the relationship is subjective then there is no objective reality and argument number one fails. Its conclusion is invalid. Logic would not be possible, nor would this one be for that matter, all rational thought would be impossible, existence would be incoherent and unintelligible.

3.Christianity is premised on metaphysical subjectivism, evidenced by the powers god has over his alleged creation.

Conclusion. Christianity is incompatible with logic. If one holds to the Christian paradigm one is implicitly assuming the universe is an incoherent unintelligible mess in which logic is impossible.

Dawson covered this pretty well with the cartoon universe post.

November 19, 2011 1:20 PM

November 19, 2011 1:21 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Said: "context..... sometimes yes, sometimes no.

ok how about some examples.


Can you provide a source or sources to back up your argument about consciousness?


By the way an infinite regress is a contradiction.


You said: "if you allow for the possibility that something can always have been, why not existence?


Ok, and why not God?

November 19, 2011 1:50 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Hey, I just read your argument. Interesting. I'd like to study it some more, but one thing that hit me in the Conclusion of your 2nd argument, that maybe you could add in is (and I know you addressed this earlier in premise 2 of this same argument): If the Christian paradigm were, in fact true (whatever that could possibly mean under such circumstances), nothing would be intelligible and we would have no understanding of anything at all, including the very concepts I'm using right now, not to mention those used to construct your argument as well as any others. Such a paradigm would be on par with a nightmare that could not even be identified as such.

Does that follow?

Ydemoc

November 19, 2011 2:47 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Hey Ydemoc on what basis do you, since I can't remember, assume tomorrow will be like yesterday?"

I could get nitpicky and ask you in what sense do you mean "will be like?" But I won't; I'll be charitable and assume that your question is of the oft trotted-out variety, seen typically in apologetic circles, and posed to non-believers as if it is some kind of hurdle to overcome.

Yes. I've answered this before from you (or something similar) and I believe I responded: On an Objective basis, silly -- though in our previous exchange, I'm not sure I used the word "silly." Let me also add that I don't "assume"; I know.

Generally, though, I don't really worry about assuming that tomorrow will be like yesterday. But I don't see how you can do the same. I don't see how you can avoid assuming and worrying about it, given all the allegedly non-imaginary beings that you believe in -- god, satan, demons, possessed humans -- all with the power to revise nature at will.

That my worldview rejects such beings, as well as the possibility (and actually finds such notions incoherent, ultimately arbitrary) of such benevolent or nefarious interferences in nature, is by itself basis enough to not worry about yesterday being like tomorrow in the sense that I think you mean it.

In addition to the above being a sufficient basis to know that tomorrow will be like yesterday in the sense that I understand you to mean it, I also have the axioms, and their corollaries, including causality, which is the law of identity applied to action; not to mention a consciousness capable of conceptual awareness. As Rand writes: "Conceptual awareness is the only type of awareness capable of integrating past, present and future. Sensations are merely an awareness of the present and cannot be retained beyond the immediate moment; percepts are retained and, through automatic memory, provide a certain rudimentary link to the past, but cannot project the future. It is only conceptual awareness that can grasp and hold the total of its experience—extrospectively, the continuity of existence; introspectively, the continuity of consciousness—and thus enable its possessor to project his course long-range."
(Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 57)

For example, I know that yesterday no donkey carried on an intelligible conversation with anyone. I also know that I won't wake up tomorrow morning with a donkey peering in through my window and asking me what I'd like for breakfast.

However, according to what you believe, you cannot say the same. According to what you believe, that happened (along with many other crazy things) and it could happen again (along with many other crazy things). So you might want to pose the question to yourself instead of to those of us whose worldview is grounded in objectivity. And when you answer your own question, try to be honest with yourself when giving your answer (as hard as that may be, given all the programming and indoctrination you've had).

For more on this topic, please read Dawson's writings. I gave you a list of his whole archive in a previous thread. Read up. Take advantage of your opportunity while there's still time to save your mind.

Ydemoc

November 19, 2011 4:18 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

"Conclusion. Christianity is incompatible with logic. If one holds to the Christian paradigm one is implicitly assuming the universe is an incoherent unintelligible mess in which logic is impossible."


Ok, your going to have to argue for this. Remember logic is discovered not invented.


Do physical objects have a conscious and reason?

If yes how do you know this?

If no then it's a random and chance world and atheism destroy's all rationality and makes logic impossible.


God can't lie. In other word's he can't do anything that is contradictory.



1. Nature does not have a concious and the ability to reason.

2. Nature needs someone or something to control it.

3. Humans can't control nature.

4. Only something more powerful than nature can control it. And it is necessary that the thing controlling it have a conscious and reason.

5. Nature behaves in a controled manner.

6. Because there is a thing(God) with a concious and reason controling it.

7. Therefore the uniformity of nature "proves" God.


P.S. Justin when you are asleep what are you conscious of?

November 19, 2011 4:24 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

"For example, I know that yesterday no donkey carried on an intelligible conversation with anyone. I also know that I won't wake up tomorrow morning with a donkey peering in through my window and asking me what I'd like for breakfast."


Ok, since your making a claim of fact. The burden is on you. Where is the evidence or proof that balaams donkey won't pay you a visit tomorrow?


Remember Rand smoked herself to death. She failed to practice what she preached. I would not take her seriously if I were you. Only an irrational and crazy person would.



So, you are claiming some kind of omniscience. The burden is on you.

November 19, 2011 4:32 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

"law of identity applied to action;"


This is another arbitrary claim.


Where is the evidence or the proof?

or at least an argument?

November 19, 2011 4:34 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

I am growing weary of your shotgun blast technique here, it takes only a few seconds to ask a question, it takes at least several minutes to craft a reply and in some cases a few hours of research. As a result I am only going to focus on few of the things you said

Nide said......"

Ok, your going to have to argue for this. Remember logic is discovered not invented."

I did argue for it. There were two arguments with 3 premises each. As for logic being discovered and not invented, I don't recall agreeing to this at any prior point in our discussion.

Then there is your argument

Your first premise, Nature does not have a concious and the ability to reason.

If by nature you mean existence, then there is at least some parts that do. Namely human beings so premise one fails a comparison with reality.

Your second premise.Nature needs someone or something to control it.

Ok, this will have to be argued for. I can see no reason to accept this.

Your third premise. Humans can't control nature.

If you mean by mere thought alone, correct. however by applying logic and using means we can to a limited degree effect and thus control nature. As Rand said before nature can be controlled it must first be obeyed. So I don't have a problem with this premise as long as your meaning is main clear.

Your forth premise. Only something more powerful than nature can control it. And it is necessary that the thing controlling it have a conscious and reason.

This seems arbitrary to me, this fails for much the same reason as premise two. You are going to have to argue for this.

Your fifth premise.Nature behaves in a controled manner.

Again this is unsupported, what reason is their to accept this. What I see is nature being what it is. In a later post you said law of identity applied to action is an arbitrary claim. Identity however is axiomatic so your objection is a stolen concept fallacy and the concept identity is a precondition for proof in any case.



6th premise. Because there is a thing(God) with a concious and reason controling it.

Well here is a whopper. Talk about circular reasoning. Isn't god exists your conclusion, yet here it is a premise for all to see.

7. Therefore the uniformity of nature "proves" God.

Nope, you have one case of circular reasoning, see premise 6 and several contested earlier premises. Try again.

November 19, 2011 5:22 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

concerning your 5th premise

Things have identity and thus act in accordance with theirs. You seem to be saying that no, this is not the case, something has to be consciously forcing them to. Something that cant be see or interacted with. So on one hand we have things may just be what they are and on the other hand we have unseen forces making them so. Ever heard of occum's razor? I am going to not multiply entities beyond need. There is no need to assume things need a being to keep them the way they are by intent, this is an unnecessary entity. They are what they are A is A, simple as that.

November 19, 2011 5:31 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

I only really have one question for you that I am truly interested in right now.

Why should I take a metaphysically subjective position seriously?

If you want me to believe in god, you are going to have to tackle this. Remember I don't care if you believe in god. I answer your questions out of the enjoyment I get from it. In the end you have to make your case.

November 19, 2011 5:36 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

Perhaps I am being uncharitable with my accusation of circular reasoning. Might I make a suggestion, break it into to separate arguments that way you avoid this. One argument proves god, that conclusion is plugged into a second argument that proves he is a precondition for logic. In fact this is what I said Bahnsen would have to do. However given Christianity's metaphysical subjectism I don't see how you could craft the first argument.

November 19, 2011 5:41 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@everyone

Nide stated that god does not lie. I wonder just how would we verify this?

November 19, 2011 5:48 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote: "Nide stated that god does not lie. I wonder just how would we verify this?"

I propose we verify it the same way we verify all things supernatural: with our imaginations.

Ydemoc

November 19, 2011 5:57 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

I came up with a little quip that I wonder if you think covers succintly the non-existence of supernatural beings, including the god Trinity supposedly believes in and follows. This pithy comment is:

The non-existence of a god is as plain as the nose on my face.

Ydemoc

November 19, 2011 6:00 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

I actually am not arguing that god does not exist, but that god belief is illogical. There may actually be super natural beings out there that we can not interact with in any manor but are real none the less. Even so claims that they do exist would be unjustified and they could not be separated out from other arbitrary claims.

Try this one out, I need god belief like a fish needs a bicycle.

November 19, 2011 6:19 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

You believe in God. I'm am simply trying to wake you up from your sleep.


Did you see my argument?

If I came to you with an extremely complicated program and you asked me "why does the program work" and I say "well that's just the nature of the program" I'm really not helping you or saying much.


"A thing is what is"

ok why this doesn't say anything to me?


See the conflict here?


Uncontrolled things act disorderly.


You asked "Why should I take a metaphysically subjective position seriously?"

The problem is you implicitly rely on that "metaphysically subjective position" for everything you do.


Question:

If death is natural why are so many people afraid of it?


You asked how do we verify God's truthfulness. Well, we have his word(which I know you don't accept).


The thing is I remember you saying youre not worried about certainty or absolute truth. So, you don't have a basis for even asking this question.



P.S. Took a peak at the Kalam Argument you mighht as well insert a magic elf in there.

November 19, 2011 6:21 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 19, 2011 8:07 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide said.... “You believe in God. I'm am simply trying to wake you up from your sleep.”

No actually I don't, never have. For all of my 40 years I have been an atheist. The only change occurred at age 8 when I changed from an implicit atheist to an explicit atheist.


Nide said “Did you see my argument?”

Yes and I interacted with it step by step.

Nide said... “If I came to you with an extremely complicated program and you asked me "why does the program work" and I say "well that's just the nature of the program" I'm really not helping you or saying much.”

When I say A is A , a thing acts in accordance with its identity, well of course that says nothing about the actual identity in each and every case, it is a generalized blanket statement. A given program works the way it does because of how it is written and how those particular instructions are interpreted by the CPU. What is not required is that someone be consciousnessly focusing on the program during execution. It will work the way it does because of how I wrote it.



Nide said "A thing is what is. ok why this doesn't say anything to me?”

It doesn't? A car is not a car? A house is not a house? If you want detailed knowledge then ask about a particular existant. Again this is a blanket statement pertaining to the fact that it is an unnecessary entity to conjecture that a super consciousness is required to keep the ford torus outside my window a ford torus.



Nide said.... “Uncontrolled things act disorderly.”

Some do, turbulence is a good example of chaos theory. But that very theory also tells us that ordered systems can emerge from chaotic ones. Thermal convection is a good example. Perfect hexagonal patterns can arise in certain cooling liquids, I have observed this myself in mezo soup at a Japanese restaurant. The same thing happens in the upper portions of the sun. This is identity applied to action or identity expressed over time. It is in the nature of certain liquids and gases for that matter to form such patterns and the why they do has to do with how the particles interact with each other. Again no one is needed to force them to do this, it is what they are, no over sight required. It is not magic. If you want a more detailed understanding I suggest you read up on the science of fluid dynamics. Believe me god did it, is not an answer that advances our knowledge.


Nide said... “You asked "Why should I take a metaphysically subjective position seriously?" The problem is you implicitly rely on that "metaphysically subjective position" for everything you do.”

This statement makes me doubt after all this time that you even know what metaphysical subjectivism even means. I am not basing my world view on the premise that any consciousness can by mere thought alone create existence or alter its identity, so no I am not relying on a metaphysically subjective position. Remember, as far as I am concerned god is an unnecessary entity, it is not needed to explain anything. If you want to understand some part of existence you identity it by means of logic. If the universe was metaphysically subjective I would not be able to do this.

continued

November 19, 2011 8:07 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide said... “Question: If death is natural why are so many people afraid of it?”

Feelings are not a guide to knowledge, they are a response to knowledge when compared against our values. Most people value their lives and thus do not want to die. So what. I don't want to get killed in a sunami, but one down in India killed thousands. Nide the relationship between the subject of consciousness and its external objects is objective. Wishing does not make it so, this is the fundamental difference between us.


Nide said.... “You asked how do we verify God's truthfulness. Well, we have his word(which I know you don't accept).”

Prior to being accepted into the US Navy's AEGIS weapons program I was asked if I would betray the United States of America. I told them no. Funny thing, the FBI still did a 6 month long background check on me. They didn't take my word at it, imagine that! But wait what if I controlled reality and could make all those people they interviewed say what I wanted them to say? And if anyone asked would I lie, well of course not buddy. And here is the real kicker if anyone caught me in a lie I could just change the facts of existence so that I was now telling the truth. I could even erase from that person's memory that it had ever been otherwise, and of course I would not tell a lie, trust me:). Good luck trying to prove otherwise. If it cant even in principle be falsified it ain't knowledge.


Nide said.... “The thing is I remember you saying youre not worried about certainty or absolute truth. So, you don't have a basis for even asking this question.”

I said nothing of the sort. What I said was knowledge is contextual. What we know has to be justified thru the use of logic and we can make mistakes in this process. We can come to incorrect conclusions based upon limited or faulty information. So we have to be prepared to revise what our conclusions are based upon new evidence. The way we get and correct our knowledge is by comparing it to the objective reality. If reality were subjective to god or anyone else for that matter, we would not be able to do this. We would have no valid knowledge.


Nide said..... “P.S. Took a peak at the Kalam Argument you might as well insert a magic elf in there.”:

I am well aware of the Kalam argument. I know that even in it's revised from as espoused by Williams Craig Lee that it still fails because of stolen concept fallacies.

November 19, 2011 8:08 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

You should put some music to your nonsense -- you might make millions!

"Well, John the Baptist after torturing a thief
Looks up at his hero the Commander-in-Chief
Saying, "Tell me great hero, but please make it brief
Is there a hole for me to get sick in?"

The Commander-in-Chief answers him while chasing a fly
Saying, "Death to all those who would whimper and cry"
And dropping a bar bell he points to the sky
Saying, "The sun's not yellow it's chicken" - Bob Dylan - "Tombstone Blues"

Ydemoc

November 19, 2011 8:11 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

... and by the way, I'm a fan of Bob Dylan's.

Ydemoc

November 19, 2011 8:12 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

god says everyone is a sinner.In the old testament they had some harsh punishments for even minor infractions, like wearing mixed fibers!

So bob dylan saying everyone must get stoned takes on a whole new meaning!!

November 19, 2011 8:15 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

So given that I believe things act in accordance with their nature and that this is not something forced upon them by an conscious act of will, my question stands, why should I take a metaphysically subjective position seriously.

November 19, 2011 8:18 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote: "So bob dylan saying everyone must get stoned takes on a whole new meaning!!"

And here's something else to consider: The song is entitled "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35" and, if if I'm not mistaken, Bob's mother's maiden name was "Stone."

Hmmm. Might this be how myths and legends get started?

Ydemoc

November 19, 2011 8:21 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 19, 2011 8:23 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Water is formed by two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The reason being oxygen has 6 outer elections and to reach stability it requires 8. Hydrogen atoms have one election each so two of them will fill up the outer ring thus forming a stable molecule. This is why water does not have one hydrogen atom or 3 or 4, always two. But no, this is not why, according to Nide, it is because god wills it so, continuously even. Whatever......

I suspect it is because Nide can not deal with the universe being the vast complex and utterly indifferent thing that just is. Well I file that under not my problem.

November 19, 2011 8:24 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

I am getting tried of this. I would like to continue our discussion but I am going to scale back the time I devote to interacting with Nide. I have nothing to prove here and little to gain. I am going to consider the changes you proposed to my two arguments and get back to you tomarrow on this. In the mean time enjoy your weekend

November 19, 2011 8:30 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote: "I am getting tried of this. I would like to continue our discussion but I am going to scale back the time I devote to interacting with Nide."

I don't blame you. I have been quite selective in responding to Trinity lately, myself. Have a good weekend, too. Talk to you later.

Ydemoc

November 19, 2011 8:39 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

is matter orderly?

How about rationality did it come irrationality?


So, Here's the conflict you say if reality is subject to God we couln't know anything.

Well, I have said this plenty of times God can't make lies true. So, no he can't alter reality.


1.An infinite regress is a contradiction.

2. Something can't come from nothing.

3. The Existence that atheist want to start with is arbitraty, "mindless" and irrational.

4. Logic assumes rationality

5. Only something rational and conscious can be a starting point.

6. Since the world we live in is logical we also know it is
rational.

7. Therefore, we KNOW our starting point must be God.

November 19, 2011 8:51 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ydemoc,

I am actually happy that you been keep your nose out of the convo.

You really don't have anything to contribute anyway.

Your a clown nothing less and a lot more.

November 19, 2011 8:59 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

In a somewhat belated response to one of your earlier comments to me, I add this quote from Dawson in support of my original reply to you:

"Consider the underlying constants which must be in place for the concept "tomorrow" to have the meaning you assume it has. You will find your answer here, if you're careful to integrate properly. It's right there under your nose, but you still don't see it."

Dawson continues: "Nothing I’ve stated suggests that nature can or will change. Nature will continue to be what it is, because it exists. Again, to exist is to have a nature; if A exists, it must be A. Even if a celestial object – a comet or asteroid for example – were to disrupt the relationship between the earth and the sun, causality still rules the day. Nature has not changed. In fact, it’s what nature does. Change is simply the identity of the result(s) of a specific action or set of actions; it is what causality produces.

But if you think I’m wrong, either about the sun coming up on Friday or about nature changing, please produce your counter-evidence.

In the meantime, it is Friday morning here in Thailand, and the sun is already coming up. So again my method is vindicated.

What else do you want? What results of value has your “method” produced that mine cannot?"


Dawson wrote this in the comments section, back on August 04, 2011 at 4:35 PM. He wrote in response to questions posed to him -- by *you*. Yet here you are asking the same questions, even though you've been answered fully. Your devotion to mysticism has apparently disabled your ability to integrate.

To borrow a phrase, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

Ydemoc

November 20, 2011 12:24 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 20, 2011 1:06 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 20, 2011 1:07 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 20, 2011 1:07 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

November 20, 2011 1:17 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Here we go again! I must be a glutton for punishment. Hope you enjoy


Nide said..... “is matter orderly?”

I would say matter has identity. Sometimes such as in turbulence this is not orderly, other times such as in crystals it is very orderly/

Nide said... “How about rationality did it come irrationality?”

Not sure what you are asking here, I would say no.


Nide said.... “So, Here's the conflict you say if reality is subject to God we couln't know anything. Well, I have said this plenty of times God can't make lies true. So, no he can't alter reality.”

Oh really? Parting of the Red Sea, Noah's flood, stopping the Earth's rotation just to name a few.


Nide said.... “1.An infinite regress is a contradiction.”

Yes, Williams Lane Craig took this exact same approach with the Kalam argument. However you are wrong here. The objection is as follows. If we have infinite regress it would take forever to count up to the present, yet here we are at the present so we cant have infinite regress. This counter to this is that if we have an infinite regress there is no starting point to count up from. No matter how far into the past you go there is still an infinite past behind any point in time you choose. That is right, any point in time has an infinite past. Any fraction of infinite on the other hand is a finite number. On such a infinite time line all you can do is measure the time distance between any two arbitrary points and that distance will always be finite. Of course as I have said before my world view does not hinge on the universe having an infinite past, it is compatible with it or without it. Oddly however you seem to have over looked that fact that if it is a valid contradiction it would equally apply to your notion of an internally existing god.


continued

November 20, 2011 1:28 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide said...... “2. Something can't come from nothing.”

Hey something we agree on! First thing if this statement is true it rules out ex nihilo creation as that is surely something from nothing, so this is a real problem for Christianity to deal with if they are going to maintain this stance. However I do understand your intent here, so allow me to expand on this. You are thinking that I am claiming the big bang came from nothing. This is not the case. “Come from” is an action and the concept action presupposes the concept time which in turn presupposes the concept existence. So in order for the big bang to have come from anything or nothing for that matter their would have to have been time prior to the big bang. If this is the case then we have the possibility of infinite regress or have at least pushed back further into the past the bounds of existence. The interesting alternative however is that there is no prior to the big bang, no existence. In this case no, the big bang is not something from nothing. Something has always existed. The concept always presupposes time as well. The consequence of my realizing this is that regardless of whether the past is infinite or not, existence has always existed. I do realize this is a difficult concept to grasp. That the universe can be finite bounded yet self contained. Think of the earth, it is sphere with a finite surface area yet no edge you can come to. The universe according special and general relativity is a 4 dimensional hyper sphere, 3 spacial dimensions curved thru time. Earlier I said asking what came before the big bang was like asking what is five miles north of the north pole, it is an apt analogy. The big bang is like a pole on the 4 dimensional hyper sphere with the latitude lines representing increasing time sense the big bang and longitude lines representing space, which gets further part the farther you are from the north pole (big bang) as the universe expand. The expansion actually stretches out space making more of it. The closer you get to the pole (big bang) the more crowded space becomes and the less “past time” there is between you and the big bang. At the pole all space is the same space and time not so much stops as no longer is meaningful. Is it meaningful to ask which way is north if you are standing on the north pole? If you do not understand this I sympathize, it took me a while as well. We understand things in terms of allegories to things we can touch, see, interact with. Science in the 20th century has brought us into contact with ideas that we simply cant relate to anything we have in our ordinary lives. Quantum mechanics is one such example, the idea of a first moment in time for which there is no prior moment is another such idea. So in summation, let me be clear, I am not advocating something from nothing. Regardless of weather the past is infinite or not, there is no place for god.

November 20, 2011 1:29 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide said.... “3. The Existence that atheist want to start with is arbitraty, "mindless" and irrational.”

Concepts such as arbitrary, mindless and irrational do not really apply here when existence is taken as a whole. Existence just is. It is not here for any purpose or plan thus it cant be said to be arbitrary or otherwise. Most of it is mindless come to think of it, but of all the uncountable existants that make up all of existence there are 7 billion that are not mindless. Some of them are irrational some of the time so I guess in some sense yes at least parts of existence at times are irrational.

Nide said.... “4. Logic assumes rationality “

Actually you got that the wrong way round. Rationality is using logic in your reasoning.

Nide said..... “Only something rational and conscious can be a starting point.”
why?

Nide said.... “6. Since the world we live in is logical we also know it is
rational.”
World, universe, existence, whatever you wish to call it is neither logical nor illogical, it just unconditionally is. We use logic to understand it, to provide a conceptual framework for understanding and building knowledge. Logic is a method of the mind, nothing more than that.

7. Therefore, we KNOW our starting point must be God.
Well you may think you know this, how did you thru logic justify it? How do you escape the paradox of metaphysical subjective?

November 20, 2011 1:30 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

An additional point to make following up my earlier post on the big bang. Many people have a misconception of the big bang, they think of it as an explosion that took place within space and time. This is incorrect, it is more accurate to think of it as an explosion of space and time. It is not expanding into anything. The expansion is what is creating more space and time.

November 20, 2011 4:10 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

An additional point to make following up my earlier post on the big bang. Many people have a misconception of the big bang, they think of it as an explosion that took place within space and time. This is incorrect, it is more accurate to think of it as an explosion of space and time. It is not expanding into anything. The expansion is what is creating more space and time.

November 20, 2011 4:22 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Said: Oh really? Parting of the Red Sea, Noah's flood, stopping the Earth's rotation just to name a few.


Well, the sea, floods, earth's rotation etc.

They don't have a mind of their own. If you disagree the burden is on you.


You said: "Oddly however you seem to have over looked that fact that if it is a valid contradiction it would equally apply to your notion of an internally existing god."


Not really. God has always been. He is the "starting" point. Even though he doesn't have a "start". It's a mystery.


You said: "Regardless of weather the past is infinite or not, there is no place for god."


This is just as arbitary as, you say, making God the starting point is.


You said: "Existence just is."


Ok, God just is.


You said: "Actually you got that the wrong way round. Rationality is using logic in your reasoning."


If you are being logical you are being rational and if you are being rational you are being. I think we can interchange them.



You said: "Nide said..... “Only something rational and conscious can be a starting point.”
why?"


Because stars don't pop out of nowhere.

Something can't come from nothing.

Creation is inevitable.

Unless, you can show otherwise. By the way do stars
have a conscious can they reason?



You asked: "Well you may think you know this, how did you thru logic justify it? How do you escape the paradox of metaphysical subjective?


Well, if you can show otherwise. Feel free

How about gravity is it conscious and can it reason?

November 20, 2011 6:18 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide said.... “They don't have a mind of their own. If you disagree the burden is on you.”

agreed the the Red Sea, the Earth's oceans and the rotation of the Earth do not have a mind of their own. I never said they did nor did I imply that they did. I wonder if you even comprehended my post at all?


Nide said.... “Not really. God has always been. He is the "starting" point. Even though he doesn't have a "start". It's a mystery.”

Nide you just cant stay away from those fallacies can you? Two found here. On one had this is a clear case of special pleading, you reserve infinite regress for your god but not the universe without any justification. This leads into the second fallacy, another example of A is A and not A in the same time and the same respect (going to make a macro to past that one in!). Thus you also have committed the fallacy of non sequiter.


Nide said... “This is just as arbitary as, you say, making God the starting point is.”

That statement was the conclusion to two prior lengthy paragraphs explaining in detail why this was the case. Do you choose to interact with them? Nope. I on the other hand went thru the last argument you posted point by point. Do you discuss my critique of W.L. Craigs objection to infinite regress, nope! Do you interact with my explanation of a finite bounded yet self contained universe? Nope!

Nide said.... “Ok, God just is.”

Ever hear of the principle of parsimony? I can see existence, I am interacting with it right now. Where is your god? Occum's razor “entities shall not be multiplied beyond necessity”.


Nide said..... “Because stars don't pop out of nowhere.”

This hardly answers my question. However your statement is correct. In fact the science of astronomy has much to say on how stars form from gas and dust clouds within galaxies, fascinating stuff, and of course the bible has nothing useful to contribute to the study of stars. We had to use the scientific method, logic applied to gaining knowledge to learn about how stars form.

Nide said..... “Something can't come from nothing.”

Like I said earlier, something we both can actually agree upon, amen!

Nide said..... “Creation is inevitable.”

If you mean creation ex nilhio, then your statement just prior to this one is most curious...

Nide said..... “By the way do stars
have a conscious can they reason?”

To the best of our knowledge the answer would be a no.

Nide said..... “Well, if you can show otherwise. Feel free”

What am I to argue your case for you now? lol. I raise objections to why I should accept your claim that god exists, namely the inherent metaphysical subjectivism of Christianity and you ask me to show how it could be otherwise? To date you have not argued that Christianity is not metaphysically subjective nor have you dealt with the dilemma that metaphysical subjective presents to the law of identity. Tho to be far to you I do realize that task is impossible.

Nide said...... “How about gravity is it conscious and can it reason?”

Questions like this make me wonder if you have the faintest clue as to what my paradigm entitles. Well to answer, to the best of my knowledge the answer is no.

November 20, 2011 6:59 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

correction

In answer to Nide's statement

“Well, if you can show otherwise. Feel free”"

What am I to argue your case for you now? lol. I raise objections as to why I should accept your claim that god exists, namely the inherent metaphysical subjectivism of Christianity and you ask me to show how it could be otherwise? To date you have not argued that Christianity is not metaphysically subjective nor have you dealt with the dilemma that metaphysical subjectivism presents to the law of identity. Tho to be fair to you I do realize that task is impossible.

November 20, 2011 7:04 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

I interacted with your WLC critique. My position stands an infinite regress is a contradiction. A self contained finite earth raises many questions. Like I said we must begin with something uncreated, rational and conscious.







Justin when I imagining stars forming out of dust and gases how is what I am imagining not imaginary?

Have you ever seen a star form or have scientist seen one form?

You keep telling about all this scientific data. Without even bothering to provide a source.


P.S. Existence is invisible. It's interesting because God is invisible.

November 20, 2011 7:53 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

Nide said.... I interacted with your WLC critique. My position stands an infinite regress is a contradiction. A self contained finite earth raises many questions. Like I said we must begin with something uncreated, rational and conscious.

I have gone back over your post and the only thing you said that was relevant to my WLC critique was this

“Not really. God has always been. He is the "starting" point. Even though he doesn't have a "start". It's a mystery.”

Unfortunately this sentence is unintelligible, it is a complete non sequitur without any semantic meaning. If there is anyone reading this forum that can make sense of this please enlighten us. As for staring with something uncreated, rational and conscious. Well existence by its very meaning as the sum total of everything would have to be taken a a whole uncreated. As for rational, that is a property of conscious beings and a consciousness in order to be conscious would have to first be conscious of something, or put another way conscious of existence apart from its self. So no, we cant start with a consciousness, rational or otherwise. We have to start with existence.

Nide said.... “Justin when I imagining stars forming out of dust and gases how is what I am imagining not imaginary?”

That is not the relevant question. The relevant question is does what you are imagining have a referent in reality. And in this case yes, there are stars, and we have examples of them in each stage of formation. Now if you were imagining a pink dragon id ask you for its referent:)

Nide said...... “Have you ever seen a star form or have scientist seen one form?”

I guess the process of extrapolation is foreign to you? We have examples of stars forming in each stage of the process. Geologists can measure the increase in mountains that are growing each year, the Himalayas for example grow about an inch a year. Or are you a logical positivist, if you cant actually see it, you don't believe in it. But wait you cant actually see god with your senses can you?





Nide said.... “You keep telling about all this scientific data. Without even bothering to provide a source.”

Really...... Really? I learned about how stars form from gas and dust in junior freaking high school back in 1984! and it was not new and controversial then. Are there things we still don't understand about how they form, sure. I said this before and I will say it again, omniscience is not a requirement for having validated and justifiable knowledge. Or put another way, incomplete knowledge is still knowledge.

Here go educate yourself if you have even one inquisitive bone in your body. You will find half a page of citations at the bottom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation


Nide said...... “P.S. Existence is invisible. It's interesting because God is invisible.”

Remember existence is not a particular thing, it is the sum total of everything. Many of those things are very visible. I am visible, Jupiter is visible, my pet lizard is visible. Somethings are not such as alpha radiation. in which case we must rely on other means of detection such as a Geiger counter.

November 20, 2011 8:48 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

I ask again, why should I take a metaphysically subjective paradigm seriously? Until I get a convincing coherent answer god belief is off the table as even a possibility for me.

November 20, 2011 8:49 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@NIde

the above question, either interact with it directly and attempt an answer or I will be very tempted to just ignore any further posts by you.

November 20, 2011 8:52 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

I asked about stars. Not the himalayas.

Seriously, what do mountains and stars have to do with each other.

Anyway. I think this topic has ran it's course.

By the way when your sleeping are you conscious of anything?

November 20, 2011 9:09 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

just for amusement I have attempted to craft a coherent argument that would encapsulates Nide's position as much as I can fathom it. And I think I can actually make a valid argument, it just fails the principle of parsimony, they all end up being arbitrary and thus fail the soundness test.

November 20, 2011 9:14 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

"By the way when your sleeping are you conscious of anything?"

Do you mean like dreaming or something to that effect?

November 20, 2011 9:16 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

I agree, I doubt very much either of us are going to convince each other of pretty much anything at this point, I suspect we have both dug our heels in as it were.However I would like to explore your question


"By the way when your sleeping are you conscious of anything?"

could you clarify this. I rarely ever remember my dreams tho I am told I actually have them. For me sleep is like a 6 to 7 hour interruption in my awareness of reality. I close my eyes and wham! its 6 to 7 hours later. So I don't really think that I am conscious in the conceptual awareness sense of the word during the time that I am asleep. Do you remember your dreams?

November 20, 2011 9:26 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

I remember most of my dreams. However, not every detail.

Buy I think I have a better question or road go down.

Honestly I think Rand's statement about conscious is arbitraty.

So, I wanna see what you think

At what stage of pregnancy do you think consciousness begins for the babe

And when it becomes conscious what is the babe conscious of?

November 20, 2011 10:16 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

Good morning, and no I didn't remember any dreams from last night:(. I will post this evening or maybe tomorrow in response to your inquiry. be well you stubborn and tenacious fundie:)

November 21, 2011 5:39 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Great Justin, I'll be waiting.

By the way BB has a new post.

Ydemoc has already decided to waste time on it.

November 21, 2011 10:14 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home