Sunday, January 01, 2012

Are the Laws of Logic "Thoughts" of the Christian God?

Hello my readers.

Happy 2555 to all!

Yes, here in Thailand, it’s not 2012. Thailand goes by a version of the Buddhist calendar, and it’s already the year 2555 here. Perhaps you could think of me as writing to you from the future.

As I predicted in earlier messages to you on my blog, I’ve been busier than Wall Street on a bull rally since getting back to Bangkok late November. The flood waters are for the most part gone, and life for most people is back to normal. But there’s a sense of urgency to make up for lost time, both in the private sector and also in public works. Schools are even going six days a week here, which means my daughter, who’s only in kindergarten, has a brutal schedule to keep.
Unfortunately, that means I haven’t been able to keep up with my blog. I see that Nide is still going at it, and that Justin Hall and Ydemoc are continuing to engage him. They’re all welcome to continue doing so. I’m sure it will all make for some interesting reading one day, supposing I get the time.
In the meanwhile, I’ve been feasting – really, nibbling and grazing, when opportunity arises – on a paper recently published by James Anderson and Greg Welty called The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God from Logic. In this paper, the authors set out to “argue for a substantive metaphysical relationship between the laws of logic and the existence of God” (p. 1). Specifically they aim to prove “that there are laws of logic because God exists,” that “there are laws of logic only because God exists” (Ibid.). Presumably this is the Christian god of the New Testament whose existence their argument will finally prove. They say of their own argument that it is “a fascinating and powerful but neglected argument for the existence of God.” Of course, this is not meant to be self-congratulatory, but rather a device intended to hook the reader’s interest so that he’ll continue on for the next twenty-plus pages of fun-filled reading. (I’m guessing that, for Sye Ten Bruggencate, 22 pages devoted to the development of a single argument does not constitute “argumentum ad verbosium,” since it’s intended to establish, once and for all, the existence of a deity.)
After an introduction, the paper is divided into the following sections which function essentially as steps to the paper’s desired conclusion, namely that a god exists:
1. The Laws of Logic are Truths
2. The Laws of Logic are Truths about Truths
3. The Laws of Logic are Necessary Truths
4. The Laws of Logic Really Exist
5. The Laws of Logic Necessarily Exist
6. The Laws of Logic are Non-Physical
7. The Laws of Logic are Thoughts
8. The Laws of Logic are Divine Thoughts
While there’s nothing that I saw in Anderson and Welty’s presentation which challenges my own exploration of the question of whether or not logic presupposes the Christian god, it is gratifying to see an argument from logic to the existence of a god so nicely and systematically laid out. Anderson and Welty have been hard at work in their effort to prove that their god exists.

While I have not had the time I need to develop a full response to every point which Anderson and Welty raise in their piece, I did have some initial general concerns when I peruse their work. Of course, I have many, many objections to much of what I have read in their paper, but a more penetrating analysis of their paper will have to wait till another time.

For now, I just wanted to note some of the following concerns of mine, hopefully to get the discussion moving in the right direction.

1. Necessary vs. Contingent: Throughout their paper, Anderson and Welty clearly take the necessary-contingent dichotomy for granted. This distinction (dichotomy) plays a central role in the build-up to their desired conclusion (I found 20 instances of the word ‘necessary’ and 16 instance of the word ‘contingent’, most of which are used in the context of the necessary-contingent dichotomy, throughout their paper). So granting the truth of the necessary-contingent appears to be vital to their conclusion. But if this dichotomy is rejected, how could one accept their paper’s conclusion as they have set out to draw it?

Objectivism rejects the necessary-contingent dichotomy, and for many good reasons. Leonard Peikoff, in his essay “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,” spells out those reasons, fundamentally arguing that the dichotomy and all its variants (including the necessary-contingent dichotomy) rest on a false theory of concepts. Given this fact, it is not surprising to find Christians making use of the necessary-contingent dichotomy in their theistic arguments, for Christianity itself (as I’ve pointed out numerous times before; see for instance here) has no native theory of concepts, and thus as a worldview cannot account for conceptual thought. This can only mean, with regard to the necessary-contingent dichotomy, that Christian thinkers are at a profound disadvantage when it comes to detecting the epistemological defects of this commonly accepted mechanism of analyzing knowledge.

What struck me specifically in Anderson and Welty’s paper is the fact that they seek to establish the laws of logic as “necessarily existent” on the one hand, and as “thoughts” on the other (see points 3 and 7 of their paper’s outline above). Assuming the necessary-contingent dichotomy which underwrites much of Anderson and Welty’s methodology, these two premises seem quite at odds with one another. Something that is “necessarily existent” is something that could not have failed to exist. Anderson and Welty make the first point explicitly when they say:
The Law of Non-Contradiction… could not have failed to exist—otherwise it could have failed to be true. (p. 19)
So the Law of Non-Contradiction must be something that is “necessarily existent.”

They proceed to argue that “If the laws of logic are necessarily existent thoughts, they can only be the thoughts of a necessarily existent mind” (Ibid.). Anderson and Welty argue, in their characteristic way, that the laws of logic are “necessarily existent” and also that they are also “thoughts,” but arguing that something is a “necessarily existent thought” seems to go beyond even the most generous charitableness. Thoughts cannot come into being unless a thinker thinks them, which means: thoughts are dependent on thinking. Also, thinking is volitional in nature: a thinker - especially a thinker that is a free agent, as the Christian god is supposed to be – must choose to think what it thinks. Given the fact that thinking is volitional in nature, any specific thought that a free thinking agent thinks cannot be “necessary” in the sense that it “could not have failed to exist,” for supposing this would deny volition to said thinker. It would render said thinker to a mere automaton, a robot performing actions that it “needs” to perform given some extraneous constraints which hold it in check.

The result is that Anderson and Welty’s argument, so far as I understand it, results in one of two very difficult binds: either the laws of logic are “necessarily existent thoughts” (in which case the thinker responsible for thinking them is not a free agent), or the deity which supposedly thinks the thoughts which we call “the laws of logic” is a free thinking agent (in which case its thoughts are volitional and consequently could have been different, which would mean that no thought it thinks could qualify as a “necessarily existent thought”). Neither alternative seems to jive well for Anderson and Welty’s Christian position (since Christianity affirms the existence of a deity which can do whatever it pleases – cf. Ps. 115:3). Perhaps Anderson and Welty have built some prophylactic into their argument which safeguards against such uncomfortable outcomes, but from what I can tell in my reading, none is necessarily existent.

2. “Intuitions”: Also throughout the paper, there are several vague references to “intuitions,” not only treating them as apparently unquestionable (maybe even infallible), but also suggesting a uniformity of intuitions among all thinkers which they nowhere establish. These “intuitions,” which are never specified, appear to have a certain significance for the overall goal of their paper. For instance, on page 1, Anderson and Welty write:
The bulk of the paper will be concerned with establishing what kind of things the laws of logic must be for our most natural intuitions about them to be correct and for them to play the role in our intellectual activities that we take them to play.
I’m taking the “our” here in “our most natural intuitions” as intended to refer to human beings in general – to all of us; if it referred only to Anderson and Welty, readers might find their exercise to be of little interest: why care if Anderson’s and Welty’s most natural intuitions about the laws of logic are correct? On the other hand, if “our most natural intuitions” means everyone’s “intuitions,” then anyone reading this paper has a stake in its outcome. This latter interpretation seems to be what our authors have in mind.

Of course, what is meant by “intuition” as Anderson and Welty understand it, is of great significance here. They do not offer a definition, but I’m guessing that’s because the notion is used as a matter of routine in the philosophical literature they prefer to read. Perhaps they are so accustomed to seeing the word used and granted casual legitimacy that it would seem silly to explain it. But even philosophers who invest the notion of intuition with philosophical validity are not monolithic in their view of what it is or how it operates. So if “our most natural intuitions” about logical principles have any bearing on the argument which Anderson and Welty are presenting, it might help readers like me to clarify their understanding on the matter.

I say this because I tend to be rather suspicious of the term ‘intuition’ to begin with. A standard dictionary definition of ‘intuition’ is “direct perception of truth,” which might strike most readers as rather innocuous. But I’m an Objectivist, and as such, I recognize that what human beings perceive are concrete objects, while truth is an aspect of identification, which is a function of conceptual cognition and thus post-perceptual. In other words, on the Objectivist view, we do not perceive truths; rather, we perceive objects (specifically, primary-type objects – objects of which our senses give us perceptual awareness), and subsequently identify those objects using a conceptual method resulting in identifications which may be true or not true. To the extent that this analysis of what “direct perception of truth” means is correct (and without further clarification of the notion which endows the notion with better chances for philosophical solvency, I’d say it is correct), I’d say that appeals to “intuitions” need to be reconsidered in light of rational philosophy.

But thinkers who invoke “intuitions” might not have this definition in mind. Some hold “intuition” to denote some kind of a priori knowledge – knowledge that is supposedly known without any firsthand experiential participation of the knower in the knowing process. This is essentially the view that one “just knows” something, in which case questions like “How do you know?” simply do not apply, since there’s really no epistemology to speak of in assessing (or accessing) such “knowledge.” I’m quite persuaded that there is no such thing as “a priori knowledge,” and tend to view appeals to “a priori knowledge” essentially as an admission on the part of the one making such appeals that he really doesn’t know how he knows what he claims to know. (Sort of like John Frame, such as when he announces: “We know without knowing how we know” - Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction (Part I).)

Still others hold that “intuition” refers to some kind of a posteriori knowledge, though don’t be surprised when explanations of how one supposedly goes about collecting this kind of knowledge wax murky. Defenders of this understanding of “intuition” may have in mind some automatized item of knowledge; for in fact, the human mind does automatize many epistemological processes (consider your knowledge of how to tie your own shoes, or how you know not to touch a hot stove with your bare hands). But it does not follow from the mere fact that one has automatized the path to some ideational content that he holds as knowledge, that what he holds as knowledge is therefore true, or that the process which he has automatized in arriving at such ideational content is rational. Rationality has not only to do with the logic of the process, but also the objectivity of the inputs which are integrated by that process. The process by which we automatize a certain item of knowledge, is not automatically rational.

But maybe I’m wrong on all this. Perhaps I’m just some dunderheaded Neanderthal who in his contemptible naïveté has the annoying habit of wincing when thinkers treat some unspecified mass of assumptions which they style “intuitions” as some kind of sacred bull that must be preserved and protected, as though their dismantling would mean the entire artifice of human thought will come crumbling down into a worthless heap.

Perhaps my detractors would find this view comforting. But I don’t think so.

3. Presuppositionalist Reaction: My attention was first brought to Anderson and Welty’s paper when I visited the blog Choosing Hats, where Chris Bolt had posted an entry about the paper. What I found most interesting here is a comment posted on the blog entry by Brian Knapp. In his comment, Knapp was responding to Mitch LeBlanc. LeBlanc had expressed pleasure with and enthusiasm for the paper in a previous comment. In his response to LeBlanc, Knapp announced that he “shall be the presupper who will criticize [Anderson and Welty’s] argument,” which I would like to read when it’s finally available.

In response to LeBlanc’s statement that Anderson and Welty’s paper is “a refreshing read,” Knapp commented:
I will say you find this refreshing because it doesn’t challenge your autonomy. Just because the argument is not transcendental in nature, there is no requirement for you (at least as far as the argument goes) to give up yourself as the standard of what is rational. That means you can evaluate the argument and toss it aside (or even accept it), and nothing will really change, as the argument doesn’t prove the Triune God of the Bible exists – even if the argument is sound.
I find this curious in part because the under-title to Anderson’s blog (where he posted a link to the paper) reads: “Faltering Attempts to Think God’s Thoughts After Him.” “Autonomy” in presup-speak is typically contrasted with “analogical thinking,” which John Frame defines as “Thinking in subjection to God’s revelation and therefore thinking God’s thoughts after him” (per his A Van Til Glossary). Presumably the “analogical thinker” is still actually thinking, but apparently he’s not allowed to think his own thoughts; or, rather, he is to make “God’s thoughts” his own by accessing them somehow and giving them primacy in his overall cognitive activity (without question, according to Bahnsen). And even though Anderson’s blog indicates that he’s doing his best to accomplish this, Knapp is essentially saying he’s failed to do so in the paper he’s put together with Welty. One wonders what Van Til would think of all this. But as Knapp indicates, hardcore V’illains will likely take abundant exception to the methodology employed by Anderson and Welty in their joint effort to prove the existence of their god. Knapp assures us that Anderson and Welty’s “argument doesn’t prove the Triune God of the Bible exists – even if the argument is sound.” Having some familiarity with Anderson’s background in apologetics, I’d think he’d have a lot to say in response to this. But this wouldn’t be the first time that we saw more believer vs. believer conflict erupt with the Choosing Hats crowd. A feud between Jamin Hubner (to whose book The Portable Presuppositionalist several of Choosing Hats’ “staff” have contributed writings) and Triablogue’s Steve Hays (see specifically here) and TurretinFan has been heating up in recent months.

Depending on what ‘autonomy’ specifically means (the notion of “yourself as the standard of what is rational” is more vague than helpful), I’d have to agree with Knapp’s point that Anderson and Welty’s paper offers nothing to challenge my “autonomy” (which I take to denote my ability and willingness to think for myself). But then again, nothing that Knapp or any member of the clan at Choosing Hats has written does either. Or, for that matter, any presuppositionalist paper that I’ve read or argument that I’ve examined. Perhaps Knapp would say that my “autonomy” has been challenged and I just don’t realize it. That would be the easy path to take.

While I am still examining Anderson and Welty’s paper, and surely there are many other things to say in response to it, I have to say already that I’m quite sure I won’t be persuaded by their argument. After all, the argument and its conclusion still leave us with no alternative but to imagine the god whose existence they are attempting to prove. While theists who delight in indulging in fantasies about “the supernatural” will no doubt have no problem with this, it signifies that the argument is a non-starter so far as rational philosophy is concerned. One can imagine all kinds of things in some realm “beyond” the one which actually exists. But at the end of the day the fact remains: what we imagine is merely imaginary.

Although my time in the ensuing months is going to be very constrained (to put it mildly), if I do get a chance, I would like to post some further reactions of mine to specific aspects of Anderson and Welty’s argument. I have many thoughts in response to every paragraph in the paper, but insufficient time to prepare them for my blog. So it will have to wait until some future date that I cannot specify now.

by Dawson Bethrick

Labels:

769 Comments:

Blogger Justin Hall said...

Dawson wrote

"It would render said thinker to a mere automaton, a robot performing actions that it “needs” to perform given some extraneous constraints which hold it in check."



this just sounds like pantheism again and that is just one short step away from atheism. They seem to be saying that the laws of logic are by virtue of god brute facts of existence. Well why not apply lex parsimoniae and take that last little step. After all, all we are currently left with as far as evidence is to imagine god so why not take the simpler approach, logic as a method is made possible by the brute facts (nature) of existence. Namely the objective metaphysical relationship we have with it.

January 01, 2012 9:43 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Dawson,

After reading your latest blog entry, all indications are that I was on the right track in my comments about the Anderson & Welty paper.

While reading your blog entry what came to mind -- given Anderson & Welty's premises and conclusion -- was a necessary resulting clash between the notion of man's "free will" and god's "necessary thoughts."

Perhaps I'll do a little research on this to see what comes up.

Anyway, another great read, and I look forward to your future blog entries on the topic.

Thanks!

Ydemoc

January 01, 2012 11:11 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

I realized that in my haste to post this morning I made a grammatical error. I ment to say

this just sounds like pantheism again and that is just one short step away from atheism. They seem to be saying that the laws of logic are valid by virtue of god being a brute fact of existence. Well why not apply lex parsimoniae and take that last little step. After all, all we are currently left with as far as evidence is to imagine god so why not take the simpler approach, logic as a method is made possible by the brute facts (nature) of existence. Namely the objective metaphysical relationship we have with it.

January 01, 2012 11:33 AM  
Blogger ActionJackson864 said...

"Happy 2555 to all!"

haha, NICE...I'm going to use that. : ]

As always thanks for the post...I still havent had time to fully read your last one. I like having something to look forward to reading though. : ]

Stay safe out there Dawson.

January 01, 2012 12:03 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Hey everyone,

Thanks for your comments.

I made a few edits to my post this morning, most of them pretty minor, but a couple were fairly important. (For instance, I completely revised the final statement in the paragraph having to do with automatizing knowledge processes.)

Other areas in Anderson & Welty's paper that need special attention include:

1. The question "what is a truth?" If you read section 1, page 3, you'll see that they raise this question, but nowhere (so far as I can tell) answer it. Immediately upon raising the question, they launch off into a discussion of "propositions" as "the primary bearers of truth-value." They say that "propositions are by definition those things that can be true or false, and by virtue of which other things can be true or false." This suggests that truth is something other than merely a proposition, since a proposition could be true or false. The authors admit that "this doesn’t shed much light on what truths or propositions are, metaphysically speaking, but at least it provides us with a useful term of art." So we're apparently supposed to be satisfied with what they call "a useful term of art," and continue to call the laws of logic "truths," even though we still are not told what a "truth" is. This seems to be quite a liability.

2. The notion that "propositions" are "the primary bearers of truth-value." The authors tell us that "propositions are regarded as primary truth-bearers because while sentences (i.e., linguistic tokens) can have truth-values by virtue of expressing propositions, propositions do not have truth-values by virtue of anything else." Really? How do they establish this? Perhaps they think it's self-evident, but it isn't to me. Rather, propositions are composed of concepts, and are thus not conceptually irreducible. Without concepts, how could one formulate or "know" any propositions in the first place? I would argue, then, that concepts are in fact the primary bearers of truth, and that truth is an aspect of identification. Since we identify objects by means of concepts, their objectivity is crucial in accurately identifying what we are identifying. If a faulty concept finds its way into a proposition, that proposition's truth-value is severely affected. So the truth of a proposition really does depend on the truth of our concepts as identificatory integrations. That's why it's so important to have a good theory of concepts guiding your worldview. Christianity does not have this. The authors go on to say "Propositions bear truth-values because it is their nature to do so, just as particles bear mass-values because it is their nature to do so." While this may be true, they need to establish it, not nearly affirm it, and they need to produce an analysis of propositional content which secures the point. It is at this point that a good theory of concepts proves indispensable. But where will a Christian find such a theory without borrowing from a non-Christian worldview? Blank out.

Anyway, there’s more to the story, but this is enough to show that the gears of their argument have no teeth.

Regards,
Dawson

January 01, 2012 5:12 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dawsooon you are back. Great.

By the way you ever get tired of posting the same junk?

Maybe you can help Ben account for counting apparently he has declined my challenge.

Thanks Buddy.

P.S. Remember what Van til said "“The Reformed apologist throws down the gauntlet and challenges his opponent to a duel-to-the-death.” (Defense of the Faith)." I am just keeping in with the program. Thanks

January 01, 2012 6:03 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide wrote: “Dawsooon you are back. Great.”

Of course it’s great. Everything I do is great.

Nide: “By the way you ever get tired of posting the same junk?”

What do you think?

Nide: “Maybe you can help Ben account for counting apparently he has declined my challenge.”

I have done so. Nide is referring to Ben Wallis who has posted a blog entry about Anderson and Welty’s paper. You can find it here: James Anderson and non-contradiction.

Nide wrote: “Thanks Buddy.”

You’re welcome.

Nide: “P.S. Remember what Van til said ‘The Reformed apologist throws down the gauntlet and challenges his opponent to a duel-to-the-death.’ (Defense of the Faith). I am just keeping in with the program. Thanks”

Yes, I suppose you are keeping with the program. Van Til handed you a revolver loaded with blanks and an irreparable firing mechanism, and you show up completely unarmed. So yes, you’re with the program. But why choose such a program in the first place? Blank out.

Meanwhile, I go on, living happily ever after. That really bugs you, doesn't it?

Regards,
Dawson

January 01, 2012 6:34 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Me and Dawson at it again. You gotta love it.

By the way how is it that you are not delusional?

January 01, 2012 6:45 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 01, 2012 7:47 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "P.S. Remember what Van til said "“The Reformed apologist throws down the gauntlet and challenges his opponent to a duel-to-the-death.” (Defense of the Faith)." I am just keeping in with the program. Thanks"

Trinity, once again, offers us nothing constructive nor even critical concerning Dawson's latest blog entry.

But he has no problem using concepts in the nonsense he does present us with, concepts which his worldview fails miserably to account for -- for instance, he and Sye stating that concepts are "automatic" or "innate," (the fog of faith has clearly forced their hand on these matters.)

Interestingly, one of the concepts Trinity uses in his non-substantive comment is "death." (It's noteworthy that a person of faith cites a quote with such violent imagery -- but is it really any surprise? I don't think so.)

Trinity's use of the concept "death" reminds me of his inability to coherently interact with my contention (both on his terms and mine) that there could be no concept "death" prior to The Fall.

For those unfamiliar with what I'm talking about, here is what I presented to Trinity:

I asked: "If humans are "'pre-programmed' to learn" concepts "thanks to the Good Lord above..." does this apply to the concept "death"? Should we all be thanking the "Good Lord above" for the concept "death"?

In other words, according to Christians, does the concept "death" ultimately find its origins in the "mind" of the Christian god? I guess this would have to be the case, right? For Genesis 2:17 reads: "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Do you see the concept "die"? That is the same as "death." Would you mind telling us what the referent(s) for this concept was prior to The Fall? Remember now, the concept "death" shouldn't even exist until after The Fall, right? since it was man who brought it into the world? Yet here we have your god using the concept before The Fall! Hmmmm."

Trinty and Christianity's failure to respond to this speaks not only to the inability to account for concepts, but also to the total disregard for the hierarchical nature of knowledge.

And so, this is just one more nail in a coffin filled with stolen concepts and frozen abstractions in the burial ground of metaphysical subjectivism, while Trinity continues to just whistle through the graveyard.

Ydemoc

January 01, 2012 7:55 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Yes or No?

January 01, 2012 8:02 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity writes: "Yes or No?"

You know my evidentiary standard. If you'd like to talk about the reasonableness of my standard, I'm open to discussing it, and maybe modifying it if you can show its unreasonableness. But you don't seem to want to do that.

Ydemoc

January 01, 2012 8:26 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I don't care about your standards it's a simple yes or no just remember your "little" Larry king "blunder" So, yes or no?

January 01, 2012 8:56 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "I don't care about your standards it's a simple yes or no just remember your "little" Larry king "blunder" So, yes or no?"

If you don't care enough about my standards to meet them, or you don't care enough to challenge the reasonableness of my standards, what basis do you have for thinking I would even entertain answering you?

Ydemoc

January 01, 2012 9:13 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Of course you can just ignore the Larry king part actually you are worse than a liar and fabricator. You are a careless moron who will use anything to try and "advance" your position or use anything that is anti-Christian no matter how bad it is. Anyway you have a good one. I'm gonna go see if I can wake up out of these dream.




Blessings.

January 01, 2012 9:34 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Of course you can just ignore the Larry king part..."

What "Larry King part" am I ignoring, and what relevance does it have to what we're discussing? A mistake in knowledge is not a lie; if that were the case we would start classifying contestants' wrong answers on game shows as lies.

Had I led or continued to lead people to believe that what I wrote was, indeed, a fact when in reality it wasn't a fact, (you know, kinda like the bible?), then I think my my comment about Larry King could have been justifiably labeled as a lie. But that's not at all what I did. In fact, as soon as I found out I was mistaken, I let you and everyone on this blog know about my mistake in knowledge.

Trinity wrote: "...actually you are worse than a liar and fabricator. You are a careless moron..."

How is a "careless moron" worse than a "liar and a fabricator"?

Trinity continued: "....who will use anything to try and "advance" your position..."

In one sense, you're right: Rationality is very useful in battling those who are irrational and propagate the arbitrary.

Trinity wrote: "...or use anything that is anti-Christian no matter how bad it is."

Reality is anti-Christian. It's not too bad.

Trinity wrote: "Anyway you have a good one."

I will. Thanks.

Trinity wrote: "I'm gonna go see if I can wake up out of these dream."

When you come back from fantasy land, let me know.

Ydemoc

January 01, 2012 11:33 PM  
Blogger Dylan said...

"Reality is anti-Christian."

For this reason, we have apologetics, giving us people whose job it is to make up excuses why Yahweh behaves exactly as if he doesn't exist.

January 02, 2012 6:18 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dylan you're not real.

January 02, 2012 7:32 AM  
Blogger Francois Tremblay said...

"Dylan you're not real."

How ironic to see a Christian, of all people, making themselves arbiters of what is real and what is not real. What an asswipe.

January 02, 2012 12:47 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Franky you're a robot.

January 02, 2012 1:03 PM  
Blogger Francois Tremblay said...

And you're a body snatcher!

January 02, 2012 1:12 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

A little tribute dawson:


http://hezekiahahaz.blogspot.com/search/label/Counting

January 04, 2012 12:42 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity's blog is brought to you by those who attempt to make the arbitrary true.

January 04, 2012 1:48 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

And here I thought it was brought to us by Downy: fabric soft every time.

Hey Nide, was one of your comments on another blog deleted by the administrator due to inflammatory content recently? That's the rumor. Just curious if it's true.

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2012 1:54 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dawson,

Why do you care?

January 04, 2012 1:57 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

For one thing, Nide, I care for you. Remember? I'm concerned that bloggers are deleting your comments. That's just sad. I mean, how could anyone think your comments are inflammatory?

Also, I care because you comment on my blog.

Anyway, is it true? Did a blog-owner delete a comment of yours due to inflammatory content?

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2012 2:00 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

What a sweetheart ask Ydemoc he knows it's all his fault.

January 04, 2012 2:10 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Nide, I'm asking you. Is it true? Did a comment of yours get deleted on another blog due to inflammatory content?

Why all this evasion on a matter of truth?

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2012 2:14 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "ask Ydemoc he knows it's all his fault."

This comment by Trinity is just another instance of him attempting to make the arbitrary true.

Ydemoc

January 04, 2012 2:16 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Check your emails Dawson its all there.

Ydemoc is a stalker

January 04, 2012 2:27 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Ydemoc is a stalker"

This false statement of Trinity's is yet another example of what we can expect from those who embrace a worldview that attempts to make the arbitrary true.

Ydemoc

January 04, 2012 2:36 PM  
Blogger Bahnsen Burner said...

Okay, so, Nide, it's on record now that you will not answer a direct question posed to you pertaining to your recent conduct on another blog.

Here's another question for you: Are you stalking me?

Regards,
Dawson

January 04, 2012 2:49 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

My stuff is always on record really like who cares.

Let's see Dawson do you feel stalked because I do by Ydemoc?

January 04, 2012 3:19 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Let's see Dawson do you feel stalked because I do by Ydemoc?"

I don't think Dawson mentioned anything about "feelings." He simply asked if you were stalking him.

As for you, that's a different matter. Your your use of "feel" clearly implies that the accusation of stalking you've leveled against me is related to "feelings."

Perhaps you are unaware of this, but your "feeling" stalked has no bearing on whether or not you actually *are* or *were* being stalked; just as you *feeling* as if the arbitrary is true, has no bearing on the arbitrary being true.

That being said, is the evidence (if any) that has led to your "feel[ing]" stalked by me more or less than the evidence you accept for the truth of Christianity?

Or is Christianity (like your belief or "feel[ing]" that I'm stalking you) nothing more than a futile, wish-driven attempt to make the arbitrary true?

Ydemoc

January 04, 2012 5:08 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Apparently Dawson has fled the scene.

January 04, 2012 5:20 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Hey Ydemoc one of your fellow "Atheist" is over on Alex's blog saying some really mean things about you. Bettet hurry and go defend your faith.

January 04, 2012 7:17 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 05, 2012 2:49 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Hey Ydemoc one of your fellow "Atheist" is over on Alex's blog saying some really mean things about you."

I've seen and addressed what Robby has written. Thanks for caring enough to tell me, though.

Trinity wrote: "Bettet hurry and go defend your faith."

Repeated mischaractarizations like what you've written here, serve to remind us all what happens to the minds of those who try to make the arbitrary true.

Ydemoc

January 05, 2012 2:51 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

To all:

Ydemoc is over on Alex's blog debating another "atheist" the things this guy gets into. It's hilarious

January 05, 2012 3:59 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Ydemoc is over on Alex's blog debating another "atheist" the things this guy gets into. It's hilarious"

That you would describe the exchange as a "debate," only serves to remind us the lengths you will go in trying to make the arbitrary (Christianity) true.

Ydemoc

January 05, 2012 9:11 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I was thinking maybe law school what say you ?

January 05, 2012 9:38 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 05, 2012 9:49 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

hey there, I have been following the discussion both here and at Alex B's blog and I have a question for you inspired by your last few posts concerning atheists debating.

What does a Marxist, a Raelian, a strict Buddhist, and an Objectivist all have in common? Additionally would a debate between any two of these surprise you?

January 05, 2012 9:51 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 05, 2012 9:59 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

In common? Fallacious reasoning.

No it wouldn't surprise me. It would make me laugh


By the way Jhall have you seen my new post just wanted your thoughts. Thanks

January 05, 2012 10:13 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "I was thinking maybe law school what say you ?"

What a refreshing reply! -- the likes of which I haven't experienced from you in a long while. Why, just last evening on Alex's blog you labeled me a "moron" for inadvertently reversing the words of a common presuppositional refrain. But perhaps your latest, slightly amusing and non-vitriolic comment bespeaks of a new-and-improved you. If not, well, you know I always enjoy responding to your comments, no matter their tone or content.

Anyway, earning a law degree sounds like a very worthy goal. And I would even encourage you to continue your education far beyond that. But I'm afraid that no matter how much education you get, and no matter how hard you try, you will never, ever be able to make the arbitrary true.

Ydemoc

January 05, 2012 10:21 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Where you at "Ydemoc"?

By the way what's wrong with torture and beating people?

January 06, 2012 8:43 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Where you at "Ydemoc"?"

Very much unlike the invisible magic being you choose to believe exists, I'm right here.

Trinity wrote: "By the way what's wrong with torture and beating people?"

Don't you know?

Ydemoc

January 06, 2012 8:49 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

(possible double post because my first did not show)

Trinity wrote: "Where you at "Ydemoc"?"

Very much unlike the invisible magic being you choose to believe exists, I'm right here.

Trinity wrote: "By the way what's wrong with torture and beating people?"

Don't you know?

Ydemoc

January 06, 2012 8:53 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

No I don't that's why I'm asking for your expertise.


By the way math and physics make my blood boil you know i don't like them so I know their wrong.

January 06, 2012 9:10 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Where you at "Ydemoc"?"

I responded: "Very much unlike the invisible magic being you choose to believe exists, I'm right here."

Trinity did not respond to this, much like the invisible magic being he believes exists does not respond to him when he plays make-believe and tries to talk to it.

Trinity wrote: "By the way what's wrong with torture and beating people?"

I responded: "Don't you know?"

Trinity responded: "No I don't that's why I'm asking for your expertise."

Well, since you're asking for my expertise, the first thing I would suggest you do is to not look for any kind of guidance in the storybook known as The Bible.

What I would suggest you do instead is excise all bible passages having to do with slavery and god ordering people to kill, as well as the ten commandments. Also excise anything having to do with loving one's enemy. Scissors or an Exacto Knife would do the job. Or you can save yourself an incredible amount of time and energy by just tossing the whole thing out, because the bible is no guide to morality.

If you still have concerns or questions about what's wrong with torturing or beating people after doing what I suggest, then we will move on to step two in your education.

Trinity wrote: "By the way math and physics make my blood boil you know i don't like them so I know their wrong."

The only thing I can tell you about this statement is that it comes across as someone who is trying his darndest to make the arbitrary true.

Ydemoc

January 06, 2012 9:33 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

You gotta love the evasion. Really what's morality like who cares.


Ydemoc doesn't like torture and beating people therefore it's wrong.


Gotcha.

January 06, 2012 9:37 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "By the way what's wrong with torture and beating people?"

I responded: "Don't you know?"

Trinity responded: "No I don't that's why I'm asking for your expertise."

Since Trinity was asking for my "expertise"; and by virtue of him doing so it presumes that he thinks I am an expert on the matter he inquired about, I proceeded to answer his inquiry as an expert would. Here is the expertise I offered him:

"Well, since you're asking for my expertise, the first thing I would suggest you do is to not look for any kind of guidance in the storybook known as The Bible.

What I would suggest you do instead is excise all bible passages having to do with slavery and god ordering people to kill, as well as the ten commandments. Also excise anything having to do with loving one's enemy. Scissors or an Exacto Knife would do the job. Or you can save yourself an incredible amount of time and energy by just tossing the whole thing out, because the bible is no guide to morality.

If you still have concerns or questions about what's wrong with torturing or beating people after doing what I suggest, then we will move on to step two in your education."

(continued)

January 06, 2012 10:08 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity responded to the expertise that he asked for and presumes I have, with this: "You gotta love the evasion."

Trinity comes to me, and by his very own words, seeks my expertise. When I share with him my expertise, suggesting certain steps he should take before we move on through the process, he cites me for evasion. If he doesn't want to take, what he labeled in his initial inquiry as my "expertise," no one is forcing him to -- no one is beating or torturing him into accepting my expertise on the matter. Nor is he duty bound to do so.

As for evasion? I think it's clear who is the biggest evader of all: it would be the invisible magic being you choose to believe exists. Where is he?

Trinity continued: "Really what's morality like who cares."

As an expert on these matters (again, your words), I can only say that this sounds like someone who is disappointed that the arbitrary isn't really true.

But, eventually, if follow what you consider to be my expertise on these matters, we can move on to step two. Eventually, with my help, you will not only understand what morality really is, but you will recognize that the arbitrary is not true, and never can be, no matter how hard you imagine.

Trinity wrote: "Ydemoc doesn't like torture and beating people therefore it's wrong."

Remember now, I'm the expert, by your own words. And as the expert, I can say that what you've written here is way, way off the mark. Horribly incorrect. Ugly, really. But before I explain why that is, you will need to go through step one of the process I discussed above.

Ydemoc

January 06, 2012 10:09 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity responded to the expertise that he asked for and presumes I have, with this: "You gotta love the evasion."

Trinity comes to me, and by his very own words, seeks my expertise. When I share with him my expertise, suggesting certain steps he should take before we move on through the process, he cites me for evasion. If he doesn't want to take, what he labeled in his initial inquiry as my "expertise," no one is forcing him to -- no one is beating or torturing him into accepting my expertise on the matter. Nor is he duty bound to do so.

As for evasion? I think it's clear who is the biggest evader of all: it would be the invisible magic being you choose to believe exists. Where is he?

Trinity continued: "Really what's morality like who cares."

As an expert on these matters (again, your words), I can only say that this sounds like someone who is disappointed that the arbitrary isn't really true.

But, eventually, if follow what you consider to be my expertise on these matters, we can move on to step two. Eventually, with my help, you will not only understand what morality really is, but you will recognize that the arbitrary is not true, and never can be, no matter how hard you imagine.

Trinity wrote: "Ydemoc doesn't like torture and beating people therefore it's wrong."

Remember now, I'm the expert, by your own words. And as the expert, I can say that what you've written here is way, way off the mark. Horribly incorrect. Ugly, really. But before I explain why that is, you will need to go through step one of the process I discussed above.

Ydemoc

January 06, 2012 10:13 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I can't see god therefore he doesn't exist.

Is this your argument Ydemoc?


Well I can't see Ydemoc's brain therefore it doesn't exist.



By the way why is beating and torturing people wrong?

January 06, 2012 10:25 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity had asked for my expertise (his words) on why beating and torturing people is wrong. As the expert he considers me to be, I instructed him on what to do if he wants an answer to this question. The first step I suggested was for him to: excise certain passages in the storybook which he holds to be his standard of morality; or toss his storybook out altogether. I told him that after he has taken this important first step, then we can move on to the second step of the process.

Apparently, he is delaying taking step one of the process, and has chosen instead to keep asking the same question again. He sought my expert (his word) advice; yet he doesn't want to take it. As an expert (his word) I can safely say that this is just another symptom of someone who is trying his darndest to make the arbitrary true.

In any event, he as asked some other questions, apparently seeking my expertise in other matters he's concerned about. Let's take a look at these questions:

Trinity puts words in my mouth by writing: "I can't see god therefore he doesn't exist." And he follows this up with: "Is this your argument Ydemoc?"

I don't believe I made an argument. I was pointing out a fact, that, by your own words, your god is invisible. I might also add that the invisible magic being you believe in not only isn't seen, but it also isn't heard, felt, or tasted. And last but not least, no one since the bible was written has even so much as sniffed him out. The god you worship and which you claim exists resembles nothing at all.

And the reason you worship nothing at all, or posit such an arbitrary notion as a god which can only gain life inside the imagination is because, (as you should be familiar with by now) the notion of your god is based on the Primacy of Consciousness Metaphysics -- from the very first verse in the bible, too boot!

(continued)

January 07, 2012 12:04 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity sought to punctuate his point with the following: "Well I can't see Ydemoc's brain therefore it doesn't exist."

Where did you get the concept "brain" and does it refer to anything you are aware of in reality?

Are humans the only creatures that have them? Furthermore, your asking this very question assumes I have a brain, so what's the problem? Why do you or I need to our brains in order to know that we have such an organ, and that it is the "seat of consciousness, thought, memory, and emotion?" (Free Online Dictionary) Do you need to see your retina to know that you can see? Or your stomach to know that you can digest? Or your ass to know that you sometimes talk out of it? (this last remark of mine was a little humor that I couldn't resist -- please don't take it personally, like you did with the question about Jesus having an erection. By the way, have you given it any more thought).

Might I add, we can weigh the brain of deceased individuals. The same cannot be said for the imaginary being you worship. By the way, does this invisible magic being have a brain? If it does, shouldn't you be asking of it the same question?

Trinity closes his comments with: "By the way why is beating and torturing people wrong?"

In the above comments, you can read what my expertise (your word) has to offer on this matter.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 12:09 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Another epic failure by "Ydemoc".

January 07, 2012 6:00 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity had asked for my expertise (his words) on why beating and torturing people is wrong. As the expert he considers me to be, I instructed him on what to do if he wants an answer to this question. The first step I suggested he take was for him to: excise certain passages in the storybook which he holds to be his standard of morality; or toss his storybook out altogether. I told him that after he has taken this important first step, then we can move on to the second step of the process.

Now, instead of taking my expert advice, (by his own words, it was my "expertise" he sought out) the most he can muster is:

"Another epic failure by "Ydemoc".

No interaction. No elaboration. Nothing one can sink one's teeth into, really.

And yet, as terse as it may be, his reply demonstrates Existence, Consciousness, Identity, and the Primacy of Existence. This performative reaffirmation is just another indication that what he worships is "The Big Nothing"; and that his devotion to "The Big Nothing" is driven by nothing more than his desire to make the arbitrary true.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 8:43 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity had asked for my expertise (his words) on why beating and torturing people is wrong. As the expert he considers me to be, I instructed him on what to do if he wants an answer to this question. The first step I suggested he take was for him to: excise certain passages in the storybook which he holds to be his standard of morality; or toss his storybook out altogether. I told him that after he has taken this important first step, then we can move on to the second step of the process.

Now, instead of taking my expert advice, (by his own words, it was my "expertise" he sought out) the most he can muster is:

"Another epic failure by "Ydemoc".

No interaction. No elaboration. Nothing one can sink one's teeth into, really.

And yet, as terse as it may be, his reply demonstrates Existence, Consciousness, Identity, and the Primacy of Existence. His performative reaffirmation of the axioms and a proper subject-object orientation is just another indication that what he worships is "The Big Nothing"; and that his devotion to "The Big Nothing" is driven by nothing more than his desire to make the arbitrary true.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 8:46 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity had asked for my expertise (his words) on why beating and torturing people is wrong. As the expert he considers me to be, I instructed him on what to do if he wants an answer to this question. The first step I suggested he take was for him to: excise certain passages in the storybook which he holds to be his standard of morality; or toss his storybook out altogether. I told him that after he has taken this important first step, then we can move on to the second step of the process.

Now, instead of taking my expert advice, (by his own words, it was my "expertise" he sought out) the most he can muster is:

"Another epic failure by "Ydemoc".

No interaction. No elaboration. Nothing one can sink one's teeth into, really.

And yet, as terse as it may be, his reply demonstrates Existence, Consciousness, Identity, and the Primacy of Existence. His performative reaffirmation of these axioms and the proper subject-object orientation is just another indication that what he worships is "The Big Nothing"; and that his devotion to "The Big Nothing" is being driven by nothing more than his desire to make the arbitrary true.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 8:51 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Hey "Ydemoc" I know you believe that there is no intelligence or purpose in things. Now I know you get out of bed in the morning so is that arbitrary just a little curious?

January 07, 2012 8:59 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Hey "Ydemoc" I know you believe that there is no intelligence or purpose in things."

In his latest volley of assertions and questions, Trinity begins by mischaracterizing aspects of my worldview. What's interesting to note is that he makes a claim of certainty, i.e., by saying he "knows" that I "believe" this, that, or the other. What's interesting about this is that he seems to be making a distinction between "knowing" and "belief." And this brought to mind the following: I wonder if the evidence for his knowledge claim above is greater than is his evidence for the invisible magic being he "believes" exists.

Trinity continues: "Now I know you get out of bed in the morning..."

Does Trinity really know this? Has he established the proper foundation to make this claim? Or is he just assuming this, much like he does when he claims an invisible magic being exists? His interrogatories are very imprecise (he has a lot to learn if he's thinking about being a lawyer). I could be in bed right now, for all he knows, and not get out of bed until the afternoon.

Trinity continues: "...so is that arbitrary just a little curious?"

Considering he hasn't established the proper foundation for his question, the content of his question is arbitrary, much like the claims he makes about invisible magic beings. See the "POOF!"?

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 9:27 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Ok.

By the way is there purpose and intelligence in things just curious?

Maybe Jhall can jump in.

January 07, 2012 9:39 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Steering the discussion away from what he was initially inquiring about, i.e., if my "expertise" (his word) could shed any light on why torturing and beating people is wrong, Trinity asks the following:

"...is there purpose and intelligence in things just curious?

Do you mean are purpose and intelligence concurrent with something non-biological, like for instance, a rock?

Meanwhile, I have used my intelligence to figure out that I am out of food, and that I need to go get some. My goal that I have chosen right now is to go get some food at Trader Joes. Getting my food will be the purpose of my trip. So if I do not answer you right away, it is because something else is taking priority in my hierarchy of values.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 10:07 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

How do you know there is no intellgience or purpose in a rock?


By the way how is it that you are intelligent?



What values are those arbitrary just curious?

January 07, 2012 10:55 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity asks: "How do you know there is no intellgience or purpose in a rock?"

Reason, silly.

If you had a theory of concepts, you would know the answer to this question. The concept "purpose" subsumes many other concepts, such "life." What life is there in a rock. Can it die? Does it have a heart, lungs and brain? Clearly not. So on what basis would you talk about intelligence or purpose in a rock? Blank out.

Dawson put it this way in his exchange with CalvinDude:

"This is another example of how theists ignore the genetic basis of the concepts they try to employ in their religious defenses. Chosen action that is purposive is by definition goal-oriented. Objective goals are identified on the basis of facts (i.e., states of affairs which obtain independent of one’s awareness, intentions, preferences, etc.) relevant to one’s needs (e.g., man’s biological needs). If an entity had no needs, then what could possibly ground its choices and actions? CalvinDude has not proposed a credible alternative.

Consider a rock: what needs can one say it has? To consider the question, ask: What would happen if the rock does nothing? Will it “die”? No, it will not die because it is not alive in the first place. So we can be pretty sure that it has no biological needs, since it is not biological. Does it have mineral needs? How would one argue that it does have mineral needs? What are those mineral needs, and how are they satisfied? Does the rock act in order to satisfy these alleged needs? No, rocks do not have a means of acting on their own, nor do they need to. So rocks apparently have neither needs nor the ability to act on their own.

(continued)

January 07, 2012 11:35 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Would CalvinDude ignore this context and say that rocks still act because they have a purpose? Given what he says about his god, there seems to be nothing to prevent him from saying this about rocks since he apparently thinks it is perfectly legitimate to say that something acts with purpose even if he cannot identify what that purpose is. But it won’t do simply to assert that a rock has a purpose of its own, especially if a context vital to the concept ‘purpose’ is absent. Similarly, it will not do merely to assert that the Christian god has a purpose given that its purported nature is missing the fundamentals which give the concept ‘purpose’ its meaning and validity. Indeed, to say that something acts in the interest of achieving a chosen goal can only mean that the acting something is conscious and that there’s a reason why it would choose to act. But even if we suppose that a non-biological being could be conscious, what reason would an immortal, indestructible and perfect conscious being have to pursue a goal? Since pursuit of a goal logically implies a lack or deficiency of some sort (such as a man’s pursuit of food indicates the need to fill his stomach; he would not need to do this if his stomach were always automatically full), the claim that the Christian god is capable of pursuing a goal essentially denies the attributes ascribed to the Christian god by Christian theology. Thus we have a stolen concept. Consequently, to say that its choices and actions are not arbitrary because they are purposive, is to beg the question of Christian theology." ("CalvinDude's Defense of Christianity's Moral Bankruptcy," March 16, 2006, http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2006/03/calvindudes-defense-of-christianitys.html)

Trinity continues: "By the way how is it that you are intelligent?"

Please elaborate.

Trinity continues: "What values are those arbitrary just curious?"

How is it that this sentence you've written is unintelligible?

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 11:36 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Reason?

Are all your reasons right?

January 07, 2012 11:44 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity asked me: "Trinity asks: "How do you know there is no intellgience or purpose in a rock?"

I responded: "Reason, silly."

I then posted a very detailed piece from Dawson, that addressed Trinity's concerns. In response Trinity writes:

"Reason? Are all your reasons right?"

Trinity is equivocating here. "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.” (“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 20)

"Reasons" are "the basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction," (Free Online Dictionary).

That I may come to a wrong conclusion and continue to act on that conclusion in no way nullifies the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by my senses. It simply means that I have failed to properly identify and integrate the material provided by my senses -- much like you do when you try to make the arbitrary true by positing the existence of a god.

Now, as far as my reasons for a rock having no purpose and intelligence, my reasons for this conclusion are, as you put it, "right," because I have checked my premises with reality. Rocks have no purpose and no intelligence for many of the same "reasons" that bushes don't speak, donkeys don't converse, snakes don't chit-chat, gods don't exist and the arbitrary is never true, no matter how much such notions are fed or how long they are given shelter within the confines of your imagination.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 12:29 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

You gotta love fallible finite minds.

Has reason ever fooled you?

January 07, 2012 12:35 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "You gotta love fallible finite minds."

If man were infallible and infinite like theist posit their god as being, then man would not need reason, goal, plan, love, pride, rationality, logic, the good, honesty, true, false, right, wrong, justice, sex, pride, productiveness, concepts -- in fact, these very concepts wouldn't even be in play because there would be nothing in reality that would give rise to them. This is just one more reason why the notion of god as theists describe such a being devoid of anything real. It's disconnected. It's nonsense. Arbitrary. And you worship this?

Over on Michael's blog, when Paul Baird asks the question: "...what is the purpose of god in PA terms ? Not theologically but in terms of permitting a discourse to occur."...

...and you reply with:

"To preserve life and save many."

(continued)

January 07, 2012 1:10 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "You gotta love fallible finite minds."

If man were infallible and infinite like theist posit their god as being, then man would not need reason, goal, plan, love, pride, rationality, logic, the good, honesty, true, false, right, wrong, justice, sex, pride, productiveness, concepts -- in fact, these very concepts wouldn't even be in play because there would be nothing in reality that would give rise to them. This is just one more reason why the notion of god as theists describe such a being devoid of anything real. It's disconnected. It's nonsense. Arbitrary. And you worship this?

Over on Michael's blog, when Paul Baird asks the question: "...what is the purpose of god in PA terms ? Not theologically but in terms of permitting a discourse to occur."...

...and you reply with:

"To preserve life and save many."

Your answer ignores that such a being could have no "purpose." You ignore the genetic roots of the concept "purpose." Goal-directed action would not be applicable to such a being as your god, for the reasons I stated above. It is indestructible. It would have no reason for a "goal" or "purpose." To speak of it as if it does is blatant concept stealing. But, due to the fog of faith, you look past this or don't understand it, which fuels your quest to prop up and make true that which is only arbitrary. See the "POOF!"?

Trinity wrote: "Has reason ever fooled you?"

Please elaborate. Explain what you mean. In detail.

While you do that, I am off to run some errands at Target.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 1:13 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "You gotta love fallible finite minds."

If man were infallible and infinite like theist posit their god as being, then man would not need reason, goal, plan, love, pride, rationality, logic, the good, honesty, true, false, right, wrong, justice, sex, pride, productiveness, concepts -- in fact, these very concepts wouldn't even be in play because there would be nothing in reality that would give rise to them. This is just one more reason why the notion of god as theists describe such a being devoid of anything real. It's disconnected. It's nonsense. Arbitrary. And you worship this?

Over on Michael's blog, when Paul Baird asks the question: "...what is the purpose of god in PA terms ? Not theologically but in terms of permitting a discourse to occur."...

...and you reply with:

"To preserve life and save many."

Your answer ignores that such a being could have no "purpose." You ignore the genetic roots of the concept "purpose." Goal-directed action would not be applicable to such a being as your god, for the reasons I stated above. It is indestructible. It would have no reason for a "goal" or "purpose." To speak of it as if it does is blatant concept stealing. But, due to the fog of faith, you look past this or don't understand it, which fuels your quest to prop up and make true that which is only arbitrary. See the "POOF!"?

Trinity wrote: "Has reason ever fooled you?"

Please elaborate. Explain what you mean. In detail.

While you do that, I am off to run some errands at Target.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 1:14 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

You can't account for life.

You can't account for purpose.

You can't account for reason.

You can't account for your existence.

You can't account for any human experience.


By the way without rocks there would be no roads or highways. Ready to recant from your foolishness?

January 07, 2012 1:19 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

I am now back from Target, and look what I find!

I am so glad Trinity spewed out all this nonsense, for it not only provides me with some entertainment in crafting my reply, but it also serves as yet another reminder of what happens to a mind that gives itself over to the service of making the arbitrary true.

And Trinity's nonsense will also give rationally minded fence-sitters another opportunity to see for themselves that the term "lost" (a disparaging term used to describe those who are not saved) is more applicable to Trinity and his ilk than it is to those holding a rational worldview. He demonstrates this on a massive scale, just how lost he truly is by his failure to integrate or process ideas and concepts that have been presented to him over and over.

Let's take his responses one by one to see why I say this:

He writes: "You can't account for life."

Life would have to be in place for any accounting to proceed.

Furthermore, the method Trinity employs to prop up his god-belief is nothing but faux accounting and bluster. Observe: "But if your god is supposed to be a living being, but you point to your god in order to “account for” life, you’re simply moving the peg back a step, without actually presenting an account for life. You’ve been asked to give an account for life, but you point to something that’s (allegedly) alive. You’re just going around in circles. It’s a tape-loop." (Dawson Bethrick)

Indeed, Trinity's tape-loop apologetic is devoid of that which gives rise to the concept "life" in the first place: that being the evidence of the senses, i.e., perception of things around us, such us and the other biological organisms around us. Actual things!

(continued

January 07, 2012 5:19 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Mystics like Trinity ignore that which is around them, taking for granted existence, consciousness, identity, and the primacy of existence; they then posit the imperceptible and immaterial -- which, incidentally, very much resembles absolutely nothing at all -- as the reason for things being as they are. In doing so, they fail to realize that they couldn't have formed the concepts immaterial nor imperceptible without first recognizing first that which is perceptible!

To fill this gaping hole, they then concoct an invisible magic in their imaginations -- which is the only place such a being could come to and have any life. After it this their notion of an invisible magic being is safely sheltered in their imaginations, they then posit it as the reason that say they can account for life, but those that posit existence, consciousness, identity, and the primacy of existence can't.

Nice try, folks. Yes, it is quite a reversal, but it doesn't fly. There is no invisible magic being needed to account for life; for knowledge (i.e., accounting) to exist, life would have to exist; if life didn't exist, no accounting is possible. And before life existed, existence exists.

(continued)

January 07, 2012 5:21 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

"Life is an end in itself, requiring no further justification. Being alive requires taking action to stay alive, that is just a fact. Any other instrumental answer would assume being alive to accomplish the end, so one could keep asking "why?" until arriving back at the fact of being alive.If all arguments are justified by other arguments, everything is circular and futile. The evidence of the senses provides the validation of some simple judgments (that you can see, that you see things, things come in different colors, etc..), and all knowledge is built up from and remains dependent upon that fundamental knowledge. " (Posted by Grames, "Objectism Online Forum," December 18, 2010, http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=20869)

Trinity naively asserts: "You can't account for reason."

"Reason rests necessarily on the self-evident information provided by your senses, that which you perceive -- not on your sense data or sensations, but on your percepts (sense data integrated by your mind or your brain, automatically). That must be taken as self-evident, because that is the content of your consciousness, and you cannot talk about consciousness without identifying the fact that your consciousness starts with the perception of entities of the material world outside of you. Then you have to know what reason is, and reason involves the formation of abstractions by means of specific and absolute definitions, abstracting from you perceptual material that which you have observed certain entities to possess in common or that which differentiates certain entities.

The concept proof is hierarchically dependent upon the concepts of reason, axioms, and evidence. To prove something is to go by means of logic down to a fundamental axiom or perceptual starting point... To speak of "proving reason" or "proving the laws of logic" is a contradiction in terms. Reason and logic is that by which you prove something; they are primary. You do not prove the laws of logic; they are implicit in your first sensation. The Law of Identity is perceived by you the fist time you perceive a blob of light. But it takes a lot of perceptual and conceptual knowledge to get you to age twelve or fifteen, by which time you can understand or identify the Law of Identity in conscious, conceptual terms. But implicitly, it was there long before." (Ayn Rand Answers, p. 159 - 160)

(continued)

January 07, 2012 5:22 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity continues: "You can't account for your existence."

At this point, after all I've written above, I think it is sufficient to ask Trinity, "Shall I appeal to the immaterial and invisible to "account" for existence? Or shall I simply perceive that which exists?"

Existence, consciousness, identity, and the primacy of existence would have to be in place before you could even imagine the concept "account," before some mystics could even begin to rearrange what they observed in reality to come up with such a notion as a god.

Trinity continues: "You can't account for any human experience."

Existence exists, consciousness is consciousness of something; if something exists, some thing exists, i.e., it is what it is. Objects do not conform to consciousness, but the other way around; a theory of concepts and recognizing that knowledge is hierarchical all tell me that you do not know what you are asking.

Next up, Trinity writes: "By the way without rocks there would be no roads or highways."

I see. So tell me, did those rocks just jump up and form themselves into roads and highways? Did the rocks "decide" to do this? Or did it take the minds of men, using their faculty of reason, to set out on a goal to design and build such roads and highways for a purpose?

You're right about one thing, Trinity: without rocks, there would be absolutely nothing in your head.

Trinity concludes with: "Ready to recant from your foolishness?"

Your entire apologetic is akin to asking someone to tell you what they remember prior to their conception.

And then when they tell you that such a question makes no sense because the concept "remember" has as one of its referents "life" -- that one needs to be living to remember anything at all, you blame them for not being able to "account" for "remembering." It is an apologetic that not only relies upon, but asks for stolen concepts.

And such faux accounting methods are merely elaborate, but ultimately vacuous apologetic attempts to make the arbitrary true.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 5:23 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Not surprisingly the same old slogans and statements blah blah garbage.

It's interesting that "atheist" say reality has the final say. But here You got "Ydemoc" saying what reality can't say or be.


At least you finally admitted that if you don't start with the old slogans you run into a big circle and emptiness. In others words you know nothing.


Let me ask plainly why do you keep making claims about reality if you already believe reality speaks for itself?



By the way how do you know existence has always exustd is that arbitrary just curious?

January 07, 2012 5:55 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

As much as I enjoy answering your questions, answers to them are going to have to wait. I am trying to concentrate on something else I enjoy: Watching football.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 5:58 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

As much as I enjoy answering your questions -- and going into great detail in doing so -- you're going to have to wait for answers to your most recent questions. I am trying to concentrate on something else I enjoy: Watching football.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 6:01 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

As much as I enjoy answering your questions -- and going into great detail in doing so -- you're going to have to wait for answers to your most recent questions. I am trying to concentrate on something else I enjoy: Watching football.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 6:04 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

As much as I enjoy answering your questions -- and going into great detail in doing so -- you're going to have to wait for answers to your most recent questions. I am trying to concentrate on something else I enjoy: Watching football.

Ydemoc

January 07, 2012 6:05 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Why do you watch football is that arbitrary just curious?

By the way why is torture and beating wrong?

January 07, 2012 6:12 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Not surprisingly the same old slogans and statements blah blah garbage."

Are you saying this because you believe it to be so?

Trinity wrote: "It's interesting that "atheist" say reality has the final say."

What's interesting about this to you?

Trinity wrote: "But here You got "Ydemoc" saying what reality can't say or be."

Do you want me to say reality is something other than what it is?

Do you deny existence exists? Do you deny that you are conscious? Do you deny that a thing is what it is? Do you deny that the objects of consciousness do not conform to consciousness? Do you deny that concepts are products of cognition? That we can build abstractions from abstractions? Do you deny that knowledge is hierarchical, that some there are higher level concepts depend upon lower level concepts, until we finally reach a perceptual base, i.e., the axioms?

Of course you do, to make room for your god and miracles. That's pure subjectivism. Nothing about your god belief is objective. Nothing.

Trinity wrote: "At least you finally admitted that if you don't start with the old slogans you run into a big circle and emptiness."

I think you're talking about yourself here, for, unlike the god you claim exists and whom you claim as the basis for knowledge, logic, nature, etc., an axiom:

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

... and your god claim fails this test, and cannot provide knowledge a starting point which is...

-objective
-conceptually irreducible
-perceptually self-evident
-undeniably true
-universal"

(Source: Dawson Bethrick)

Trinity wrote: "In others words you know nothing."

This is the kind of statement we've come to expect from someone who tries to make the arbitrary true.

Trinity wrote: "Let me ask plainly why do you keep making claims about reality if you already believe reality speaks for itself?"

Reality isn't a belief. The axioms would have to be, for anyone to even form a belief.

Knowledge begins with and is grounded in the axioms, as explained above. We know you deny this, despite your denial being a contradiction.

It is a contradiction because you affirm the axioms in any truth claim you make; yet you attempt to deny the axioms by the content of your claim.

I keep writing about this because I enjoy pointing out the flaws in the kind of thinking that allows people to embrace the arbitrary. Why do you keep trying to make the arbitrary true?

Trinity wrote: "By the way how do you know existence has always exustd is that arbitrary just curious?"

What is "exustd"? And what is it that you're curious about? I cannot make out what it is you're asking here. Why don't you make this sentence a little more intelligible -- you know, like you do with your replies on Michael Russell's blog? -- and then perhaps I will respond.

Ydemoc

January 08, 2012 8:16 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity also asked: "Why do you watch football is that arbitrary just curious?"

Why are you curious? If you didn't exist, could you still be curious? If you were a rock, could you still be curious? If A was not A, what would you be curious about? Are you sure you're curious, and that curiosity isn't really you? Can you turn curiosity into a football?

Trinity writes: "By the way why is torture and beating wrong?"

Trinity is asking this question again. Does he forget that I have already shared my expertise with him on this matter? And that he has yet to take my expert advice by taking step one in the process?

What do you remember before you were born?

Ydemoc

January 08, 2012 8:26 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 08, 2012 9:11 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

I just want to point out something else pertaining to Trinity's earlier comment.

He wrote: "At least you finally admitted that if you don't start with the old slogans you run into a big circle and emptiness."

I did not admit this, nor did I imply this. This is a complete mischaracterization, and quite the contrary is the case. That you would infer this from all the writing I've done on the subject is yet another indicator that you will do and say anything as long as it furthers your futile agenda of trying to make the arbitrary come true.

I have said that one starts with existence, consciousness, identity. The "old slogans" as you call them, are simply the formal recognition, making explicit that which was there all along. Call them "old slogans," -- call them anything you want. If you don't like them, you don't have to. But none of that will change the fact that existence exists, whether you want it to or not. It's inescapable, in everything you do.

All knowledge is grounded in perception of that which does exist, not in that which is immaterial, imperceptible, belief, faith, etc. What content would the imperceptible provide to the mind of man?

Ydemoc

January 08, 2012 10:14 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

I have been to busy to contribute much to the discussion but I must say that I have throughly enjoyed your responses to Nide,please keep up the good work.

January 08, 2012 10:45 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote: "I have been to busy to contribute much to the discussion..."

And I've missed those contributions.

Justin continued: "...but I must say that I have throughly enjoyed your responses to Nide,please keep up the good work."

Thanks! And I will try. I was thinking of re-posting a reworked version of yesterday's lengthy response to Trinity. I noticed some grammar problems, and a few points that could be clarified with a better choice of words. But I may just let it stand as is. We'll see.

Right now, I'm off to get a little exercise, by playing a little pick-up basketball.

Until next time,

Ydemoc

January 08, 2012 10:53 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

More canned statements wornout slogans.

Is this your argument "Ydemoc":

Reality is what I say it is therefore I know it's true?


By the way what's wrong with torture and
beating people?


How about you Jhall is there
anything wrong with torture and beating people?


Ydemoc's refusal says it all. He can't account for morality.

January 08, 2012 1:25 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 08, 2012 3:43 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity has more questions for me. Upon first glance, it appears I have already answered them, many times over. But let's take a look at them anyway, just to see if I could be mistaken.

Trinity wrote: "More canned statements wornout slogans."

This, is itself a canned statement and a worn out slogan, but that doesn't stop you from using it. You complain of others taking things for granted, when it's actually you that does so. You have no theory of concepts, nor have you once given any indication that you have any idea what the referents for concepts are. You employ concepts that have been in use for many, many years -- even in the very sentence you write above. Yet you have no clue where these concepts come from.

Someone, long ago, came up with the concept "more," and it had nothing to do with your god. It came from the mind of someone who perceived reality and formed this concept based upon that perception. And here you are using the concept without even giving credit to the first mind that was able to form the concept "more." And Christians talk about being thankful? What a bunch of deluded phonies.

Or how about the concept "slogan," does it not have referents in reality? I bet if you wave away the fog of faith that engulfs you, and take a few rocks out of your head, you will be able to think a little more clearly about what it is you're claiming. Then again, maybe not, for you would still probably fall prey to the first subjectivist snake-oil salesman that came along.

Trinity wrote: "Is this your argument "Ydemoc":"

We are about to see Trinity demonstrate what happens to a mind that constantly attempts to make the arbitrary come true. Observe:

Trinity wrote: "Reality is what I say it is therefore I know it's true?"

No. Reality is what it is no matter what you, I, or anyone else says or thinks. A tree is a tree; a dog is a dog; a rock is a rock, the earth is the earth, etc. The basketball will not go through the hoop on its own, no matter what I wish, believe, think, or say to it.

Trinity asks again: "By the way what's wrong with torture and
beating people?"

This has been addressed. The next step is yours to take.

Trinity wrote: "Ydemoc's refusal says it all. He can't account for morality."

Of course I can -- isn't that why you sought my "expertise" (your word)?

You can prod and bait all you like, Trinity because, as I said before, I enjoy crafting answers to you since it exposes you as an irrational follower of a worldview that is attempting to make the arbitrary come true.

Ydemoc

January 08, 2012 4:14 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity has more questions for me. Upon first glance, it appears I have already answered them, many times over. But let's take a look at them anyway, just to see if I could be mistaken.

Trinity wrote: "More canned statements wornout slogans."

This, is itself a canned statement and a worn out slogan, but that doesn't stop you from using it. You complain of others taking things for granted, when it's actually you that does so. You have no theory of concepts, nor have you once given any indication that you have any idea what the referents for concepts are. You employ concepts that have been in use for many, many years -- even in the very sentence you write above. Yet you have no clue where these concepts come from.

Someone, long ago, came up with the concept "more," and it had nothing to do with your god. It came from the mind of someone who perceived reality and formed this concept based upon that perception. And here you are using the concept without even giving credit to the first mind that was able to form the concept "more." And Christians talk about being thankful? What a bunch of deluded phonies.

Or how about the concept "slogan," does it not have referents in reality? I bet if you wave away the fog of faith that engulfs you, and take a few rocks out of your head, you will be able to think a little more clearly about what it is you're claiming. Then again, maybe not, for you would still probably fall prey to the first subjectivist snake-oil salesman that came along.

Trinity wrote: "Is this your argument "Ydemoc":"

We are about to see Trinity demonstrate what happens to a mind that constantly attempts to make the arbitrary come true. Observe:

Trinity wrote: "Reality is what I say it is therefore I know it's true?"

No. Reality is what it is no matter what you, I, or anyone else says or thinks. A tree is a tree; a dog is a dog; a rock is a rock, the earth is the earth, etc. The basketball will not go through the hoop on its own, no matter what I wish, believe, think, or say to it.

Trinity asks again: "By the way what's wrong with torture and
beating people?"

This has been addressed. The next step is yours to take.

Trinity wrote: "Ydemoc's refusal says it all. He can't account for morality."

Of course I can -- isn't that why you sought my "expertise" (your word)?

You can prod and bait all you like, Trinity because, as I said before, I enjoy crafting answers to you since it exposes you as an irrational follower of a worldview that is attempting to make the arbitrary come true.

Ydemoc

January 08, 2012 4:16 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity has more questions for me. Upon first glance, it appears I have already answered them, many times over. But let's take a look at them anyway, just to see if I could be mistaken.

Trinity wrote: "More canned statements wornout slogans."

Itself a canned statement and a worn out slogan, but that doesn't stop you from using it. You complain of others taking things for granted, when it's actually you that does so. You have no theory of concepts, nor have you once given any indication that you have any idea what the referents for concepts are. You employ concepts that have been in use for many, many years -- even in the very sentence you write above. Yet you have no clue where these concepts come from.

Someone, long ago, came up with the concept "more," and it had nothing to do with your god. It came from the mind of someone who perceived reality and formed this concept based upon that perception. And here you are using the concept without even giving credit to the first mind that was able to form the concept "more." And Christians talk about being thankful? What a bunch of deluded phonies.

Or how about the concept "slogan," does it not have referents in reality? I bet if you wave away the fog of faith that engulfs you, and take a few rocks out of your head, you will be able to think a little more clearly about what it is you're claiming. Then again, maybe not, for you would still probably fall prey to the first subjectivist snake-oil salesman that came along.

Trinity wrote: "Is this your argument "Ydemoc":"

We are about to see Trinity demonstrate what happens to a mind that constantly attempts to make the arbitrary come true. Observe:

Trinity wrote: "Reality is what I say it is therefore I know it's true?"

No. Reality is what it is no matter what you, I, or anyone else says or thinks. A tree is a tree; a dog is a dog; a rock is a rock, the earth is the earth, etc. The basketball will not go through the hoop on its own, no matter what I wish, believe, think, or say to it.

Trinity asks again: "By the way what's wrong with torture and
beating people?"

This has been addressed. The next step is yours to take.

Trinity wrote: "Ydemoc's refusal says it all. He can't account for morality."

Of course I can -- isn't that why you sought my "expertise" (your word)?

You can prod and bait all you like, Trinity because, as I said before, I enjoy crafting answers to you since it exposes you as an irrational follower of a worldview that is attempting to make the arbitrary come true.

Ydemoc

January 08, 2012 4:22 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity has more questions for me. Upon first glance, it appears I have already answered them, many times over. But let's take a look at them anyway, just to see if I could be mistaken.

Trinity wrote: "More canned statements wornout slogans."

Itself a canned statement and a worn out slogan, but that doesn't stop you from using it. You complain of others taking things for granted, when it's actually you that does so. You have no theory of concepts, nor have you once given any indication that you have any idea what the referents for concepts are. You employ concepts that have been in use for many, many years -- even in the very sentence you write above. Yet you have no clue where these concepts come from.

Someone, long ago, came up with the concept "more," and it had nothing to do with your god. It came from the mind of someone who perceived reality and formed this concept based upon that perception. And here you are using the concept without even giving credit to the first mind that was able to form the concept "more." And Christians talk about being thankful? What a bunch of deluded phonies.

Or how about the concept "slogan," does it not have referents in reality? I bet if you wave away the fog of faith that engulfs you, and take a few rocks out of your head, you will be able to think a little more clearly about what it is you're claiming. Then again, maybe not, for you would still probably fall prey to the first subjectivist snake-oil salesman that came along.

Trinity wrote: "Is this your argument "Ydemoc":"

We are about to see Trinity demonstrate what happens to a mind that constantly attempts to make the arbitrary come true. Observe:

Trinity wrote: "Reality is what I say it is therefore I know it's true?"

No. Reality is what it is no matter what you, I, or anyone else says or thinks. A tree is a tree; a dog is a dog; a rock is a rock, the earth is the earth, etc. The basketball will not go through the hoop on its own, no matter what I wish, believe, think, or say to it.

Trinity asks again: "By the way what's wrong with torture and
beating people?"

This has been addressed. The next step is yours to take.

Trinity wrote: "Ydemoc's refusal says it all. He can't account for morality."

Of course I can -- isn't that why you sought my "expertise" (your word)?

You can prod and bait all you like, Trinity because, as I said before, I enjoy crafting answers to you since it exposes you as an irrational follower of a worldview that is attempting to make the arbitrary come true.

Ydemoc

January 08, 2012 4:23 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Another epic failure by the boy.

Ydemoc looked out his window and said God doesn't exist.

Has reality ever spoken to you or appeared to you in a dream and told you what it is?

January 08, 2012 6:47 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Another epic failure by the boy."

Is it a failure because you want it to be a failure?

Trinity wrote: "Ydemoc looked out his window and said God doesn't exist."

No, I look out my window, and I see a tree, some bamboo, another building, a courtyard, a bird, some outdoor furniture, a cat lounging in the sun, a garden hose, grass, a walkway, etc. And I don't need to say anything to perceive that which exists. When you look our your window, what do you see?

Trinity writes: "Has reality ever spoken to you or appeared to you in a dream and told you what it is?"

What?

Ydemoc

January 08, 2012 8:33 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I see God's creation when I look out my window it's beautiful

Your claim that nature is what it is. Is junk reasoning that's what you need to be proving claiming that reality is "perceptually self-evident" is question begging.

I think I got now:

If I can't perceive it I won't believe it therefore I know it's not true


Is this your argument?

January 08, 2012 8:50 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

more like I haven't perceived it, there is no valid inductive reasoning that links it back to what I can perceive. Further the hypothesis is unneeded and explains nothing. It adds nothing to our useful knowledge. Thus it is an unnecessary arbitrary conjecture that should be dismissed as per the principle of lex parsimoniae. I don't believe in nonsense either, in the literal sense of the word. There is no sensory evidence for the existence of god. Frankly why you waste your time here is mind boggling. Here is something for you to chew on in your own world view's terms

http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2011/12/pastoral-implications-of-death-of.html

think on this. If you agree with this individual you should have been gone a long time ago. I noticed that Alex B has finally banned you as well.

January 08, 2012 9:05 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Your claim that nature is what it is. Is junk reasoning that's what you need to be proving claiming that reality is "perceptually self-evident" is question begging."

the concept question begging is built up from earlier simpler concepts. Care to take a guess how we got those concepts? If you guessed by integrating precepts from our senses you guessed right. I swear you seem completely incapable of grasping the stolen concept fallacy.

January 08, 2012 9:13 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

I knew that would reel you in.

I already explained concepts to you but we both know it's not the explanation you want.


Let me try again who has the last word you or reality?


There is plenty of sensory evidence just look within and without.


Saying a dog is a dog and then say well it's just the nature of he dog is junk reasoning that you can't escape


Jhall I already showed you that your reasoning is fallacious an I know that's what you resent.


You and the fool can't even account for something as simple as morality.


What's wrong Justin with torture and beating people it's a simple question.

January 08, 2012 9:23 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"I knew that would reel you in."

yeah I am sucker:) Did you follow the link and read the content? Would you not conclude that neither Ydemoc nor myself are members of the elect?

"I already explained concepts to you but we both know it's not the explanation you want."

What you explained was that concept formation is automatic and as you put it “magical”. This is no answer at all, it does not inform us or help us identity and understand concept formation. It is not so much an answer I don't want as it is an non answer. It is akin to when someone asks causes lightning and the theist replies god. Great we now know just as much as we did before we asked and still have no understanding of the mechanics of lightning.

"Let me try again who has the last word you or reality?"

You know how I will answer this so why do you ask? Reality is what it is, it does not conform to my wishes. What is the alternative, reality is not what it is? what semantic meaning can one find in that conjecture?


"There is plenty of sensory evidence just look within and without."

Like what exactly, can you identify it? If I tell you that the Japanese battleship Yamato sank south of Japan I can give you a wealth of evidence for this. Sonar maps of the wreak, underwater photos of the wreak. Photos taken by the USN as they attack it. Japanese Navy records recording its orders south, its damage reports from its logs. etc. What can you offer for the existence of god? you wave your hand around and say all of this. Yes well I can see all of this, existence in other words but what reason is there to suppose that it requires a god, something that I cant see in order to explain existence something that I can see? In science we try to explain the unknown by recourse back to what is known. This is logic. You would have us try to explain the know by recourse back to the unknown, that is called putting the cart before the horse:)


"Saying a dog is a dog and then say well it's just the nature of he dog is junk reasoning that you can't escape"

Actually Nide this is the law of identity, A is A, the corner stone of Aristotelean logic, the very same logic you are using when you try to argue for god. Way to go there, cutting your own legs out from under you:)


"Jhall I already showed you that your reasoning is fallacious an I know that's what you resent."

sure... you go right on believing that. I will sleep soundly knowing you believe that. Further I doubt very much if you have a clear conception of my world view / reasoning. If I am incorrect could you give a short description without using derogatory terms? Remember when you asked me what I thought TAG was and how I answered over on your blog?


"You and the fool can't even account for something as simple as morality."

Morality is a guide to action required by man because decision making is not an automatic function. Further mans life and quality of life require correct actions as gauged against the cardinal value of one's life and life in general thus morality is needed. Morality is not something external to man. Not something imposed on man from above. It was invented by man to facilitate harmonious human interactions. There morality accounted for.


continued.....

January 08, 2012 10:37 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"What's wrong Justin with torture and beating people it's a simple question."

I am curious what your answer is to this question and how you will justify it. Care to site the passage in the bible expressly prohibiting torture?

Anyway when evaluating an action such as torture or any other action for that matter one first must ask will it achieve the desired goal. In the case of torture will I get information I need from the person I have in captivity. In the case of torture it appears doubtful. In fact the preponderance of evidence on the topic is that torture is pretty ineffectual in obtaining useful information. See the following

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4q565424126068h/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Utilitarian_arguments_against_torture
http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/indana83&section=14
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/opinion/06soufan.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2007-10-07/news/0710060243_1_veterans-prisoners-freedom-team-salute
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/col-jack-jacobs-torture-i-got-more-out

Clearly torture does not get you the results you would desire. So no torture should not be used because it does not work. We should not use it for the same reason we no longer pack wounds with animal crap, it is just a bad idea, irrational and thus unethical and immoral. However let us imagine that it was effectual, a total counter factual but what the heck. My cardinal value, my moral presupposition if you will is life. What actions are going to be good for me and others of my own kind. Now at base I value my own life but on par with it I could contemplate valuing someone I love very much at the same level. We see this when parents sacrifice themselves to save their children for example. one step removed from that primary value in my moral hierarchy of values is human life in general. The science of biology has shown that we have been a social animal with culture probably longer then we have been recognizably human. There is I suspect a deep seating instinct in us to not want to see suffering in what we can identity with, namely our own kind. This even extends to things close to our kind. I want to help a dog that squeals in pain for example. Most of us, baring sociopaths find it very difficult to harm others unless we are very angry over something person or we must first dehumanize them. Thus to harm someone to get information hits me at a deep subconscious level and if not distasteful then just plain wrong. Additionally as I strive to be rational I would resist efforts to have me dehumanize someone. I filter out propaganda. Finally each of us has the right to our own existence and the corollary of self determination. We derive many secondary and even tertiary rights from these and in a country that respects them it is codified into law. In the US torture is supposed to be illegal, see the US constitution and it's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. If a suspect or criminal does not have those rights what logical argument could I make that I have them without sounding like a hypocrite?

Short answer, torture does not work that alone would be the end of it, but even if it did work it would violates the rights of man. Finally I don't enjoy harming people.


Now this response was not in truth for your sake, it was for Ydemoc's. Personally I think you are a waste of oxygen, and even so I acknowledge your right to exist and to be wrong in what you believe, I very much doubt you would reciprocate.

January 08, 2012 10:37 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "I see God's creation when I look out my window it's beautiful"

Great! Now we're getting somewhere. You do not perceive your god directly. Got it. You infer your god from that which exists. Perfect! This tells us, by your own words, that your god is not the starting point for any knowledge. But we already knew this. Perhaps the fog of faith that surrounds you is clearing. Let's see how Dawson expands on this point:

"If you infer its existence, what is your starting point, and how did you end up with the conclusion that the Christian god is real? Assuming “creation” only begs the question, as I mentioned above. So hopefully you have something better than this? Now, if you claim to have direct, firsthand awareness of this thing you call “God,” then by what means do you possess awareness of this object? You’ve identified how you do not have awareness of it when you say that your god cannot be sensed or perceived. So, how can one have awareness of it? Or, does no one have awareness of it? If no one has awareness of it, why believe it’s real? Again, try to answer these questions with the distinction between the real and the imaginary in mind. So far, you’ve performed miserably in this respect." (Dawson Bethrick, A Reply to Tennant on Theistic Foundationalism vs. the Objectivist Axioms October 24, 2008)

And...

"...inference requires content, and that content would have to be more fundamental than any product of inference." (Dawson Bethrick, Incinerating Presuppositionalism: A Response to Vytautas, January 6, 2008)


Trinity wrote: "Your claim that nature is what it is. Is junk reasoning..."

Really? Soooooooo, nature isn't what it is?

Trinity continues: "....that's what you need to be proving..."

So you want me to prove that nature is uniform even though nature would have to be uniform for me to engage in any kind of proof. I see. Would you also like me to prove that I can remember something before I was born, even though to remember something I would have to be born?

Trinity wrote: "...claiming that reality is "perceptually self-evident" is question begging."

Wrong. If your god was standing right in front of you would you have to construct and argument to prove that your god was standing right in front of you? No. Because your god would be perceptually self-evident!

You really don't know what you're talking about. Again.

Trinity continued: "I think I got now: If I can't perceive it I won't believe it therefore I know it's not true."

No. You still don't get it. All knowledge can be traced back to the perceptual level -- even higher level concepts, abstractions like justice, freedom, capitalism, honesty, integrity, free market. How so? These concepts subsume other concepts, which subsume other concepts, until, if traced back far enough through the hierarchy, we find ourselves at the base, the perceptually self-evident, the axioms, which ground all knowledge. You can't trace concepts back any further than that. And all concepts (even the formation of invalid ones that attempt to deny the axioms) subsume the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity, and the Primacy of Existence. This is basic stuff.

For example, do you deny that remembering subsumes the concept life? If you say you "remember" something, aren't you also saying "I" remember? Are you alive?

Trinity wrote: "Is this your argument?"

Is what my argument? That which you have tried to attribute to me? Absolutely not. No, this claim by you is just another example of what happens to the minds of those who try as hard as they can to make the arbitrary come true.

Ydemoc

January 08, 2012 10:42 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"No. You still don't get it. All knowledge can be traced back to the perceptual level -- even higher level concepts, abstractions like justice, freedom, capitalism, honesty, integrity, free market. How so? These concepts subsume other concepts, which subsume other concepts, until, if traced back far enough through the hierarchy, we find ourselves at the base, the perceptually self-evident, the axioms, which ground all knowledge. You can't trace concepts back any further than that. And all concepts (even the formation of invalid ones that attempt to deny the axioms) subsume the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity, and the Primacy of Existence. This is basic stuff. "


well put, and yes he does not get it

January 08, 2012 10:46 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Thanks! I see your back to form, in your responses to Trinity. The formation of concepts was something he has never really addressed adequately. He says they are formed "automatically," but doesn't really explain the process, as if it being automatic precludes explaining the process. The car wash I take my car to is automatic also, and even they can explain the process.

And as for concepts having referents in reality and hierarchy of knowledge, Trinity had no answer for this as far as the concept "death" is concerned, i.e., it being available prior to The Fall. What were it's referents if there was no death ever prior to the fall? Quite telling, indeed.

Like the notion and the belief he holds in his invisible magic being, Trinity continually "comes up empty."

Ydemoc

January 08, 2012 10:57 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

let me start with Justin I see some more fallacious resoning

Justin doesn't like torture or beating people because he doesnt like the way it makes him feel therefore its wrong.

Garbage Reasoning. Not a vicious circle but a sick circle

Well Justin I don't like what you say because it mashes me cringe therefore it's wrong, irrational blah blah

Is this how people really argue?



And then you have "Ydemoc" spewing out the old slogans i.e. garbage.

I don't Beileve you have a brain either because I can't see.


Justin since you are not as intellectually handicapped as "Ydemoc" I'll ask you.



Are all things proven in the same way?

If yes have you proven everything?

If no then how do you know my proofs aren't proofs

January 08, 2012 11:03 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

You gotta love the boys sick reasoning.

Comparing a car wash to the human mind.

This is a triple false analogy. Junk


Is this how people really reason?

January 08, 2012 11:06 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"
Well Justin I don't like what you say because it mashes me cringe therefore it's wrong, irrational blah blah "

I gave three reasons

1. it does not work
2. it violates mans rights
3. and lastly and least important of the three I dont like it

Notice which one Nide chooses to interact with

January 08, 2012 11:11 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Are all things proven in the same way?"

short answer no. There are several different types of logic, Aristotelean only being the one most commonly used. Think of it as every day logic. I am aware of a few others and their internal rules. If you have a proof that is valid within the rules of a type of logic could you care to name the form of logic used and what would be your syllogism under the strictures of its rules. Once I have this I can properly evaluate the argument.

January 08, 2012 11:16 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 08, 2012 11:24 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 08, 2012 11:26 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Well Justin I don't like what you say because it mashes me cringe therefore it's wrong, irrational blah blah "

this is telling. In my example I eluded to the possibility that my aversion for torture could have a instinctual component thus be a innate facet of man's nature, very important when discussing a code of values and a guide to action for man. But Nide says here that it makes him cringe and therefor it is wrong. Listen carefully to what has been said here. He is referring to my view of reality in which there is no ruling consciousness. This is the subjectivist mindset in action. In my case I said I don't approve of torture, but I am not arguing that it does not exist. Nide seems to saying that this objective universe that just is without a consciousness in back of it is undesirable to him therefore I don't believe it, it makes him cringe! What a moral coward. Reality is what it is and that is not going to change Nide regardless of weather you find it distasteful or not.

January 08, 2012 11:28 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

prediction

Nide will ask me to account for morality again even tho at this time he has choosen to not interact with the definition I provided. Bet on it.

January 08, 2012 11:35 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

You gotta love Justin's switching the burden and how he fails to interact with the rest of those question here they are again:


Are all things proven in the same way?

If yes have you proven everything in the same way?

If no then how do you know my proofs aren't proofs?


Ben wallis said something to that effect that we have "moral intuitions" but where do those "intuitions" come from and what makes your "intuions" right and others wrong?

It's an appeal to emotion wrapped in a circle


Justin once I again I show your depraved reasoning.


So, yea another epic failure at accounting for morality.



"Reality is what it is" yea only in your circular world.

January 08, 2012 11:58 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 09, 2012 12:34 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "And then you have "Ydemoc" spewing out the old slogans i.e. garbage."

This comment demonstrates, again, Trinity's inability or unwillingness to process the material provided to him; thereby showcasing a mind lost in the fog of faith, flailing about as it tries to make the arbitrary come true.

Trinity wrote: "I don't Beileve you have a brain either because I can't see."

I suggest you seek professional help on this particular matter as soon as possible -- perhaps a psychiatrist or an MD, as well as a grammarian. I'm sure you'll be able to find them in your area.

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 12:36 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Hahahshah weeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!

The epic failure aka the old slogan aka garbage man aka "Ydemoc".

January 09, 2012 12:48 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"You gotta love Justin's switching the burden and how he fails to interact with the rest of those question here they are again:


Are all things proven in the same way?

If yes have you proven everything in the same way?

If no then how do you know my proofs aren't proofs?"

what proofs? seriously what syllogism have you provided? The last one I can recall you posting had one of its premises as its conclusion almost word for word. What form of logic are you using? Are you using Boolean, Aristotelean, quantum? Statistical? What? And you do have the burden here, you are the one that keeps coming back here to argue with us, what have I posted on your blog after mid August, answer.... nothing. I don't care what you believe, I really and truly don't. It is you that came here to witness , to spread the word of god and all I ask for starters is a valid argument with premises we can agree on. To date you have not provided this. Then we could discuss its soundness. I referred you to a fellow apologist that is dispensing the advice that you are wasting your time, no comment from you on this?

"Ben wallis said something to that effect that we have "moral intuitions" but where do those "intuitions" come from and what makes your "intuions" right and others wrong?

It's an appeal to emotion wrapped in a circle"

No actually what I was discussing is why as a human being, the descendant of those that could get along and as a result not die before they had offspring might have a evolutionary reason for having an instinctual empathy for others. That in turn, this biological incite might be able to explain what could drive us as a species to a kind of morality we would craft. One that works! That is far from saying well I feel like I don't like it therefore its bad, this is a case of explaining... you know gaining understanding of WHY I WOULD FEEL THAT WAY.... That is we have these feelings because it has real world pragmatic survival value. This does not exhaust my conception of morality by a long shot however, see below.


continued......

January 09, 2012 12:53 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Justin once I again I show your depraved reasoning."

ZZZzzzzzz.......


"So, yea another epic failure at accounting for morality."

this is what I posted "Morality is a guide to action required by man because decision making is not an automatic function. Further mans life and quality of life require correct actions as gauged against the cardinal value of one's life and life in general thus morality is needed. Morality is not something external to man. Not something imposed on man from above. It was invented by man to facilitate harmonious human interactions. There morality accounted for."

you have not interacted with this. Take note that I went into the utilitarian nature of morality in the example of torture. Morality is a guide to action, it is informed by the facts of existence. One of those facts is torture is a piss poor way of getting information, thus the correct and moral thing is to refrain from it, see no feelings here. Further it violates man's rights which is a whole other argument. You choose to ignore this and then latch onto my confession that I found it distasteful and further completely ignored my discussion of why I might feel that way and why that is relevant to morality.



"Reality is what it is" yea only in your circular world.

And what is the alternative Nide, That reality is not what it is? If that is the case just how could you or anyone prove anything? Create concepts in order to even conceptualize the concept proof? Here is your stolen concept fallacy again. Nide when you say something like this I realize in full just how futile it is to discuss anything with you. I cant at this time tell the difference between malice and incompetence on your part. Frankly I want to believe you are a Poe as the alternative would seriously damage the confidence I have in the human race.
If a man is not even going to agree A is A what common referent, medium of exchange could they have? None. Hell the next time you post something here how am I to know that is in fact what you meant to say, if things are not what they are? So Nide unless your next post is an agreement that A is A, that identity is a valid concept then I am done talking with you, it would be pointless.

Nide, god's instrument to harden the hearts of the reprobate by displaying a stunning degree of incompetence.

January 09, 2012 12:53 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Justin once I again I show your depraved reasoning."

ZZZzzzzzz.......


"So, yea another epic failure at accounting for morality."

this is what I posted "Morality is a guide to action required by man because decision making is not an automatic function. Further mans life and quality of life require correct actions as gauged against the cardinal value of one's life and life in general thus morality is needed. Morality is not something external to man. Not something imposed on man from above. It was invented by man to facilitate harmonious human interactions. There morality accounted for."

you have not interacted with this. Take note that I went into the utilitarian nature of morality in the example of torture. Morality is a guide to action, it is informed by the facts of existence. One of those facts is torture is a piss poor way of getting information, thus the correct and moral thing is to refrain from it, see no feelings here. Further it violates man's rights which is a whole other argument. You choose to ignore this and then latch onto my confession that I found it distasteful and further completely ignored my discussion of why I might feel that way and why that is relevant to morality.



"Reality is what it is" yea only in your circular world.

And what is the alternative Nide, That reality is not what it is? If that is the case just how could you or anyone prove anything? Create concepts in order to even conceptualize the concept proof? Here is your stolen concept fallacy again. Nide when you say something like this I realize in full just how futile it is to discuss anything with you. I cant at this time tell the difference between malice and incompetence on your part. Frankly I want to believe you are a Poe as the alternative would seriously damage the confidence I have in the human race.
If a man is not even going to agree A is A what common referent, medium of exchange could they have? None. Hell the next time you post something here how am I to know that is in fact what you meant to say, if things are not what they are? So Nide unless your next post is an agreement that A is A, that identity is a valid concept then I am done talking with you, it would be pointless.

Nide, god's instrument to harden the hearts of the reprobate by displaying a stunning degree of incompetence.

January 09, 2012 12:56 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Justin once I again I show your depraved reasoning."

ZZZzzzzzz.......


"So, yea another epic failure at accounting for morality."

this is what I posted "Morality is a guide to action required by man because decision making is not an automatic function. Further mans life and quality of life require correct actions as gauged against the cardinal value of one's life and life in general thus morality is needed. Morality is not something external to man. Not something imposed on man from above. It was invented by man to facilitate harmonious human interactions. There morality accounted for."

you have not interacted with this. Take note that I went into the utilitarian nature of morality in the example of torture. Morality is a guide to action, it is informed by the facts of existence. One of those facts is torture is a piss poor way of getting information, thus the correct and moral thing is to refrain from it, see no feelings here. Further it violates man's rights which is a whole other argument. You choose to ignore this and then latch onto my confession that I found it distasteful and further completely ignored my discussion of why I might feel that way and why that is relevant to morality.



"Reality is what it is" yea only in your circular world.

And what is the alternative Nide, That reality is not what it is? If that is the case just how could you or anyone prove anything? Create concepts in order to even conceptualize the concept proof? Here is your stolen concept fallacy again. Nide when you say something like this I realize in full just how futile it is to discuss anything with you. I cant at this time tell the difference between malice and incompetence on your part. Frankly I want to believe you are a Poe as the alternative would seriously damage the confidence I have in the human race.
If a man is not even going to agree A is A what common referent, medium of exchange could they have? None. Hell the next time you post something here how am I to know that is in fact what you meant to say, if things are not what they are? So Nide unless your next post is an agreement that A is A, that identity is a valid concept then I am done talking with you, it would be pointless.

Nide, god's instrument to harden the hearts of the reprobate by displaying a stunning degree of incompetence.

January 09, 2012 12:58 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Justin once I again I show your depraved reasoning."

ZZZzzzzzz.......


"So, yea another epic failure at accounting for morality."

this is what I posted "Morality is a guide to action required by man because decision making is not an automatic function. Further mans life and quality of life require correct actions as gauged against the cardinal value of one's life and life in general thus morality is needed. Morality is not something external to man. Not something imposed on man from above. It was invented by man to facilitate harmonious human interactions. There morality accounted for."

you have not interacted with this. Take note that I went into the utilitarian nature of morality in the example of torture. Morality is a guide to action, it is informed by the facts of existence. One of those facts is torture is a piss poor way of getting information, thus the correct and moral thing is to refrain from it, see no feelings here. Further it violates man's rights which is a whole other argument. You choose to ignore this and then latch onto my confession that I found it distasteful and further completely ignored my discussion of why I might feel that way and why that is relevant to morality.



"Reality is what it is" yea only in your circular world.

And what is the alternative Nide, That reality is not what it is? If that is the case just how could you or anyone prove anything? Create concepts in order to even conceptualize the concept proof? Here is your stolen concept fallacy again. Nide when you say something like this I realize in full just how futile it is to discuss anything with you. I cant at this time tell the difference between malice and incompetence on your part. Frankly I want to believe you are a Poe as the alternative would seriously damage the confidence I have in the human race.
If a man is not even going to agree A is A what common referent, medium of exchange could they have? None. Hell the next time you post something here how am I to know that is in fact what you meant to say, if things are not what they are? So Nide unless your next post is an agreement that A is A, that identity is a valid concept then I am done talking with you, it would be pointless.

Nide, god's instrument to harden the hearts of the reprobate by displaying a stunning degree of incompetence.

January 09, 2012 1:00 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Justin once I again I show your depraved reasoning."

ZZZzzzzzz.......


"So, yea another epic failure at accounting for morality."

this is what I posted "Morality is a guide to action required by man because decision making is not an automatic function. Further mans life and quality of life require correct actions as gauged against the cardinal value of one's life and life in general thus morality is needed. Morality is not something external to man. Not something imposed on man from above. It was invented by man to facilitate harmonious human interactions. There morality accounted for."

you have not interacted with this. Take note that I went into the utilitarian nature of morality in the example of torture. Morality is a guide to action, it is informed by the facts of existence. One of those facts is torture is a piss poor way of getting information, thus the correct and moral thing is to refrain from it, see no feelings here. Further it violates man's rights which is a whole other argument. You choose to ignore this and then latch onto my confession that I found it distasteful and further completely ignored my discussion of why I might feel that way and why that is relevant to morality.



"Reality is what it is" yea only in your circular world.

And what is the alternative Nide, That reality is not what it is? If that is the case just how could you or anyone prove anything? Create concepts in order to even conceptualize the concept proof? Here is your stolen concept fallacy again. Nide when you say something like this I realize in full just how futile it is to discuss anything with you. I cant at this time tell the difference between malice and incompetence on your part. Frankly I want to believe you are a Poe as the alternative would seriously damage the confidence I have in the human race.
If a man is not even going to agree A is A what common referent, medium of exchange could they have? None. Hell the next time you post something here how am I to know that is in fact what you meant to say, if things are not what they are? So Nide unless your next post is an agreement that A is A, that identity is a valid concept then I am done talking with you, it would be pointless.

Nide, god's instrument to harden the hearts of the reprobate by displaying a stunning degree of incompetence.

January 09, 2012 1:00 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

ok guys, for some damn reason by second post wont post

January 09, 2012 1:01 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Justin once I again I show your depraved reasoning."

ZZZzzzzzz.......


"So, yea another epic failure at accounting for morality."

this is what I posted "Morality is a guide to action required by man because decision making is not an automatic function. Further mans life and quality of life require correct actions as gauged against the cardinal value of one's life and life in general thus morality is needed. Morality is not something external to man. Not something imposed on man from above. It was invented by man to facilitate harmonious human interactions. There morality accounted for."

you have not interacted with this. Take note that I went into the utilitarian nature of morality in the example of torture. Morality is a guide to action, it is informed by the facts of existence. One of those facts is torture is a piss poor way of getting information, thus the correct and moral thing is to refrain from it, see no feelings here. Further it violates man's rights which is a whole other argument. You choose to ignore this and then latch onto my confession that I found it distasteful and further completely ignored my discussion of why I might feel that way and why that is relevant to morality.

January 09, 2012 1:04 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Reality is what it is" yea only in your circular world.

And what is the alternative Nide, That reality is not what it is? If that is the case just how could you or anyone prove anything? Create concepts in order to even conceptualize the concept proof? Here is your stolen concept fallacy again. Nide when you say something like this I realize in full just how futile it is to discuss anything with you. I cant at this time tell the difference between malice and incompetence on your part. Frankly I want to believe you are a Poe as the alternative would seriously damage the confidence I have in the human race.
If a man is not even going to agree A is A what common referent, medium of exchange could they have? None. Hell the next time you post something here how am I to know that is in fact what you meant to say, if things are not what they are? So Nide unless your next post is an agreement that A is A, that identity is a valid concept then I am done talking with you, it would be pointless.

Nide, god's instrument to harden the hearts of the reprobate by displaying a stunning degree of incompetence.

January 09, 2012 1:04 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

that was strange, usually it will warn you if your post is too long, in this case it would post it but when I refreshed the browser it would be removed.

January 09, 2012 1:05 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Jhall you sound tired man maybe a little sleep.

But I see more problems.

Your emotions are irrevelant to the discussion try and reserve yourself it's Embarrasing.


Jhall said in regards to morality " It was invented by man to facilitate harmonious human interactions. There morality accounted for."



Not for a second begging the question again. It's ridiculous


I'm done man you and the old slogan are real horrible "debaters" you refuse to comply with logical reasoning.


Jhall said "Nide, god's instrument to harden the hearts of the reprobate by displaying a stunning degree of incompetence."



Are you a rebrobate Jhall?

January 09, 2012 1:17 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity writes: "You gotta love the boys sick reasoning."

What boys are those?

Trinity writes: "Comparing a car wash to the human mind."

I don't think you know what you're stating.

Trinity writes: "This is a triple false analogy. Junk"

Pardon?

Trinity writes: "Is this how people really reason?"

I don't think you know what you're asking.

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 8:57 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

"Ydemoc" you ran your course from here on I'll interact with Jhall if he responds.


Epic Failure.

January 09, 2012 9:14 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity writes: "Ydemoc" you ran your course from here on I'll interact with Jhall if he responds."

I don't think you know what it is you're trying to say here.

Trinity wrote: "Epic failure"

Pardon?

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 9:19 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity writes: "Ydemoc" you ran your course from here on I'll interact with Jhall if he responds."

I don't think you know what it is you're trying to say here.

Trinity wrote: "Epic failure"

Pardon?

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 9:21 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity writes: "Ydemoc" you ran your course from here on I'll interact with Jhall if he responds."

I don't think you know what it is you're trying to say here.

Trinity wrote: "Epic failure"

Pardon?

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 9:21 AM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

I thought you might find this interesting, especially if you have ever dealt with those throwing around the irreducible complexity argument.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/01/resurrecting-extinct-proteins-shows-how-a-machine-evolves.html

January 09, 2012 12:51 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

I thought you might find this amusing. It's something Trinity posted over on Michael Russell's blog. Notice how sweet he is and how much more care he takes in presenting his thoughts -- with his improved grammar and clarity -- things rarely on display here on Dawson's blog. Here's the link:

http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/2011/11/should-christian-debater-assume-whole.html?showComment=1326076332245#comment-c1936643591105889618

In fact, I find it so refreshingly pleasent that I think I'll interact with it. Let's proceed:

Trinity starts out: "Mike,"

A very cordial greeting. Very chummy. Nothing like we typically see from Trinity here on Dawson's blog.

Trinity continues: "My real name is Richard but you can call me either."

Despite the fact that right out of the gate we see a misstep in grammar -- does Trinity mean Michael can call him "Hezakiah," "Richard" or a third name "either"? -- he exhibits a friendliness rarely matched here on Dawson's blog.

And though his instructions were intended for Michael and not for me, I think I will continue calling him "Trinity."

Trinity continues: "The summary that I gave is a brief brief summary Van Til's book is over 400 pages long and evidently I can't cover everything."

Trinity is referring here to a previous post of his where he summarized Van Til's credo. What's noteworthy is that in Trinity's summary, he provides Michael with much more detail than he typically offers us here on Dawson's blog.

(continued)

January 09, 2012 1:33 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity continues: "For the most part his views are summed up in his credo which you all already familiar with."

What a polite way of putting it. It seems downright civil!

Trinity continues: "However, In his book he has a mock dialogue between an unbeliever, an armenian and reformed Christian which he labels mr. black, mr. grey, mr. white."

Is this the same Trinity we've come to know and love, overwhelming us with such details?!? My goodness!

As a side note, one does wonder what Van Til would say if we asked for the referents to the concepts "black" "grey" and "white." I wonder if he would call us "morons" and our questions, "junk" and "garbage"? But anyway, tell us more, Trinity...

"In the dialogue he's point becomes somewhat more clear."

The exact same thing could be said of Trinity in his interaction with Michael as opposed to what he posts on here on Dawson's blog: His points become more clear.

Trinity continues: "I know it's on line somewhere so I'll provide you with a link sometime and maybe when you have some free time you can give it a read."

Thanks! And how considerate of you!

Trinity continues: "Van til never really uses the words a "starting point" it's more of a point of contact."

Thanks for pointing that out!

Trinity continues: "That being us created in God's image and our need for repentance. Man and the world are what the bible says they are."

Okay... And so since the bible says there were Conversational Donkeys, this must be the only reason for you believing it, because a storybook says so. Got it. But I digress, so please, go on...

Trinity writes: "I think the confusion here is what our Guiding principles should be when engaging unbelievers."

I think the confusion is much deeper than that. But do tell us what should those guiding principles should be, and have you employed them on Dawson's blog? Or perhaps you're just confused when you post here on Dawson's blog, or maybe feigning confusion? Let's find out:

Trinity continues: "The believers guiding principle should be God and his control of everything that happens."

Well, it's no wonder you're confused and/or feign confusion. And I will grant that you have propagated such confusion, such non-objective, purely primacy of consciousness view here on Dawson's blog. But you have rarely done so with the clarity demonstrated above. Yes, in the quest to prop up the arbitrary and make it come true, the fog of faith can certainly result in confusion.

Trinity continues: "We don't decide what reality is but what God says it is."

I will grant that you have propagated this non-objective, purely primacy of consciousness view here on Dawson's blog, but rarely with such clarity. And such clarity makes it very plain to see that you are basically saying, "We don't decide what reality is but what we in our imaginations say it is."

(continued)

January 09, 2012 1:35 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity continues: "That is why we argue by pressuposition..."

Right! You argue by presupposition because the imaginary is not actually real. This gimmick allows you to say that knowledge presupposes that which isn't there. It's amazing what a little clarity uncovers. Go on...

Trinity continues: "...as I said it's an argument about methods and whos method can make sense of human experience or make sense of man and the world that he lives in."

Trinity, your wording and spelling here is making me regret having given you credit for improved clarity. You are backsliding a little. But let's move on...

Trinity continues: "So, with the tribesman or any unbeliever our point of contact is that we both are created in God's image and are in need of repentance unto salvation."

I will grant that you have propagated this non-objective, purely primacy of consciousness, and immoral view here on Dawson's blog, but rarely with such clarity.

Trinity writes: "In a sense we are to argue through God's eyes."

God has eyes? What color are they?

Trinity writes: "Just as the unbeliever argues through the eyes of "reason"."

Reason has eyes? Do they bulge?

Trinity writes: "The unbeliever says he will be the one who decides what reality is and what is possible or impossible."

You make your position quite clear here, even if you rarely do this here on Dawson's blog, and even if your position suffers from inconsistencies that render it completely cut off from reality.

Trinity writes: "The believer will let God be the final reference point in matters of reality and what is possible and impossible."

Yes. You have asserted this here on Dawson's blog and that this is what you believe; but rarely have you posited such an absurd notion with such clarity. You are basically telling us that your imagination is the final reference point of what's possible and what's not.

Trinity concludes with: "I'll let you comment mike and we can take it from there"

Thanks, Richard -- I mean, Trinity -- and, may I say, what a polite lad you appear to be when engaging your fellow followers of invisible magic beings.

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 1:36 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Thanks for the link! I'll check that out.

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 1:38 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

"Ydemoc".

F for failure

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF



Blssings.

January 09, 2012 1:45 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 09, 2012 1:48 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Nide, richard, whatever said "
Trinity writes: "The unbeliever says he will be the one who decides what reality is and what is possible or impossible.""


It just floors me that still, to this very day he keeps misrepresenting what our position is on this. Reality is the final court of appeal, not me or any other consciousness, damn what is so hard to understand here regardless of whether he agrees or not.
I suspect the key to understanding his consistent misconstrue is in his question to us earlier "does existence speak to you" I suspect that the concept of gaining falsifiable and tentative knowledge about reality via a process of reason (perception to cognition) is completely alien to him. In his view knowledge has to be given to you by a authority and in the case of what we have been discussing a supernatural authority. God forbid you think for yourself and figure out conclusions by using your mind! Cant have any of that. I once asked what does Christianity have to offer a man that does not apologize for his existence, still have not gotten an answer that I can see any value in.

January 09, 2012 1:50 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

I think his F key is stuck:)

January 09, 2012 1:50 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin Can God exist?

January 09, 2012 1:57 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

The arbitrary is arbitrary. It does not qualify for having a seat at the table of knowledge. You are essentially asking if it's possible for the primacy of consciousness to obtain. This question is invalid. It makes zero sense.

Can square circles exist?

Is it possible for you to remember before you were born?

Same kinds of questions. Why do you keep trying to make the arbitrary come true? Why do keep trying to convince us that donkeys can talk?

What are you afraid of?

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 2:20 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin can God exist?

January 09, 2012 2:32 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

Nide wants to know if I think it is reasonable to conjecture that "god" could exit. However earlier Nide has made it clear that he does not accept identity as a valid concept, thus I can not be sure what this "god" is that he is referring to, thus I can not answer his question or any other for that matter. If the law of identity is not valid then so goes law of excluded middle and non contradiction, for all I know he is talking about both god and a bowl of fish at the same time and within the same respect. How very confusing.

January 09, 2012 3:03 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Jhall,

Is logic invented or discovered?


How do you harmonize something like logic to your belief that there is no design, intelligience, rationality in systems?

January 09, 2012 3:20 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote, regarding Trinity Dick's question:

"...for all I know he is talking about both god and a bowl of fish at the same time and within the same respect. How very confusing."

Exactly! He doesn't tell us what his god is, only what it isn't. And then once he tells us what his god supposedly did, i.e., create everything, (which is nothing more than the primacy of consciousness), he moves on to more questions which he got while thumbing through Van Til's book, the contents of which he swallows hook, line and sinker; and a book that couldn't even have been written if the primacy of consciousness obtained! The primacy of consciousness metaphysics that underwrites the storybook known as the bible turns reality into something like a Dr. Seuss book:

Questioner: Be still, and tell me what is a book, Mr. Van Til?

Van Til: On a wish, it is a bowl of fish! On a prayer, it is a cab fare. On a belief, it is relief. And on hope it is a rope.

Questioner: Uhhh -- okay, I gotta go.

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 3:52 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"Is logic invented or discovered?"

Short answer is it is invented. However given your continual confusion in conflating a concept with it's referent I doubt very much you will understand the full import of my answer


"How do you harmonize something like logic to your belief that there is no design, intelligience, rationality in systems?"

I might entertain to answer your questions about my world view despite that fact that you have not agreed that A is A. However it would be nice if you asked about my actual world view. It is amazing that here we are about 5 months later and you still have no clue as to what objectivism or my world view has to say. This must be deliberate on your part. I strongly suspect you have no actual real interest in understanding and I can somewhat sympathize. Every time I have a new insight into your world view, some new understanding I am stuck by how alien it is. Basically I don't think you can understand my position thus I don't think you can ask meaningful questions about it.

for the record I have never said there is "no design" or intelligence or rationality in systems. I am currently using a PC running Linux that I built myself. The parts were designed. I had to employ intelligence and rationality in order to accomplish this. You like to throw around the accusation of the question begging fallacy a lot without backing it up, do you doubt that you have not just pulled a strawman?

Forget it Nide, you will never grasp an objective world view and so your questions are going to continue to be wide of the mark. You may be tired of talking with Ydemoc, I on the other hand am tired of talking with you. Got to wonder what keeps you here?

January 09, 2012 3:57 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

I would wager Trinity Dick doesn't even read most of what we write. He's here primarily to be a pest and to annoy. He thinks he's being a good Christian by doing so.

But that's okay by me, for as long I'm enjoying myself, then I will continue to respond to his inanity at "my good pleasure."

And he should keep in mind that what I have written -- including all the quotes and citations I've made to Dawson's incredible volume of work -- are on record for all present and future, rationally minded fence-sitters to see and investigate for themselves.

Trinity Dick's posted inanity also gives me a chance to not only read the interesting things you have to say to him when you respond, but it also provides me opportunity after opportunity to re-read much of what Rand, Peikoff, Dawson, Thorn and others have written.

Like I've said, it's a win-win-win.

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 4:15 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Justin,

Why can't A be C tomorrow if men invented logic.
That's an arbitrary claim why can't I say a cat is a dog it's only an invention.


That's a false analogy comparing a computer to a human.

Where does it come from Jhall rationality, intelligience where did men get the ability to design things is it evolved?


Your emotions are irrevelant to the discussion.


Comparing a fish to god is another false analogy.

January 09, 2012 4:40 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity Dick, in responding to Justin, wrote: "Why can't A be C tomorrow if men invented logic.
That's an arbitrary claim why can't I say a cat is a dog it's only an invention."

"...laws of logic are based on our perception of objects in reality. In order to argue this, he seeks to drive a wedge between perception and conception, insinuating that the conceptual is divorced from the perceptual ("we are not discovering a law of logic by observation, but by thought"). Yet he gives no good reason why we should accept the view that the conceptual level of consciousness does not and/or cannot integrate and identify the content which it acquires by perception. Instead, he erects a straw man against perception by inventing an arbitrary argument based on the notion that we cannot perceive what objects are not because we cannot perceive that which exists. Little does Slick realize then that perception and conception have to do with that which exists, not with that which does not exist or with what we imagine does not exist. And most importantly, Slick's argument here depends on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between consciousness and its objects, preferring the view that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy over existence. On a proper view of reality, which is the metaphysical primacy of existence over consciousness, we recognize that the law of identity is perceptually based and that there is no wedge divorcing the conceptual from the perceptual, or the empirical from the logical." ("Slick's Version of TAG," Dawson Bethrick, http://katholon.com/CARM/Slicks_TAG.htm)

"Logic is a set of principles which guides an individual’s reasoning about the facts he discovers in reality, and is composed of a wide assortment of concepts" ("RazorsKiss on the Christian God as the Basis of Knowledge" Dawson Bethrick, katholon.com/ip/RazorsKiss_on_the_Christian_God_Part-4.pdf)

Man, I love responding to Trinity Dick! I hadn't read those pieces by Dawson in a long time.

Hey, thanks Trinity Dick!

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 6:00 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

ZzzzzzzzZzzzzzzzzzzzZzzz......

January 09, 2012 6:05 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

While Trinity Dick is snoozing, I think that this is a good time to remind all the rationally minded, fence-sitting lurkers what rationality is:

"Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking - that the mind is one's only judge of values and one's only guide of action - that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise - that a concession to the irrational invalidates one's consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality - that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind - that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one's consciousness." (Atlas Shrugged, p. 936, from CJ Holmes' "Why God Belief is Irrational," http://www.geocities.ws/intellectoasis/irrational.htm)

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 8:22 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

While Trinity Dick is snoozing, I think that this is a good time to remind all the rationally minded, fence-sitting lurkers what rationality is:

"Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking - that the mind is one's only judge of values and one's only guide of action - that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise - that a concession to the irrational invalidates one's consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality - that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind - that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one's consciousness." (Atlas Shrugged, p. 936, from CJ Holmes' "Why God Belief is Irrational," http://www.geocities.ws/intellectoasis/irrational.htm)

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 8:24 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

While Trinity Dick is snoozing, I think that this is a good time to remind all the rationally minded, fence-sitting lurkers what rationality is:

"Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking - that the mind is one's only judge of values and one's only guide of action - that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise - that a concession to the irrational invalidates one's consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality - that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind - that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates one's consciousness." (Atlas Shrugged, p. 936, from CJ Holmes' "Why God Belief is Irrational," http://www.geocities.ws/intellectoasis/irrational.htm)

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 8:29 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

every time I think up a reply you seem to beat me to it with something more to the point of the topic at hand. Keep it up:)

Additionally I really do think he does not understand the difference between a concept and its referent. It would explain a lot as to why we end up talking past one another. Also if I might advance a suspicion, I think the reason he keeps misconstruing our descriptions of an objective universe is that it scares the hell out of him. I think he buys into the just cause universe fallacy whole hog.

January 09, 2012 8:37 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Have you ever taken a look at that CJ Holmes site? It's old, but there are quite a few good articles there. I think that link I cited above will take you there.

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 8:50 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

thank you, ill check it out once I can spare some time from coding which seems like maybe February :)

January 09, 2012 8:54 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

That link above takes you to the particular article from which I grabbed that quote. Here is the link to his main page with its listing of other articles:

http://www.geocities.ws/intellectoasis/writings.htm

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 8:58 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

The burden is on you Justin.

Your "Worldview" is no "Worldview" at all.

It commits the fallacy of the Stolen Capitol.

It's only because Christisnity is true that you could even
say it's false.


Your "Worldview" can't even account for the dirt under my sneakers.


By the way is that you in that bizarre costume?

January 09, 2012 9:19 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

"The burden is on you Justin."

If I had taken up the task of trying to convince you of the validity of my world view then yes, I would have the burden or share it equally in a debate. However I don't care if you do or do not accept my world view. Frankly you don't even understand or know what my world view is. If you say "Justin all your arguments are bunk and I am leaving now" I would reply don't let the door hit you on the way out. Pretty much I have a live and let live attitude toward people holding other views as long as they are not causing direct harm to myself or the ones I love. The only real reason I continue to involve myself in this as I have stated before, to improve my writing skills. You on the other hand and you are not alone in this seem to be quite bothered that I think you are a loon. It seems Christians are very insecure in there faith and cant stand the very idea of someone that does not agree with them, to bad, deal with it Nide.

"Your "Worldview" is no "Worldview" at all."

Odd coming from someone that could not if pressed even give a succinct description of my world view.

"It commits the fallacy of the Stolen Capitol."

I am not familiar with this fallacy, could you elaborate? However I can take a guess, it sounds like a variate of the stolen concept fallacy, but how could you invoke that if you don't even have a theory of concepts? But perhaps I am being presumptions in this.

"It's only because Christisnity is true that you could even
say it's false."

Yes we have heard you repeat Bahnsen's poof over and over again. Still have not seen a valid argument for this. Hey for a second if you can, pretend you are not a Christian, oh wait you are not capable of that out of the box thinking but if you could, do think that would sound convincing to you? Just curious.


"Your "Worldview" can't even account for the dirt under my sneakers."

Actually the physics of how dirt gets under a persons nails is not difficult to understand and it is easy to account for it. Ask any criminal forensics specialist.


"By the way is that you in that bizarre costume?"

Yes! yes it is. That is from last Halloween at a drag party:) I had lots of fun. Life can be grand if you consistently apply logic to obtaining ones goals.

January 09, 2012 9:42 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

by the way why did you avoid my 3 questions to you in my earlier post. There is a severe imbalance here in the number of questions you pose that I answer and the few I shoot back that you ignore.

January 09, 2012 9:43 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

in response to Nide's question

""It commits the fallacy of the Stolen Capitol."

I replied

"I am not familiar with this fallacy, could you elaborate? However I can take a guess, it sounds like a variate of the stolen concept fallacy, but how could you invoke that if you don't even have a theory of concepts? But perhaps I am being presumptions in this. "

a little spell check fail there, ment to say presumptuous:)

January 09, 2012 9:48 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Can you repost them?

A lot has been said. Thanks buddy

January 09, 2012 9:48 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity Dick wrote: "The burden is on you Justin."


From "Presuppositionalism and the Evasion of the Burden of Proof, Part 1" by Dawson Bethrick, February 1, 2008:

It's both strange and telling that a Christian would have a problem accepting the burden of proof if he wanted others to accept his claim that his god is anything more than imaginary. How much confidence does the believer have in his god-belief? How much confidence does he have in his reasons for believing what he claims?

Peter continues:

The unbeliever reasons that because he is not the one positing the claim of someone's existence (in this case, God) that he bears no burden to disprove God's existence since the claim isn't true or can't be known unless it is first proven.

No, that’s not why the atheist does not have the burden of proof. The atheist has no burden of proof because no one needs to prove that the non-existent does not exist. If the Christian god does not exist, no one needs to prove that it does not exist; in that case it simply doesn’t exist, and people either accept this or live in denial, hoping that it does exist. Again, the theist is asserting the existence of an entity, an entity which he says exists beyond our ability to perceive (so we have no means by which we can have direct awareness of it), beyond our ability to measure (so we could never know how to integrate it conceptually into the sum of our knowledge), beyond our ability to prove (for proof requires evidence, and legitimate evidence is finite while the Christian god is said to be infinite). We are expected to accept as knowledge something that we could never know, given the characteristics Christians use to describe their god. At best, we can only use our imaginations to "know" such a being, and yet it needs to be borne in mind that the imaginary is not real. So not only does the theist bear the burden of proof, he also boobytraps any attempt at proof given the nature of his god-belief claims. This accounts for why so many theists resent the burden of proof being put on their shoulders: deep down they know it's a hopeless task, because deep down they know their claims are simply not true."

Just a little blurb from the first of a three-part series. Some good reading!

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 9:53 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I accounted for concepts already I guess if you keep repeating it maybe it will come true

The fallacy of Stolen Capitol:

To presume on another's worldview in order to, for example,
be able to make a moral judgement etc.


How about those questions?

January 09, 2012 9:54 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "I accounted for concepts already I guess if you keep repeating it maybe it will come true"

No you didn't.

Trinity wrote: "The fallacy of Stolen Capitol: To presume on another's worldview in order to, for example, be able to make a moral judgement etc."

And this is just one example among many of you demonstrating how have not, in fact, accounted for concepts, and that you have absolutely no idea what hierarchical knowledge entails. To put it bluntly, you are lost. To find your way, read this:

"Do I Borrow My Morality from the Christian Worldview?" by Dawson Bethrick, April 14, 2005,http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2005/04/do-i-borrow-my-morality-from-christian.html

Trinity wrote: "How about those questions?"

How 'bout making sense?

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 10:08 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Dawson is just as deluded as you and you're gonna believe him? The Madness

So, those questions Jhall.

January 09, 2012 10:15 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Dawson is just as deluded as you..."

Deluded about what?

Trinity continued: "...and you're gonna believe him?"

Believe him about what?

Trinity wrote: "The Madness"

Madness about what?

Trinity wrote: "So, those questions Jhall."

Questions about what?

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 10:19 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

the questions he is referring to are these

1. What is the law of identity and why is it important
2. What is a theory of concepts
3. What is metaphysical objectivism

I meant to and thought I posted them last night but either my post got eaten or Nide was right and I was groggy from lack of sleep and never actually posted them. As a programmer he would understand, coffee will only take you so far :)

however Ydemoc I am coming to a new insight from our discussions with Nide, something I have suspected for a while now. The reason why we keep not being satisfied with our answers to the each others questions is that in a real way we are not asking the same questions. Not only do our world views differ in how they answer the so called "big questions" but the questions themselves are different. I am going to post more on this after I get some more coding done.

January 09, 2012 10:20 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Thanks, Justin. I look forward to reading more in the morning.

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 10:22 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Thanks, Justin. I look forward to reading more in the morning.

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 10:23 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin,

Thanks, Justin. I look forward to reading more in the morning.

Ydemoc

January 09, 2012 10:24 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Technically speaking the law of identity stars that a proposition or object is equal to itself or A = A. Which is always true.


Not surprisingly God is Identity.

God is God. He can't change himself , that is, he is always true to himself. He is the only reason Identity holds. The law of identity is based on God.

So is the law of excluded middle which is the negation of the law of contradiction. God can't lie.

The law of identity is important because without
we coulnt know anything. Sound familiar?



Rand's "Theory of Concepts" is loaded Rhetoric that's worse than useless.


Metaphysical objectivism is a false analogy and arbitrary claim. God is not a human being. It could only apply to humans.

January 09, 2012 10:50 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

Frist, all knowledge starts with perception of things that exist, with a consciousness interacting and integrating things perceived, things that have identity; and NOT with the imperceptible, invisible, hidden, spiritual, infinite, immaterial; and not with beliefs, faith, hope, wishes, fear nor respect.

Secondly, (as if the above isn't enough to obliterate Trinity's nonsense) theists own description of their god as being "infinite contradicts the law of identity which they claim as the basis for the law of identity:

"First, to exist is to have identity. The Law of Identity, first identified by Aristotle - not Moses! - is the tautology A is A. A rock is not a river, but a rock. A tree is not a mountain, but a tree. A corollary to the Law of Identity is the principle that, should A exist, is must be A. If a rock exists, it must be itself - it must have the identity it has. These principles apply to all existence, to all the universe. Anything that exists must be part of the universe, and must have an identity, a finite identity. By finite identity I mean an identity which is restricted to itself. Existence by nature is limitation - an existent is limited to being itself, and no less and/or no more than itself. So, in this way, the Objectivist position is that existence is finite in identity. ("Interview with Anton Thorn,"http://www.reocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Interview.htm)

A rational worldview says that knowledge starts with perception of things that actually exist.

Your view states that knowledge starts with that which is unavailable to man's senses (i.e., fear or respect of the invisible and imperceptible), or is somehow inferred from the objects that exist (i.e., not really a starting point).

As for the rest of your nonsense, it has been dealt with and obliterated.

Not only do you misrepresent objectivism, but you also do a very poor job of representing your own worldview. Don't feel too bad about that one though, because trying to make the arbitrary come true is ultimately doomed to failure for all who try.

Ydemoc

January 10, 2012 9:14 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

The same old deluded slogans.

January 10, 2012 9:18 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "The same old deluded slogans."

Notice Trinity seldom interacts with anything that's actually written, but chooses instead to just dismiss it with hand waving. A common symptom of those who try to make the arbitrary come true.

He doesn't answer: "deluded" as opposed to what? And what are the referents for the concept "deluded"?

He doesn't explain for us how knowledge is grounded in the invisible and imperceptible and undetectable.

He fails to tell us how, if knowledge is not hierarchical in nature, then what is it?

He fails to tell us anything about his theory of concepts, other than concepts are "automatic," which, up to this point, is just his way of saying, "I don't know."

He fails to tell us what the referents are for simple concepts.

He fails to tell us how awareness could exist without something to be aware of.

He not only fails to do these things (and more), but he also fails to even try, for he is fearful what it is he might find beyond the fog of faith.

Ydemoc

January 10, 2012 9:46 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Nobody Cares.

January 10, 2012 10:28 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

As a way to avoid interacting with what I've presented, as well as trying to diminish its impact, Trinty writes: "Nobody Cares."

This hand waving is typical behavior from those who cling to the futile notion that the arbitrary can come true as long as reality is ignored.

And since I exist and do care about what it is I write, his statement is terribly imprecise.

Furthermore, even on his own terms, (i.e., god belief), his statement is also imprecise and incomplete.

Trinity is so eager to dismiss anything that presents a challenge to his worldview, that he is willing to ignore his own theistic claim that his invisible magic being supposedly cares for everything! Talk about a failure to integrate!

So, (again, even on his terms) there would be at least 3 persons other than myself who cared about what I wrote, (god, the holy spirit, and jesus -- and I haven't even mentioned other invisible magic beings such as angels, demons, and Satan).

Bottom line: On his terms as well as mine, his statement that "Nobody Cares," is, at worst, intellectually dishonest; and, at best, terribly imprecise and incomplete.

Trinity, with the kind of thinking he displays, clearly underscores what I said in a previous post: Not only does he misrepresent objectivism, but he also does a very poor job of representing his own worldview.

But he shouldn't feel too bad about that one though, because trying to make the arbitrary come true is ultimately doomed to failure for all who try.

Ydemoc

January 10, 2012 11:12 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Nobody Cares.

January 10, 2012 11:24 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity writes: "Nobody Cares."

Again, Trinity is so eager to dismiss anything that presents a challenge to his worldview, that he is willing to ignore his own theistic claim that his invisible magic being supposedly cares for everything! Talk about a failure to integrate!

Trinity, with the kind of thinking he displays, clearly underscores what I said in a previous post: Not only does he misrepresent objectivism, but he also does a very poor job of representing his own worldview.

But he shouldn't feel too bad about misrepresenting his own worldview, though, because trying to make the arbitrary come true is ultimately doomed to failure for all who try.

Ydemoc

January 10, 2012 11:32 AM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

"Objectivism" aka the "philosophy" of depraved reasoning.

January 10, 2012 11:47 AM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity writes: "'Objectivism" aka the 'philosophy' of depraved reasoning.'"

Notice Trinity seldom interacts with anything that's actually written, but chooses instead to just dismiss it with hand waving and baseless ridicule -- common tactics of those who try to make the arbitrary come true.

The irony that Trinity fails to notice is that for him to even utter the above statement:

The Philosophy of Objectivism, and the referents for the concepts he uses to ridicule it, would have to exist. (Existence)

He would have to be aware of Objectivism, to even attempt to ridicule it. (Consciousness)

Objectivism would have to be what it is, as opposed to something other than what it is. (Identity)

Finally, Trinity is making a statement about something, i.e., Objectivism. The statement he makes is a fact claim. Built into his fact claim, (and any fact claim, no matter if the claim is true or false, right or wrong), is the assumption that what he is claiming obtains no matter what he or anyone else believes. He is basically saying, "I Trinity claim something is a fact, no matter what you, me, or anyone else thinks, hopes, wishes, or believes." (Primacy of Existence).

So Trinity affirms the axioms while attempting to ridicule them and the philosophy that champions them.

This is what what happens to a mind that enshrouds itself in a fog of faith while on a quest to make the arbitrary come true.

Ydemoc

January 10, 2012 12:21 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

I don't exist it's all a dream.

January 10, 2012 12:23 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc


Yesterday I brought up a suspicion that the presupper and the objectivist not only have different world views but are asking fundamentally different questions which in turn leads to impass in communication between the two. I think on of the big questions of the presupper world view is why is there something rather than nothing. The unstated assumption in this question is that nothing is the default state and that given that there is something that requires an "accounting for". The objectivist on the other hand is not asking this question and in fact views the question as fallacious because of the stolen concept fallacy inherent in the question.

The stolen concept fallacy, this is a gulf between the two world views. I honestly don't think the presupper even understands the nature of this fallacy despite being foundationalists themselves. Note their similar fallacy of stolen Capitol. The fallacy is of a similar nature but ignores the conceptual hierarchy involved. You see the objectivist starts with existence and the moves on to the "big question" how do I know what I know" or what is the method of knowing. For the objectivists this comes way before any actual question about the nature or identity of any particular existent or group of existants. Thus the objectivist begins with his theory of concepts premised on the objective relationship and the hierarchy of knowledge. Note that Nide dismisses this need for a theory of concepts from the outset. Despite his constant badgering of non believers for how to do you know what you know his world view is not actually asking this, or at least not in any meaningful way. Saying god did it is not an informative explanation.
The objectivist once equipped with a grounding in how we know what we know (epistemology) now has a conceptual framework in which to ask, is this question valid? The objectivist is much more limited in the range of valid questions due to a logical deisre to avoid the stolen concept fallacy. The presupper has no such limitation, he has no theory of concepts to guide his reasoning, thus he can string concepts together in any old manor without regard to their hierarchy. A much wider range of conceivably valid questions are thus allowed. The objectivist looks at the question why is there something rather then nothing and rightly within his world view’s rules say that begs the answer, it is a stolen concept fallacy inherent in the question and thus it is invalid. The presupper not limited in this manor does ask it.
This is why Nide keeps saying we cant account for anything. He is asking why existence and our world view has no answer, our world view does not even ask that question! This is it, the crux of the matter, the reason why we cant seem to get anywhere. Nide wants an answer to this and believes he has found it in the bible. We on the other hand simply say "stupid question" shake our heads and wounder what they are babbling about. For us existence is the default position not none existence. Further as long as Nide continues to ignore and or not understand our theory of concepts he will never understand why we are not asking this question and why we are not interested in his answer or any answer for it.
There are other mismatches in questions asked as well and I will cover them in time for now this is probably the single most important one so far identified.

January 10, 2012 2:07 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

For the "atheist":


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

January 10, 2012 2:28 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Nide

I am at work, youtube is blocked:(

January 10, 2012 2:33 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity,

Thanks for the link. I am glad I was able to see that. A very powerful speaker (if just a little hackneyed), no doubt about that. But, then again, so was Hitler. And so was Jim Jones.

This sermon and its message (and I've heard and seen plenty of "fire and brimstone" preachers just like him, many times before) just reinforces and reaffirms the view that what Christianity peddles is immoral; and that it is really no different than what one might hear from an Imam.

This is the primacy of consciousness through and through. To be peddling it is immoral, for it is clearly disconnected from reality and anti-life. The man performatively contradicts himself with nearly every word he speaks. I have no doubt that this is what he believes, but even he borrows from a rational world view when he states -- and I'm paraphrasing -- "Hell is real whether you want to believe it or not."

A performative contradiction if there ever was one.

From Wikipedia: "A performative contradiction arises when the propositional content of a statement contradicts the presuppositions of asserting it. An example of a performative contradiction is the statement "this statement can't be asserted" because the very act of asserting it presupposes it can be asserted.

The statement "Hierarchies do not exist" offers a more subtle example of performative contradiction referring to the very capacity of making a statement, because the statement itself is a hierarchy of semiotic relations of letters (as symbols) formed into words (as signifiers) formed into a sentence (as a statement)."

Sharing this video inspired me to send you the Wikipedia quotes. I hope you learn something from them, like I did from the preacher.

Ydemoc

January 10, 2012 3:23 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

Hell is real whether you believe it or not.

You get to be with the God you hate forever.
Isn't It amazing?

January 10, 2012 3:53 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Hi Justin,

You bring up some salient points.

You write: "I think on of the big questions of the presupper world view is why is there something rather than nothing. The unstated assumption in this question is that nothing is the default state and that given that there is something that requires an "accounting for"."

Yes. And meanwhile, while asking such a question, they fail to integrate the fact that what they want to really start with is consciousness (i.e., god).

You wrote: "Note their similar fallacy of stolen Capitol. The fallacy is of a similar nature but ignores the conceptual hierarchy involved."

I actually think it's worse than that. My suspicions are that Trinity is making things up as he goes along. I just Googled the search string "Stolen Capitol Fallacy," and guess how many hits came back? None! for that exact search string. Given Trinity's propensity for spelling errors and mangling the English language, I then did a search under "Stolen Capital Fallacy," and guess how many hits came up for that exact search string? None!

Perhaps he will shed some light on this for us by doing something he seldom does: elaborate.

You write: "The presupper has no such limitation, he has no theory of concepts to guide his reasoning, thus he can string concepts together in any old manor without regard to their hierarchy."

This is exactly right. The presupper could say, "A donkey carried on a conversation with Balaam this afternoon" or "Evolution isn't true" or "Jesus knew about air conditioning" or "Bodies popped out of graves and walked about the city" etc. Once one embraces the primacy of consciousness, then anything that is conceivable under their particular brand of subjectivism is given a free pass as to it's truth, and hierarchies, concepts, and reality be damned. Such is the nature worldviews driven by the primacy of consciousness.

I look forward to the other things you have to say on this.

Ydemoc

January 10, 2012 3:57 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc

do you hate god? I dont hate god, I dont hate sauron and saruman either and for the same reasons

January 10, 2012 3:59 PM  
Blogger Justin Hall said...

@Ydemoc
Thanks:) There will be more to follow. I am still working on my paper contrasting TAG with objectivism and a list of questions each asks is going to be part of it. When I am finished I am going to post it over on my blog that sadly I have neglected sense I made it back in July.

January 10, 2012 4:04 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Trinity wrote: "Hell is real whether you believe it or not."

Okay, now you are making this way to easy for me.

Hell is a place that your god designed -- even the preacher said this. Your god created everything, no matter what anyone hopes, thinks, feels, wants, wishes, wills etc. This is what you hold to be true. This is a truth claim, and the primacy of existence applies to all truth claims.

Yet here you are claiming that a consciousness wanted or wished something into existence. This is the primacy of consciousness.

Hence, a performative contradiction.

Trinity wrote: "You get to be with the God you hate forever."

That you cannot see your performative contradiction only tells us that the fog of faith that enshrouds you has become more dense in your futile quest to make the arbitrary come true.

Trinity wrote: "Isn't It amazing?"

What happens to the human mind that enshrouds itself in a fog of faith? No, it really is no surprise at all. In fact, it's quite predictable, as your responses on this blog have shown, time and time again.

Ydemoc

January 10, 2012 4:15 PM  
Blogger Ydemoc said...

Justin wrote: "do you hate god? I dont hate god, I dont hate sauron and saruman either and for the same reasons"

Right, how can I hate an arbitrary notion? The arbitrary is really nothing. A blank. As such, to speak of loving or hating that which isn't there is absurd. It's like asking me if I hate flying crab cakes.

Ydemoc

January 10, 2012 4:22 PM  
Blogger Hezekiah Ahaz said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

January 10, 2012 4:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home