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.
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 Truths2. The Laws of Logic are Truths about Truths3. The Laws of Logic are Necessary Truths4. The Laws of Logic Really Exist5. The Laws of Logic Necessarily Exist6. The Laws of Logic are Non-Physical7. The Laws of Logic are Thoughts8. 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 dichotomy 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 awareness. 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:
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 dichotomy 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 awareness. 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:
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:
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
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
766 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 766 Newer› Newest»Justin,
I just caught this from Trinity:
"You can laugh all you want now but cry and gnash your teeth later while the worms of TAG gnaw at your concious for an eternity."
Based upon his grammar and spelling, it seems like worms are gnawing at Trinity's mind, as we speak!
Ydemoc
Justin,
Yes, when all else fails for Trinity, (and make no mistake, all else has failed, quite miserably) he resorts to quotations from a Storybook. Aren't these the quotations that got him into this mess in the first place? Me thinks they are.
Trinity says he "crack[s] a smile" every time he sees my comments. Well, I'm glad I could add some levity to his life of submission.
He then goes on to say that it pleased his Storybook character, YMCA or whatever its name is, that his son died so that sinners may live. This makes absolutely no sense. And this is the god of logic?
He then goes on to say that anyone who rejects the Storybook character known as Jesus also rejects the Storybook character known as YHWH, or whatever his non-voweled name is, and that it is an insult and attack to this character. But what could possibly harm or insult such a Storybook character like TCBY or whatever the character's name is? Blank out.
Trinity then goes on to cite more Storybook doctrine, once again using his imagination to spin scenarios that are ultimately based upon nothing but imagination.
He has yet to produce for us any evidence at all for this fictional place of torment that he says exists, let alone the main characters in his Storybook. How convenient that we must wait until after we die to experience it these places of bliss and torment. Notice that his religion does not say that before we were born we were also in hell or heaven, because that would be too hard of a sell, even to the credulous.
And let me again say, besides us and his three invisible magic buddies he claims to have, I don't think he has many friends.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Yes, when all else fails for Trinity, (and make no mistake, all else has failed, quite miserably) he resorts to quotations from a Storybook. Aren't these the quotations that got him into this mess in the first place? Me thinks they are.
Trinity says he "crack[s] a smile" every time he sees my comments. Well, I'm glad I could add some levity to his life of submission.
He then goes on to say that it pleased his Storybook character, YMCA or whatever its name is, that his son died so that sinners may live. This makes absolutely no sense. And this is the god of logic?
He then goes on to say that anyone who rejects the Storybook character known as Jesus also rejects the Storybook character known as YHWH, or whatever his non-voweled name is, and that it is an insult and attack to this character. But what could possibly harm or insult such a Storybook character like TCBY or whatever the character's name is? Blank out.
Trinity then goes on to cite more Storybook doctrine, once again using his imagination to spin scenarios that are ultimately based upon nothing but imagination.
He has yet to produce for us any evidence at all for this fictional place of torment that he says exists, let alone the main characters in his Storybook. How convenient that we must wait until after we die to experience it these places of bliss and torment. Notice that his religion does not say that before we were born we were also in hell or heaven, because that would be too hard of a sell, even to the credulous.
And let me again say, besides us and his three invisible magic buddies he claims to have, I don't think he has many friends.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Yes, when all else fails for Trinity, (and make no mistake, all else has failed, quite miserably) he resorts to quotations from a Storybook. Aren't these the quotations that got him into this mess in the first place? Me thinks they are.
Trinity says he "crack[s] a smile" every time he sees my comments. Well, I'm glad I could add some levity to his life of submission.
He then goes on to say that it pleased his Storybook character, YMCA or whatever its name is, that his son died so that sinners may live. This makes absolutely no sense. And this is the god of logic?
He then goes on to say that anyone who rejects the Storybook character known as Jesus also rejects the Storybook character known as YHWH, or whatever his non-voweled name is, and that it is an insult and attack to this character. But what could possibly harm or insult such a Storybook character like TCBY or whatever the character's name is? Blank out.
Trinity then goes on to cite more Storybook doctrine, once again using his imagination to spin scenarios that are ultimately based upon nothing but imagination.
He has yet to produce for us any evidence at all for this fictional place of torment that he says exists, let alone the main characters in his Storybook. How convenient that we must wait until after we die to experience it these places of bliss and torment. Notice that his religion does not say that before we were born we were also in hell or heaven, because that would be too hard of a sell, even to the credulous.
And let me again say, besides us and his three invisible magic buddies he claims to have, I don't think he has many friends.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Yes, when all else fails for Trinity, (and make no mistake, all else has failed, quite miserably) he resorts to quotations from a Storybook. Aren't these the quotations that got him into this mess in the first place? Me thinks they are.
Trinity says he "crack[s] a smile" every time he sees my comments. Well, I'm glad I could add some levity to his life of submission.
He then goes on to say that it pleased his Storybook character, YMCA or whatever its name is, that his son died so that sinners may live. This makes absolutely no sense. And this is the god of logic?
He then goes on to say that anyone who rejects the Storybook character known as Jesus also rejects the Storybook character known as YHWH, or whatever his non-voweled name is, and that it is an insult and attack to this character. But what could possibly harm or insult such a Storybook character like TCBY or whatever the character's name is? Blank out.
Trinity then goes on to cite more Storybook doctrine, once again using his imagination to spin scenarios that are ultimately based upon nothing but imagination.
He has yet to produce for us any evidence at all for this fictional place of torment that he says exists, let alone the main characters in his Storybook. How convenient that we must wait until after we die to experience it these places of bliss and torment. Notice that his religion does not say that before we were born we were also in hell or heaven, because that would be too hard of a sell, even to the credulous.
And let me again say, besides us and his three invisible magic buddies he claims to have, I don't think he has many friends.
Ydemoc
The best part is Weezel no proofs will be giving to you God's words are self-attesting you believe it or you don't.
Just imagine for an eternity the worms of My apologetic gnawing at your concious over and over and over.
You thought it was all fun and games it brings me joy to know that all those that mock will get their just dues.
Justin,
Yes, when all else fails for Trinity, (and make no mistake, all else has failed, quite miserably) he resorts to quotations from a Storybook. Aren't these the quotations that got him into this mess in the first place? Me thinks they are.
Trinity says he "crack[s] a smile" every time he sees my comments. Well, I'm glad I could add some levity to his life of submission.
He then goes on to say that it pleased his Storybook character, YMCA or whatever its name is, that his son died so that sinners may live. This makes absolutely no sense. And this is the god of logic?
He then goes on to say that anyone who rejects the Storybook character known as Jesus also rejects the Storybook character known as YHWH, or whatever his non-voweled name is, and that it is an insult and attack to this character. But what could possibly harm or insult such a Storybook character like TCBY or whatever the character's name is? Blank out.
Trinity then goes on to cite more Storybook doctrine, once again using his imagination to spin scenarios that are ultimately based upon nothing but imagination.
He has yet to produce for us any evidence at all for this fictional place of torment that he says exists, let alone the main characters in his Storybook. How convenient that we must wait until after we die to experience it these places of bliss and torment. Notice that his religion does not say that before we were born we were also in hell or heaven, because that would be too hard of a sell, even to the credulous.
And let me again say, besides us and his three invisible magic buddies he claims to have, I don't think he has many friends.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Yes, when all else fails for Trinity, (and make no mistake, all else has failed, quite miserably) he resorts to quotations from a Storybook. Aren't these the quotations that got him into this mess in the first place? Me thinks they are.
Trinity says he "crack[s] a smile" every time he sees my comments. Well, I'm glad I could add some levity to his life of submission.
He then goes on to say that it pleased his Storybook character, YMCA or whatever its name is, that his son died so that sinners may live. This makes absolutely no sense. And this is the god of logic?
He then goes on to say that anyone who rejects the Storybook character known as Jesus also rejects the Storybook character known as YHWH, or whatever his non-voweled name is, and that it is an insult and attack to this character. But what could possibly harm or insult such a Storybook character like TCBY or whatever the character's name is? Blank out.
Trinity then goes on to cite more Storybook doctrine, once again using his imagination to spin scenarios that are ultimately based upon nothing but imagination.
He has yet to produce for us any evidence at all for this fictional place of torment that he says exists, let alone the main characters in his Storybook. How convenient that we must wait until after we die to experience it these places of bliss and torment. Notice that his religion does not say that before we were born we were also in hell or heaven, because that would be too hard of a sell, even to the credulous.
And let me again say, besides us and his three invisible magic buddies he claims to have, I don't think he has many friends.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Yes, when all else fails for Trinity, (and make no mistake, all else has failed, quite miserably) he resorts to quotations from a Storybook. Aren't these the quotations that got him into this mess in the first place? Me thinks they are.
Trinity says he "crack[s] a smile" every time he sees my comments. Well, I'm glad I could add some levity to his life of submission.
He then goes on to say that it pleased his Storybook character, YMCA or whatever its name is, that his son died so that sinners may live. This makes absolutely no sense. And this is the god of logic?
He then goes on to say that anyone who rejects the Storybook character known as Jesus also rejects the Storybook character known as YHWH, or whatever his non-voweled name is, and that it is an insult and attack to this character. But what could possibly harm or insult such a Storybook character like TCBY or whatever the character's name is? Blank out.
Trinity then goes on to cite more Storybook doctrine, once again using his imagination to spin scenarios that are ultimately based upon nothing but imagination.
He has yet to produce for us any evidence at all for this fictional place of torment that he says exists, let alone the main characters in his Storybook. How convenient that we must wait until after we die to experience it these places of bliss and torment. Notice that his religion does not say that before we were born we were also in hell or heaven, because that would be too hard of a sell, even to the credulous.
And let me again say, besides us and his three invisible magic buddies he claims to have, I don't think he has many friends.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Yes, when all else fails for Trinity, (and make no mistake, all else has failed, quite miserably) he resorts to quotations from a Storybook. Aren't these the quotations that got him into this mess in the first place? Me thinks they are.
Trinity says he "crack[s] a smile" every time he sees my comments. Well, I'm glad I could add some levity to his life of submission.
He then goes on to say that it pleased his Storybook character, YMCA or whatever its name is, that his son died so that sinners may live. This makes absolutely no sense. And this is the god of logic?
He then goes on to say that anyone who rejects the Storybook character known as Jesus also rejects the Storybook character known as YHWH, or whatever his non-voweled name is, and that it is an insult and attack to this character. But what could possibly harm or insult such a Storybook character like TCBY or whatever the character's name is? Blank out.
Trinity then goes on to cite more Storybook doctrine, once again using his imagination to spin scenarios that are ultimately based upon nothing but imagination.
He has yet to produce for us any evidence at all for this fictional place of torment that he says exists, let alone the main characters in his Storybook. How convenient that we must wait until after we die to experience it these places of bliss and torment. Notice that his religion does not say that before we were born we were also in hell or heaven, because that would be too hard of a sell, even to the credulous.
And let me again say, besides us and his three invisible magic buddies he claims to have, I don't think he has many friends.
Ydemoc
Justin,
By the way, I just caught this little nugget from Trinity:
"You can laugh all you want now but cry and gnash your teeth later while the worms of TAG gnaw at your concious for an eternity."
Evidently, based upon his grammar, spelling, and a failure to integrate, worms are already gnawing at Trinity's "concious" [sic], even as we speak.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
Nide is such a troll, he just posted on a post of mine back in August about the nature of not being afraid to try and learn new things. He asked if I could prove that I exist:) This question had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the post, so I deleted it. If he had actually posted something relevant to the post I would have most likely left it.
Justin how do you know you exist?
Why did you delete it Justin?
By the way your motivational speech on failure was a little hilarious it made crack a smile just like when I think about the worms of my Apologetic gnawing at "Ydemocs" concious for an eternity.
Don't be afraid of those that can kill the body but be afraid of him that can destroy both body and soul in Hell.
Justin,
You wrote: "Nide is such a troll, he just posted on a post of mine..."
And yet one more example of the kind of behavior -- in this case a lack of tact -- that comes as no real surprise from those that try their hardest to make the arbitrary come true.
Earlier, I had written:
"What justifies Trinity's assertion that his invisible magic buddies, hell, heaven, angels, demons, and other things he posits, that are said to be beyond our perception, actually exist?
If Trinity elects to point to the imperceptible, invisible, undetectable to justify his assertions, or if he points to his Storybook's assertions as a proxy for his justification, well, he will just be making my point."
So, several comments later, Trinity keeps making my point for me by posting nothing but Storybook nonsense and doctrinal threats and rhetoric.
I still ask: What ***justifies*** his assertions? Still nothing, as far as I can see.
Ydemoc
Ydemoc I cracked a smile when I saw your comment.
But at the same time I'm happy you didn't wake up in hell today.
Today is the day of salvation repent and live embrace Christ.
Justin,
Trinity continues making my point for me by posting nothing but Storybook nonsense and doctrinal threats and rhetoric.
I still ask: What ***justifies*** his assertions? Still nothing, as far as I can see.
He perceives my comments, and smiles. Great! Something that exists makes him smile.
Now if he would only show us these Storybook places of torment and bliss that he and his Storybook say actually exist, then I think that would make him smile even more, right? Why won't he show us these places? He does claim they exist, doesn't he?
Of course claims this, but pointing to the unreal and calling it real is quite symptomatic of minds that continually try to make the arbitrary come true.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
He persists in threats of hell fire but I don't think he fully understands that I have always been an atheist, my whole life. These threats of hell just don't resonate with me at all. Also his continual request that I prove my existence to his or my own satisfaction demonstrates the truth of my earlier claim that he does not understand the stolen concept fallacy at all. Lastly, yeah, no tact at all. Nide had better hope we are right and there is no judging god because his antics can only be judged as actively driving people away from Christ.
Hey Justin what's buddy how's your day going?
Guess who talked about hell and judgement the most in the new testament?
Justin,
Good assessment of Trinity's comments. And you're right: Why should the Primacy of Consciousness nonsense that Trinity posts here and elsewhere resonate with us, or any rationally minded person?
Yet he still thinks that Storybook nonsense and doctrinal threats and rhetoric can somehow, someway make the arbitrary come true, by asking us to identify which character in the Storybook talked most about hell and judgment. Why should we accept this any more than we would accept tales and fables from the Book of Mormon? Or the Koran? We shouldn't and we don't.
Furthermore, he fails to mention is that his question is on par with asking us who talked the most about hell and judgment in the movie "Terminator 2," or who did so in any other movie or work of fiction. In fact, Trinity's question and claims are arguably on even skakier ground, since we can actually see the individuals talking in such modern works of fiction, and we can identify the writers of such works. The same cannot be said of his Storybook and its characters. In fact, in the Gospels all we have is some anonymous mystics jotting down what they believed, with the main Storybook character never writing down anything himself. And it's all, evidently, in Greek! This is most curious to me, indeed.
So, once again I ask: What ***justifies*** his claims and assertions? Still nothing, as far as I can see.
Ydemoc
Your latest comments made crack another smile and almost made me giggle.
Justin,
Evidently, my comments continue to be tremendously entertaining to Trinity. I'm glad he can laugh at them, just as I laugh and roll my eyes at his comments, intended as they are to defend the tales and fables contained within his silly Storybook, while employing nonsense and doctrinal threats and rhetoric to do so.
But as I've stated before, he isn't my target audience; I am, and so too are those rationally minded fence-sitters looking on, who I have no doubt also are rolling their eyes and a laughing at nearly everything Trinity posts.
I think those who have seen us go back and forth over these past few months recognize that his latest non-response-response -- this admission of laughter from Trinity -- is merely another evasive tactic of a mind lost in the fog of faith.
For laughter is often the refuge of those who have nothing else to offer, and Trinity seems to have reached this point, offering us very little, except mindless drivel which does nothing except expose his futile quest to make the arbitrary come true. The difference in the quality and quantity of responses between he and I is not difficult for all to see.
And his laughter admission is no answer for the following question, which still remains unanswered: What ***justifies*** his claims and assertions? Still nothing, as far as I can see.
That he mounts a defense and bases his whole life on nothing at all, isn't that what really deserves laughter?
Ydemoc
Where will you be?
Where will you be?
Where will you be?
"Where will you be?"
after I am dead? the morgue I would guess.
Life is Christ.
Death is hell.
By the way Justin what exactly is "non-existence"?
Justin,
Trinity has basically said nothing in his last two posts.
Yes, the arbitrary, Storybook notions, and nothing all look very much alike.
Ydemoc
Justin what exactly is "nothing"?
Justin,
Trinity has been explained this over and over. It appears others besides him are using the household computer again.
Ydemoc
To all:
Ydemoc has been secretly living as a Christian.
@Ydemoc
speaking of living secret lives, just how many IDs did Nide create and use over on Alex B's blog?
1 Id
Alex was challenged to produce the evidence linking me to those other people which he failed to do.
More false information from the crew here.
By the way Justin is existence absolutely rational?
Justin,
You wrote: "speaking of living secret lives, just how many IDs did Nide create and use over on Alex B's blog?"
I don't know. But it appears he's used three on this site: r_c321, Nide, and Hezekiah. I've also seen Richard Corniel used on another site.
Ydemoc
"By the way Justin is existence absolutely rational?"
This is right up there with "do furious green ideas sleep at night"
While the sentence is grammatically correct it does not actually posses any semantic meaning.
Rationality is pertains to ones thinking, it is a process of a process and is only applicable to consciousness beings, not existence as a whole.
Justin,
What a laugh! Trinity writes: "More false information from the crew here."
As a Christian, who worships a Storybook and it's fictional characters, what could he possibly have against false information!?
Now that is very funny!
Ydemoc
I also can understand why Alex would not post an IP address on a public forum. Some people do have tact.
however regardless, we have ample evidence right here on this blog of Nide changing his ID, rc_321 etc.....
Justin I have nothing to hide.
So, will you confess that you gave false information?
By the way how is it that you are rational?
Justin,
Trinity is trying to sneak in an assertion he made over on Michael Russell's blog. In a comment he made to Paul Baird, Trinity asserts that: "God is Absolute Rationality itself."
But this is just more stolen-concept nonsense, that can be exposed by asking him, again: "What ***justifies*** his claims and assertions?"
Still nothing, as far as I can see.
Ydemoc
"So, will you confess that you gave false information?"
concerning?
"By the way how is it that you are rational?"
just another theme on the why consciousness line of questions. This calls into question the faculty of my mind while all the time presupposing that very mind. No matter how much you try you are not going to be able to shoe horn a line of inquiry before consciousness conceptually. Stolen concept fallacy yet again. How many times have you asked this? You really should know by now that I don't take concept stealing questions seriously. I reject them for being fallacious. Of course you don't understand this... do you? The stolen Concept fallacy is just words to you, you have no conceptual understanding of what the meaning behind them is.
Justin I think your a little confused.
I asked how not why thats a big difference.
We already know you don't why man can be rational so I'm
not concerned with that.
Besides its just more stolen capitol you and "Ydemoc" have been secretly living as Christians.
@Nide
right you are, sorry bit of a knee jerk reaction there, after all you have become so very predicable. As to how, that is a question for neuro science. If you are legitimately interested I think I could find some scientific papers on the subject.
"We already know you don't why man can be rational so I'm
not concerned with that."
again see neuro science for an understanding of the identity of mans mind/brain. Asking for a "an accounting" of the inter-subjective experience of being consciousness is very different from the question how does or what is required for consciousness to work as you rightfully pointed out. So again see neuro science.
"Besides its just more stolen capitol you and "Ydemoc" have been secretly living as Christians."
whatever gets you to sleep at night:)
Justin,
Trinity thinks that positing the imperceptible, undetectable, and invisible is an answer to his question of why man is rational. Meanwhile, he must wait until death to ask his invisible, undetectable, imperceptible magic being the same: Invisible magic buddy? Why are you rational? What's this all about?
Meanwhile, this is just more stolen-concept nonsense, that can be exposed by asking him, again: "What ***justifies*** his claims and assertions?"
Still nothing, as far as I can see.
Ydeomc
For clarification
Inter subjective experience of consciousness is axiomatic
The mechanisms of consciousness, a functioning human brain is the subject and study of neurology, in other words not axiomatic.
Justin maybe you should read your blog post over because you been really failing a lot epic failure.
By the way I have been wanting you to interact with Dr.Bahnsen for some time:
Dr.Bahnsen : How do you Justin as an atheist account for unchanging laws in a random chance universe. How do you harmonize brute facts to the laws of logic?
Justin you have 1 minute to answer Dr.bahnsen's question thank you.
@Ydemoc
I suspect that Nide is quite ignorant of how much we have learned about the brain. How the qualities and functions of the mind can be tied to certain parts of the brain. That how these brains areas work and work together is beginning to be understood. The over whelming preponderance of the evidence is that consciousness is directly tied to the physical goings on in the human brain.
"Dr.Bahnsen : How do you Justin as an atheist account for unchanging laws in a random chance universe. How do you harmonize brute facts to the laws of logic?"
this question has some assumptions that need to be clarified. What do you mean by unchanging laws? What do you mean by random change universe? Quite frankly I dont exactly know what you are asking here. Care to rephrase?
"Justin you have 1 minute to answer Dr.bahnsen's question thank you."
I do not jump to your tune.. kid. Remember just who you are, a nobody in my circle of friends and corespondents.
Justin,
You wrote: "I suspect that Nide is quite ignorant of how much we have learned about the brain..."
Yes. When you have preachers in the pulpit and apologists on the internet telling fellow Storybookers everything they can in their attempts to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence of evolution, it would come as no surprise that people like Trinity remain quite ignorant in other areas of science.
When one devotes his or her entire life trying to convince others that the arbitrary is true, this is often the outcome.
Ydemoc
oh and one thing right off the bat, as an atheist I don't have to answer this at all. Atheism is not a world view with answers for this question or any other except for one, do you believe in god. The atheist answers no. That is it, atheism is just the lack of belief in god nothing more or less. So you can leave off the as an atheist part to your question.
Well, Justin your something to me you need to get saved hell never sleeps.
In regards to Dr.Bahnsen's questions:
Unchanging laws:
Logic
Math
Physics
Since you claim nothing is in control of reality but reality itself in your case the sun could fall out the sky tommorrow
so how do you justify claiming that those laws don't change?
@Ydemoc
true enough. I wonder by unchanging laws does he mean like the gravitational constant or some other physical parameters or does he mean the Aristotelean laws light identity? And what does he mean by random chance universe? Most of the time chance is just a way of quantifying our ignorance of a system, in other words there will be an outcome but we don't know what it will be. The truth is when you flip a coin there are physical constraints that will determine the out come, its just we are ignorant of them. so in a very real scene nothing above the quantum level is left to chance.
Justin,
Trinity asks you more questions that have already been answered"
"Answer: Objectivism accounts for logic by the axioms, the primacy of existence, and the objective theory of concepts.
Question: How does Objectivism account for science?
Answer: Objectivism accounts for science by the axioms, the primacy of existence, and the objective theory of concepts.
Question: How does Objectivism account for morality?
Answer: Objectivism accounts for morality by the axioms, the primacy of existence, and the objective theory of concepts.
For some insights on how the axioms, the primacy of existence and the objective theory of concepts work together to provide an account for logic, science, and the Objectivist view of morality, see the following:
Does Logic Presuppose the Christian God?
Resources on the Problem of Induction
Do I Borrow My Morality from the Christian Worldview?
Etc."
(Source: Dawson Bethrick)
Ydemoc
The old useless slogans they kinda make me crack a smile.
Justin,
Trinity finds more pleasure in my recent posting. This, too, has already been addressed. Observe:
Evidently, my comments continue to be tremendously entertaining to Trinity. I'm glad he can laugh at them, just as I laugh and roll my eyes at his comments, intended as they are to defend the tales and fables contained within his silly Storybook, while employing nonsense and doctrinal threats and rhetoric to do so.
But as I've stated before, he isn't my target audience; I am, and so too are those rationally minded fence-sitters looking on, who I have no doubt also are rolling their eyes and a laughing at nearly everything Trinity posts.
I think those who have seen us go back and forth over these past few months recognize that his latest non-response-response -- this admission of laughter from Trinity -- is merely another evasive tactic of a mind lost in the fog of faith.
For laughter is often the refuge of those who have nothing else to offer, and Trinity seems to have reached this point, offering us very little, except mindless drivel which does nothing except expose his futile quest to make the arbitrary come true. The difference in the quality and quantity of responses between he and I is not difficult for all to see.
And his laughter admission is no answer for the following question, which still remains unanswered: What ***justifies*** his claims and assertions? Still nothing, as far as I can see.
That he mounts a defense and bases his whole life on nothing at all, isn't that what really deserves laughter?
Ydemoc
Ok first logic
the laws of logic are a human convention. We invented them. We hold them up to reality and go, hey this is actually useful, we can use it to identify and prodict things. Thus we can say that our logic mirrors the identity of the universe. However it must be made clear that the universe does not obey the laws of logic, it just is, we made the laws to conform to the universe. Remember metaphysical objectivism not subjectivism.
Math, this is just an extension of the law of identity. You seem to think that math could be anything but what it is. Can you really imagine a universe in which 2+2=5?
Physics, nothing says that the so called laws of physics cant change. We just for simplicity assume that don't in most cases. However there are those in the relevant fields that are arguing that such things as the speed of light and the gravitational constant might change a little over billions of years. This does not change the fact however that we learn about and identify them and even if and how they change by applying logic.
However what all this obscures is that regardless of what things are, they are that and only that at any given moment. That I have a consciousness to even by contemplating this or anything else. Thus we can say, in fact must say that existence, identity and consciousness are conceptually axiomatic to our thinking and thus our understanding of the world around us.
@Ydemoc
seriously Bahsen, he just employs a parlor trick argument or series of questions, take into account the hierarchy of concepts and you can see right thru him.
Alex B has a good summation of TAG over on his most recent post
"Christians who employ the TAG are like builders who put up a church, then shout from the steeple that the entire world below it is actually hanging down from the roof!"
"Since you claim nothing is in control of reality but reality itself in your case the sun could fall out the sky tommorrow
so how do you justify claiming that those laws don't change?"
oh you got to love universal skepticism don't you:) Well Nide because we know the identity of the sun and that is just not possible given what it's identity is.Could we be wrong? sure, can you give any reason why we might? no? then lex parsimony applies.
@Ydemoc
remember this one
Christopher Hitches
anything that can be accepted arbitrary can be rejected arbitrary. This would apply the question Nide poses about the sun.
Justin,
You wrote: "seriously Bahsen, he just employs a parlor trick argument or series of questions..."
This is all that is left in the arsenal of those who try to make the arbitrary come true.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
notice how Nide said "you have one minute to respond"
This is very much their tactic, they love verbal debate where you can shot gun your logically fallacious claims at your opponent who then does not have time to respond to each and every one. Notice how Rich Warden refused to engage Dawson here in a written debate, ever wonder why? They know under critical examination TAG falls apart. But hey is Nide wants to trot out TAG for you and I to rip up, well lets have fun:)
January 15, 2012 8:44 PM
So, in other words the universe can be and not be pretty interesting.
So, there is nothing to stop all the stars from falling out of the sky tomorrow. Simply amazing.
Math is an extension of the law of Id what does these even mean?
If your world were true yea why not tomorrow 1 can evolve into 10.
Math could not even be possible
@Ydemoc
look over what I wrote and look at Nide's last post and tell me if that is a conclusion you could draw?
Justin,
You wrote: "remember this one
Christopher Hitches
anything that can be accepted arbitrary can be rejected arbitrary. This would apply the question Nide poses about the sun."
Yes, I remember that quote. Trinity thinks that the imperceptible, invisible, and undetectable serves as a basis for that which exists. You can't get more arbitrary than this.
And the only reason he thinks this is because a Storybook told him to think it -- the same Storybook that told him that this invisible, imperceptible, undetectable being had a son who died so that the human race could be saved from "Death" and Original Sin that supposedly entered the world with Adam and Eve, but really entered the world via the "thoughts" of the same, supposedly pure and perfect, imperceptible, invisible, and undetectable magic being.
It really is kind of kooky.
Ydemoc
"So, in other words the universe can be and not be pretty interesting.
how could you come to that conclusion. I said that logic mirrors the universe. We have the law of excluded middle precisely because what you have said cant be. This is perceptually self evident.
"So, there is nothing to stop all the stars from falling out of the sky tomorrow. Simply amazing."
actually if you cared to study the science of astronomy would would realize how false this conjecture is. The stars are light years away and our suns gravitation pull on them is negligible and their tangent velocity high. Their identity rules out your worry.
"Math is an extension of the law of Id what does these even mean?"
Math is a system built on logical rules, simple enough
"If your world were true yea why not tomorrow 1 can evolve into 10."
uh no, by definition 10 is 9 more then 1. Didn't you see my question of can you even imagine a reality is which 2+2=5? You are assuming that the rules of Aristotelian logic could be anything other then what they are.
"Math could not even be possible"
Math is possible because we have the axiomatic concepts of existence, identity and consciousness and the primacy of existence principle.
Justin,
The conclusion I draw is that Trinity is binging tonight on kookiness.
For instance, he writes: "So, there is nothing to stop all the stars from falling out of the sky tomorrow. Simply amazing."
This is a complete blank-out of major proportions, for it is his own all-fictional, non-man, invisible magic buddy that says that stars will fall from the sky! I believe you can find this in the Storybook chapter called "Revelation."
What a goofball, Trinity has been and continues to be.
I will be back in an hour or so to catch up on what you and "The Three Persons of the Knucklehead" have written.
Ydemoc
Justin you said the universe doesn't obey the laws of logic.
And also said the laws of physics can change gravity can call it quits.
@Ydemoc
what we are seeing her is someone that takes metaphysical subjectivism seriously. It is a completely alien way of thinking and it is difficult for me to even sometimes understand Nide.
what I said was their are those that argue that the gravitation constant can change a "little bit" over time. What was assumed here is that the mechanism of its change has identity thus the change can be predicted. Law of identity always applies.
"Justin you said the universe doesn't obey the laws of logic."
strictly speaking no it does not. It is more correct to think of our laws of logic obeying the universe. If we constructed a logic that did not match reality, what good would it be
Aristotelian logic is the bed rock of our human cognition because it mirrors the external reality we contend with. If it did not we would ditch it and build a better logical system.
at this point I am sure you are going to ask but what if everything changes!!!!! and I will remind you that arbitrary assertions can and will be dismissed arbitrarily.
feel free to post Nide, but I can not devote anymore time to this tonight
Justin let's get down to the truth of the matter.
This identity business you keep raving about.
I pointed out allready that it begs the question which you obviously don't care about since you keep peddling it.
I guess you think if you keep repeating it will become true.
Why do things act the way they do Mr. objectivist?
"I don't know they just do"
Justin,
Trinity again fails to think about questions he asks. He ponders, snidely, "Why do things act the way they do Mr. objectivist?"
Things act the way they do because things are what they are, and they act according to their nature. This is an observable fact, unlike the fictional characters you believe in.
Trinity is attempting to peek behind a curtain that isn't there, into some magic kingdom that he imagines exists. What doesn't dawn on him is that even if he had some special insight into what goes on behind this alleged magic curtain, if he were consistent, he should ask the same question about his magic kingdom that is behind the curtain that he asks above. Why do things act the way they do, Mr. Fictional Character From A Storybook?
But his thinking doesn't take him that far. He dare not question the main character of his Storybook, because he knows the answer he is going to get: "Why?" says the main character. "It is because I am a super-duper consciousness which controls all objects in the universe! That's why!"
Primacy of Consciousness in content, yet the Primacy of Existence by virtue of it being a truth statement. Hence, a performative contradiction, no less from page 1 of his very own Storybook.
Meanwhile, all concepts (valid and invalid, i.e., knowledge) arise from man's consciousness being in a relationship with its surroundings, i.e., objects, things, concretes, etc. This gives his consciousness content with which to work with. From there, his knowledge builds, abstraction after abstraction. Along the way, a rational man is careful to makes certain that the concepts he forms or accepts or learns from others, are based upon or can always be tied to reality. If they are not based upon or cannot be tied to reality or reduced back, then the concepts are not valid. For example, the concept "justice" can be reduced back to reality. "God," "angel," "demon," "resurrection," "unicorn" "gremlin," "conversational donkey," "original sin" cannot be. Whatever knowledge man has is hierarchical in nature and can ultimately be reduced (or traced back) to perception. All. Valid. Concepts. Ultimately. Reduce. To. Perception. If they don't, there is no reason to accept them as knowledge.
The characters we read about in Trinity's Storybook do not qualify as knowledge, by his and other apologists' own admission! These characters are imperceptible, undetectable, and invisible.
Somewhere along the way, for a variety of reasons, people accepted, as a part of their knowledge, concepts which were not anchored to reality.
And to this day, people like Trinity accept Storybook notions that are built on such invalid concepts.
His question is just one more example of this, and how it continues to be pervasive among those that try their hardest to make the arbitrary come true.
And if I've made any mistakes above, I blame it on the imperceptible, invisible, and undetectable.
Yeah, right.
Ydemoc
Justin,
By the way, by Trinity's own admission, he was willing to jettison faith upon seeing his god face to face in heaven. This means, under this scenario that I presented to him, he affirmed that he would have "knowledge" of his god by direct perception! No faith, or hope in the imaginary, imperceptible, undetectable, and invisible required.
Very telling.
Ydemoc
Justin,
By the way, by Trinity's own admission, he was willing to jettison faith upon seeing his god face to face in heaven. This means, under this scenario that I presented to him, he affirmed that he would have "knowledge" of his god by direct perception! No faith, or hope in the imaginary, imperceptible, undetectable, and invisible required.
Very telling.
So what justifies the claims and assertions he makes, he still has not told us.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
Thank you for your post. I plan to give my own reply in time to his last question. However you are correct in your assessment. Basically a stolen concept fallacy all over again. Nide labors under the fallacy that all questions that are conceivable are in turn valid. The question do furious green ideas sleep at night is an example of such a question but it at least does not call into question its own conceptual starting points. Why are things the way there are, not an explanation of some phenomenon or such but why is A = A, well that would have to be the case to even formate your question. It is invalid. It is such a simple thing to grasp one wonders why Nide can not.
@Nide
at least you asked how an objectivist would answer as apposed to an atheist. The objectivist would answer that to ask why A = A or law of identity has to be presumed in the very act of asking that or any other question due to the concept indentitys place ast the base of our conceptual hierarchy, thus the question is fallacious (stolen concept fallacy). Short answer we don't ask that because it is a stupid question. There is a reason why we identify the following as axiomatic
existence
identity
consciousness
one of the reasons that they are axiomatic is that to call into question any of them would be to necessarily presuppose them as they are presupposed in any and all acts of cognition. Nide our answer to why existence, or identity or consciousness is not going to change just because you keep asking it:)
@Ydemoc
TAG only works against someone that has not thought about this and has no theory of concepts. TAG seems tailor made to ambush some sort of arch type atheistic materialist that has given philosophy only a cursory glance. Against objectivism or even anyone that has examined these matters seriously it is like watching a car smash full on into a brick wall over and over again.
Prediction warning!!
Nide will ask us to account for or wording some other way ask for a justification for the following
existence
identity
consciousness
we well repeatedly explain how the question regardless of how it is worded is fallacious because of the unavoidable stolen concept inherent in the question. Ydemoc shall I keep a tracker of how many times he asks us to argue for our axioms like I used to tally his logical fallacies?
oh well, back to work
@Nide
If you are going to claim we steal these three concepts from your world view, ie this so called stolen capitol fallacy, whatever that is, please explain how with argumentation that is not circular ok:) Further to head off the inevitable retort that we cant either, we have explained already that we don't even try, we consider the question fallacious from the outset without the possibility of a logical answer as these are the preconditions for logic. However if you think you can swing it, please go for it, how does one logically without fallacy prove, account for, or justify
existence
identity
consciousness
So, what Justin you keep saying stolen concepts why can't I say stolen capitol?
Your reasoning is more than circular it's sickly twisted and morally depraved I'll be honest I crack a smile everytime I think about it.
You are the arbiter of reality of course you won't admit it.
I call it epic slyness dishonesty robed in purported honesty.
The three "axioms" presuppose God and not the "axioms" themselves.
See why you're secretly a Christian?
Justin,
Still more assertions and claims from Trinity, and still without offering us the justification for them.
Remember, he himself said he would not require faith upon seeing his god face-to-face in heaven. This means he has affirmed that he would have "knowledge" by direct perception! No faith, or hope in the imaginary, imperceptible, undetectable, and invisible required. He basically affirms what we have been telling him all along: All knowledge is ultimately grounded in that which is perceived, unlike his theistic claims which do not rise to the level of knowledge. They are claims for things which have no tie to reality, which puts him in the untenable position of claiming that the unreal is real.
The kind of confusion Trinity is exhibiting is a common trait among those who use "hope" as some kind of base from which to attempt to make the arbitrary come true.
Try as he might, he just can't get there from here. The fact that he still hasn't told us what justifies the claims and assertions he makes, is his tacit admission that the only way to get there is in his imagination. And that really isn't getting there at all, is it?
Ydemoc
Ydemoc I'm happy you are "alive" the Good Lord blessed with you another day.
Another day to repent and live don't waste it tomorrow is never promised.
Justin,
Today, Trinity seems to be well-pleased over the fact that I am alive for another day.
I would like to give him credit for affirming that I exist, but I suspect that sometime in the near future he will ignore what he has affirmed by his words today, and, due to his quest to make the arbitrary come true, once again ask us to prove that we exist.
Why do I expect this from him? Why, just other day he was hoping for my banishment to the deepest parts of the Storybook place called hell. But today he's glad I'm alive for another chance not to go there.
What to make of this? I've touched upon this in an earlier comment, but I think this type of back-and-forth thinking, borderline bipolar behavior -- given Christianity's schizophrenic nature -- is just an outgrowth of the premises he has accepted and operates his life by.
Meanwhile, he still hasn't told us what justifies the claims and assertions he makes. Perhaps, one day, if he imagines hard enough, he'll come up with something. If and when he does, don't be surprised if it changes to something else the next day.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Today, Trinity seems to be well-pleased over the fact that I am alive.
I would like to give him credit for affirming that I exist, but I suspect that sometime in the near future he will ignore what he has affirmed in words today and, due to his quest to make the arbitrary come true, will once again ask you and I to prove to him that we exist.
Why do I suspect he will do this? Because just other day he was hoping for my banishment to the deepest parts of the Storybook place called hell. But today he's glad I'm alive for another chance not to go to this fictional place.
What to make of this? I've touched upon this in an earlier comment, but I think this type of back-and-forth thinking or borderline bipolar behavior -- given Christianity's schizophrenic nature -- is just an outgrowth of the premises he has accepted and attempts to operate his life by.
Meanwhile, he still hasn't told us what justifies the claims and assertions he makes. Perhaps, one day, if he imagines hard enough, he'll come up with something. If and when he does, don't be surprised if he does a 180 the very next day.
Ydemoc
"So, what Justin you keep saying stolen concepts why can't I say stolen capitol?"
Simple. While I have patiently explained how properly identified axioms are not argued for, you on the other hand have not been able to show that god is conceptually irreducible nor have you been able to argue for our axioms without begging the question which is our whole point. They cant be argued for without presupposing them.
"Your reasoning is more than circular it's sickly twisted and morally depraved I'll be honest I crack a smile everytime I think about it."
Our reasoning can not be justly accused of circular reasoning because we are not arguing for the validity of the axiomatic concepts. We are just pointing out that they cant be argued against or argued for without conceptually presupposing them. It is so simple Nide, we are not asking the question why existence, why identity or why consciousness so no we are not begging the question. I have not nor am I going to give you any argument that ends with the conclusion of "and therefore existence, identity or consciousness" We simply are not asking those questions, I realize you are but we are not, so get over it already. I am not going to start asking them just because you do.
"You are the arbiter of reality of course you won't admit it.
I call it epic slyness dishonesty robed in purported honesty."
This statement by you if taken at face value is all the proof I need that even now after 5 months you still don't understand the concept of metaphysical objectivism. I do not get to dictate what reality is, I do not have delusions that I am god. How you can misconstrue my meaning after all this time is well, dumbfounding. I am suspicious that you are just trying to bait me at this point and even you don't believe this about me.
"The three "axioms" presuppose God and not the "axioms" themselves."
Yes well you can say that. You can even believe it if you so desire. But can you give me a non question begging argument for that assertion? By none question begging I mean do not assume the validity and in anyway presuppose the concepts existence, identity and conciseness in your argument prior to your conclusion? No you cant, no one can, they are axioms silly.
"See why you're secretly a Christian?"
No.... No I cant... Sorry:)
@Ydemoc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
this is about research that shows that neuro scientists can see the brain make the decision to move an arm or leg before the person is consciousness of making the decision to do so. Quite devastating research to anyone that thinks consciousness is in anyway supernatural.
Why existence and Proof of existence are not the same thing.
Rember Justin existence is invisible.
God is existence, identity, conciousness.
It's just something that I take for granted.
You ran into this problem last time when you asked me to look at your pic if I wanted to see existence.
Justin can you see your conscious is that "perceptually self-evident"?
Justin,
I enjoyed your response to Trinity. And thanks for the link.
I'm suddenly reminded of Trinity's assertion:
"Justin causality and the law of identity have nothing to with each other." (Timestamp: January 10, 2012 9:45 PM)
A thing does not act according to its nature? Welp, I guess there goes his apologetic defense for the actions of his Storybook's invisible magic buddy.
Perhaps Trinity would identify for me "sprinting" without a sprinter. "Perceiving" without something to perceive and something that perceives. "Rolling" without that which rolls. "Eating" without that which eats. Consciousness without that which possesses consciousness, and without something to be conscious of. Reasoning without that which reasons, and without something to reason about.
If he should come back with more claims and assertions, I will expect him to tell us what justifies them, as I am still waiting for him to tell us what justifies his previous claims and assertions.
Ydemoc
"Why existence and Proof of existence are not the same thing."
Any "accounting for" regardless of how you want to word it would presuppose them. But in any case I am neither asking for a proof of existence nor am I asking why existence.
"Rember Justin existence is invisible."
I think you are failing to distinguish conceptually a concept and its referent. The concept existence is invisible because its a concept, a method of the mind and not something to which visibility could apply. The concept's referent however is the sum total of everything. Are you saying the universe is invisible? funny I can see my keyboard and monitor:) Some things are visible and some things are not. Visible things are materials that reflect or emit electro-magnetic radiation in the 4000 to 7000 angstrom spectrum, and they exist, simple as that.
"God is existence, identity, conciousness."
do green ideas sleep furiously? You have constructed a grammatically correct sentence that has no semantic meaning. I don't get what you are trying to say here.
"It's just something that I take for granted."
cool, I still don't have any conception of what it is that you are taking for granted. But I am alright with this, your mind is after all your look out not mine.
"You ran into this problem last time when you asked me to look at your pic if I wanted to see existence."
Yes Nide, if you want to see what the concept existence refers to, its referent, all you have to do is look around.
"Justin can you see your conscious is that "perceptually self-evident"?"
In a very real scene I am my consciousness. In order to perceive anything I would have to be consciousness. For me to even ask the question you pose I would have to presuppose my consciousness so the question can not be used to undermine or invalid consciousness or even to call it into question without the stolen concept fallacy.
@Ydemoc
you quoted Nide
"Justin causality and the law of identity have nothing to with each other." (Timestamp: January 10, 2012 9:45 PM)"
yup that one is a keeper. Right up there with his admission that with regards to knowledge we should be followers and not seekers of truth.
Justin,
I see you already answered Trinity's latest, but let me throw in my two cents.
Trinity asks another silly question. One would have to have consciousness to "see" anything.
"Consciousness is inherent in your grasp of existence. Inherent in saying **'There is something ** -- of which I'm aware'** is: 'There is something -- **of which I am aware'** (OPAR, p. 5, asterisks added)
"Before on can raise any questions pertaining to knowledge, whether of content or of the method (including the question of the conditions of consciousness), one must first **be** conscious of something and recognize that one is. All questions presuppose that one has a faculty of knowledge, i.e., the attribute of consciousness. One ignorant of this attribute must perforce be ignorant of the whole field of cognition (and all of philosophy)." (Ibid., p. 5, asterisks added)
He is asking another fallacious question, in an attempt to drive a wedge to make room for his invisible magic sky daddy. It ain't gonna work.
It is on par with seeking to invalidate vision by asking if I can see my retina.
And it looks like a case of more nighttime kookiness from Trinity.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
I have to admit watching a presupper go after objectivism with TAG is amusing. The results are all to predictable. What surprises me tho is the longevity of Nide. Paul Manta and Peter Pike would have and did give up long ago.
Justin,
Trinity is having a really hard time dealing with the fact that there is absolutely no reason to accept any knowledge that is not grounded in the axioms, and the Primacy of Existence Principle.
He thinks if he keeps trying, he really can make the arbitrary come true. But his quest is futile. All valid knowledge is based upon perceptual inputs, grounded by the axioms. Yet his search for a way around this is grounded in nothing but his imagination.
He so badly wants consciousness to be his starting point.
But it's not, no matter what he imagines.
Ydemoc
Justin,
You wrote: "What surprises me tho is the longevity of Nide..."
Perhaps he really does consider you, me, and his pretend sky daddy (and those other two invisible magic buddies) as his only friends.
Ydemoc
God is my starting point which is pretty intresting since he is the axioms.
Asking where existence came from and asking how do you know things are in control of themselves are actually valid questions.
Why won't you admit Justin that your claim about identity is arbitrary. Claiming that a cat acts like a cat and that's just the way it is is not an answer.
Ydemoc keeps reapeating the old slogans the guy never has anything new to say. It makes me crack a smile.
That's expected he has no training in logic or philosophy.
And you Justin aren't far away.
I'm still waiting for you to produce a legitimate source that claims "causality is the law of identity in action".
Lastly you need to brush up on TAG you are about as clueless as Ydemoc when it comes to that position.
@Ydemoc
if that is true then that is sad, namely because there is so much more to life then discussing god. I have friends that believe in god and that is ok, they know what my thoughts are on this and we respect each others right to make up their own mind. We are still friends with many common interests. Nide could choose another topic that interests him and post on his blog about it. I am doing the same, atheism is such a small part of what it means to be me.
Justin,
Yes, that would be sad if he considers his imaginary buddies and us as his only friends. Because that would mean, in reality, that we are his only friends.
Meanwhile, I am still waiting for him to tell us what justifies his claims and assertions.
Ydemoc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSZeNK0TA80&feature=youtube_gdata_player
"God is my starting point which is pretty intresting since he is the axioms."
One of the things that identifies a conceptual axiom is it is ineducable. Is god conceptually ineducable? no.
"Asking where existence came from and asking how do you know things are in control of themselves are actually valid questions."
For you maybe, within the framework of your world view. However Nide no matter how much you whine and insist I am not going to ask where existence came from or why A = A. I will not knowingly commit the stolen concept fallacy. Consider it a moral imperative.
"Why won't you admit Justin that your claim about identity is arbitrary. Claiming that a cat acts like a cat and that's just the way it is is not an answer."
Where did you get the concept arbitrary? what other concepts had to first be integrated before this one could be understood. I'll give you a hint, identity was one of them. Thus to claim identity is arbitrary is a stolen concept fallacy. Cats act they way they do partially because of instinct encoded in their DNA and partially from learned behavior, also the range of actions they can preform is constrained by their physical identity. However all of this presupposes that A is A.
"Ydemoc keeps reapeating the old slogans the guy never has anything new to say. It makes me crack a smile.
That's expected he has no training in logic or philosophy.
And you Justin aren't far away."
Got to love that authoritarian way of thinking:) Something is not true Nide because so and so said it was. It is true because it is (metaphysical objectivism) So deal with the debate, don't go running off to some authority to hid behind or insist that we do likewise. Ydemoc wishes to quot Rand, that is fine with me. I am basically saying the same things but choose to put it into my own words for two reasons. One to better integrate the concepts and two because I am not an objectivist.
"I'm still waiting for you to produce a legitimate source that claims "causality is the law of identity in action".
I did provide a link back to Soho, but I doubt you would consider that a valid authority. Nide it is plain as day that the concept identity applies to everything without exception, after all what is it that we are talking about? You saying causality has nothing to do with identity is like saying that the cat's DNA has nothing to do with how it acts. Finally regardless of what you may believe or not believe, I accept that causality is indentit5y applied to action. Your continual insistence that it does not only erodes what little respect I had for you.
here is a link to some non objectivist philosophers discussing causality
guess what is implicitly assumed conceptually as you read it. The concept identity. Every letter on the page has an identity. The things the writer is discussing have identity.
"Lastly you need to brush up on TAG you are about as clueless as Ydemoc when it comes to that position."
Funny, back in August when I visited your blog you told me that I had a good grasp of TAG.
Justin,
Trinity just sent us a YouTube video of some preacher talking about the usual drivel. If this clown had lived in Old Storybook days, I bet he would have been among the first to pick up a stone and throw it at someone for picking up sticks on the sabbath.
Meanwhile, he's just made his task more difficult. For not only am I still waiting for Trinity to tell us what justifies his claims and assertions, but I'm also waiting for the preacher to do the same.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
Yep, the DNA in a cat has absolutely nothing to do with how it will act across time. In Nide's universe we can not make any predictions at all because what a thing is at any given moment has nothing to do with how it will act or interact with other entities. Well there goes logic, science, heck even cognition out the window.
@Ydemoc
Nide seems to labor under the delusion that if the actual words "causality is identity applied to action" a wording of objectivist terminology, do not show up in any other source that the concept is not valid. Fine we don't have to call it that. But if he thinks that his mitochondria have nothing to do with why he is breathing oxygen, well as I said so much for logic.
It's not about authority but why rand was a horrible "philosopher".
She looked out her window and said oh dear that's just the way it is. That's not how you do philosophy sadly Justin the little trust that I had in you is gone especially after your behavior tonight.
I said what in August maybe you can repost it here I don't remember say anything like that I could be wrong though Justin my memory does fail me sometime..
How about yours Justin?
Justin,
He just continues to evade reality. As far as the a thing acting according to its nature, I said before, "Welp, I guess there goes his apologetic defense for the actions of his Storybook's invisible magic buddy."
He is willing to, momentarily, throw his god-belief under the bus, in order to squabble with causality. And even though this presents problems for him right now, further on up the road, he will rationalize this all away in his attempt to rescue his god-belief from the damage he's caused.
Just another schizophrenic moment brought to you by a bipolar belief system.
Ydemoc
Notice the fallacious patterns of Ydemoc.
That's understandable he has no training in logic.
When have I ever said things don't act according to their nature.
He has to twist my words in order to maybe get a giggle from his buddies.
That's understandable we know he's a liar and fabricator.
"It's not about authority but why rand was a horrible "philosopher".
In some regards I would actually agree with you Nide, does that surprise you? She completely miss identified the nature of man as a social animal and thus built a moral system that tho internally self consistent cant truly be applied to man. I am sure this could spark a debate between Ydemoc and myself much to your delight. However some things she was spot on. Her identification that concepts are integrated into a hierarchy is sound. If anything her model is overly simplistic. Modern psychology is pretty much saying the same thing, knowledge is built up, concepts do not exist devoiced from their prior concepts that make them meaningful. Mind you these no not objectivists that are saying this. I use her terminology because she was the first one I encountered who discusses this. She is not the only one that discussed axioms. Aristotle was the first. You want to discredit the idea of a theory of concepts because she failed at other things? ad hominem there. Further she was not alone, going to argue with all of science are you.... oh yes you are see our prior discussion of evolution. Basically I don't think you even understand the nature of concepts and their relationships to each other.
"She looked out her window and said oh dear that's just the way it is. That's not how you do philosophy sadly Justin the little trust that I had in you is gone especially after your behavior tonight."
what you think of me is irrelevant. I will sleep soundly. But does raise the question why do you keep coming back here then? Anyway you have miss characterized her argument. She said things act in accordance with their identity and if you want a full and detailed explanation go to the scientific discipline that covers the given subject. she just identified the conceptual underpinning of this. The conceptual starting points that cant be argued for without presupposing them.
I said what in August maybe you can repost it here I don't remember say anything like that I could be wrong though Justin my memory does fail me sometime..
You deleted the posts which I might add were actually relevant to the topic of the blog unlike someone else I could mention.
How about yours Justin?
I double check to make sure I lock my door:)
@Ydemoc
damn it now he has me doing it
"oing to argue with all of science are you.... "
blatant appeal to authority
sorry , I will try and refrain from doing that again.
@Ydemoc
"He is willing to, momentarily, throw his god-belief under the bus, in order to squabble with causality. And even though this presents problems for him right now, further on up the road, he will rationalize this all away in his attempt to rescue his god-belief from the damage he's caused."
yes indeed. Then what god does has nothing to do with his nature (identity) Therefore what does it mean to say god is good or loving? any act of good or love is devoiced from his identity. Basically if causality has nothing to do with identity then a murderer can not be called a murderer based on the fact that he has murdered. A animals requirement for oxygen and the fact that it does indeed breath oxygen cant be said to have anything to do with its cellular mechanics.
And then Justin wants to follow Ydemoc in his fabrications and lies.
I kinda cracked a smile when I thought about you and Ydemoc debating about something that's worse than useless.
Why do you lock your doors Justin is that arbitrary just curious?
@Ydemoc
Nide does not like Rand's terminology of Causality is identity applied to action, so lets use a phrase I can up with, Causality is identity expressed over time. There, no objectivism referenced for you Nide :)
@Nide
one thing is for sure, if Ydemoc and I did debate the subject, it would be a thoughtful and productive discussion and always polite.
"I kinda cracked a smile when I thought about you and Ydemoc debating about something that's worse than useless."
a moral theory is useless????
Justin in a Godless world really does morality, dignity, and locking your doors even matter?
You believe in human freedom don't you so on what basis do you condem a criminal, murder, thief, liar(Ydemoc)?
Be honest with yourself.
Justin,
Shall we try to make it to 600 comments?
It shouldn't be that difficult -- Trinity calling me a moron and a liar and telling me I'm going to the fictional place called "hell," should take up at least 70 of those comments.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Trinity is just going chapter by chapter in one of his apologetic books, and cherry-picking things to pester and annoy us with.
But, as I've said, I enjoy answering his inanity.
Meanwhile, not only am I still waiting for Trinity to tell us what justifies his claims and assertions, but I'm also waiting for the the YouTube preacher to do the same.
Ydemoc
Justin,
Trinity asks about morality. He has been down this road before with me. He was asking about an issue I raised about his main fictional character sanctioning and ordaining beatings and torture. If you recall, one of my interactions with him went like this:
"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
Trinity responded to the expertise that he asked for and presumes I have, with this: "You gotta love the evasion."
(continued)
"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 [you] 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."
------------------------
Has Trinity followed through on any of my "expert" recommendations? Not as far as I can tell.
And has Trinity or the YouTube preacher bothered to tell us what justifies their claims and assertions? Not that I can see.
Ydemoc
Notice how Ydemoc keeps fabricating and lying.
He claims that I said he is going to hell. Wrong
I said if you don't repent and believe in Christ you will.
That's a big difference.
But it's understandable we know your a liar and fabricator.
Justin,
Trinity is attempting a "distinction without a difference" fallacy with his most recent assertion that he didn't claim I was going to hell. He only hoped I was going to the deepest part.
Again, we see the bipolar or schizophrenic nature of Christianity on display for all to see.
And what would he have about spinning fiction in the first place. He accepts fiction as truth! -- i.e., his Storybook.
Oh, and I didn't call him "The Three Persons of the Knucklehead," because my calling him that was predetermined before the world began.
With this kind of double-talk, all I can say right now is: Yikes!
Ydemoc
Sometimes emotions can override Justin can relate.
My hoping and knowing are not the same thing and this is what you are purposely trying to blur epic dishonesty.
Like I said no proofs will be given to you.
You believe it or you didn't so quit asking.
Justin,
I see that Trinity has made one of his first concessions in quite a while, admitting that he perhaps acted on his feelings rather than thinking first. I'll accept that.
But I will quibble with his saying that "hoping and knowing are not the same thing." Isn't this what you (Justin), Dawson and I have been telling him all along? That faith (assurance of what one hopes for, and certain of what one does not see), is not knowing? Again, Trinity throws his god-belief under a bus to make a point. How will he rescue his invisible, imperceptible sky daddy from his reckless behavior? Stay tuned!
Meanwhile, maybe I spoke to soon in accepting Trinity's concession, for he goes on to claim that I am dishonest. Is this just him lashing out, expressing his feelings again, letting his "emotions override"? Or is his claim based upon the facts? To find out how he wiggles out of this, stay tuned!
To add to the mess he's already created with his Storybook beliefs, he closes with a few more assertions and claims, which I will be sure to add to the others that he and the YouTube preacher have yet to provide justification for.
Ydemoc
Justin,
I see that Trinity has made one of his first concessions in quite a while, admitting that he perhaps acted on his feelings rather than thinking first. I'll accept that.
But I will quibble with his saying that "hoping and knowing are not the same thing." Isn't this what you (Justin), Dawson and I have been telling him all along? That faith (assurance of what one hopes for, and certain of what one does not see), is not knowing? Again, Trinity throws his god-belief under a bus to make a point. How will he rescue his invisible, imperceptible sky daddy from his reckless behavior? Stay tuned!
Meanwhile, maybe I spoke to soon in accepting Trinity's concession, for he goes on to claim that I am dishonest. Is this just him lashing out, expressing his feelings again, letting his "emotions override"? Or is his claim based upon the facts? To find out how he wiggles out of this, stay tuned!
To add to the mess he's already created with his Storybook beliefs, he closes with a few more assertions and claims, which I will be sure to add to the others that he and the YouTube preacher have yet to provide justification for.
Ydemoc
@Nide
earlier you defined faith as "...things hoped for" However earlier in an exchange with Ydemoc you said in heaven there would be no need for faith, you would know god was real. So we can infer from this that prior to going to heaven you are going on faith, not knowledge. So until then all you have is what you hope for. I don't think Ydemoc is the one blurring distinctions here.
@Ydemoc
" Isn't this what you (Justin), Dawson and I have been telling him all along?"
I affirm, I have told him wishing dont make it so until I considered just having a macro that pasted that line into the discussion:)
Justin,
Like you said, in Trinity we are seeing a prime example of someone who fully embraces a Primacy of Consciousness metaphysics, and what can happen to a mind intent on making the arbitrary come true.
What a mess.
Ydemoc
Ydemoc wants to keep being arbitrary.
I was referring to his claim that I said he was going to hell.
It has nothing to do with anything else.
But let's zoom on something Ydemoc made the claim that I said things don't act according to their nature in order to get giggle out of his buddies.
Why did you lie Ydemoc?
Why?
Justin honestly why do you lock your doors?
Justin,
Trinity: What a mess.
Ydemoc
@Nide
"Justin honestly why do you lock your doors?"
without getting into a lengthy discussion of ethics, I would think that is obvious, I want to leave some barrier to entry in order to deter those that don't respect the rights of others such as the right to private property.
This is beautiful.
The foolish boy gets caught red handed.
There are no words to describe this evasion.
Ydemic aka Blatant Liar.
Things just got really good.
Hey Justin is thievery an evolved trait?
Oh yea how about lying is that an evolved trait also?
@Nide
what exactly did Ydemoc lie about? Spell it out for me please
Justin,
Again, Trinity is making claims that he has not justified. Perhaps if he would cite what exactly I wrote, and what it was I was responding to when I wrote it, then he would be in a much better position to justify his claim. As it stands now, he hasn't brought forth anything whatsoever. And I am certainly not going to do his homework for him.
What would he have against fiction anyway? He basis his whole life on fiction.
In the meantime, why don't we add this unfounded claim and assertion to all the other claims and assertions that he and the YouTube preacher have yet to justify.
Ydemoc
Great ill do it this way.
Have I ever said that things don't act in accordance to their nature?
Yes or No
Justin,
Since Trinity seems to having a hard time doing his homework, I've decided to do a little homework of my own and mount a defense, and here is what I found:
-----------------------------------
I'm suddenly reminded of Trinity's assertion:
"Justin causality and the law of identity have nothing to with each other." (Timestamp: January 10, 2012 9:45 PM)
A thing does not act according to its nature? Welp, I guess there goes his apologetic defense for the actions of his Storybook's invisible magic buddy.
Perhaps Trinity would identify for me "sprinting" without a sprinter. "Perceiving" without something to perceive and something that perceives. "Rolling" without that which rolls. "Eating" without that which eats. Consciousness without that which possesses consciousness, and without something to be conscious of. Reasoning without that which reasons, and without something to reason about.
If he should come back with more claims and assertions, I will expect him to tell us what justifies them, as I am still waiting for him to tell us what justifies his previous claims and assertions."
---------end quoted material--------
Justin, do you see anywhere in this a lie, or me being dishonest, or me attributing something to Trinity that he did not say?
Ydemoc
@Nide
"Have I ever said that things don't act in accordance to their nature?"
No you have not used those very words, but as Ydemoc pointed out you have said that causality has nothing to do with identity. Let me inform you of one of the law of identitie's corollaries, the law of excluded middle which can be roughly stated as if A then not not A. So the consequences of denying the connection between identity and causality is that yes you are saying in effect that things don't act in accordance with their nature.
I'm still waiting for you and Jhall to produce a legitimate source that makes your claim.
This is more than dishonesty it's sly craftiness shrewd as a
snake.
In spite of being corrected Ydemoc wants to keep lying.
But that's understandable he has no training in anything that can help him advance here in our exchanges.
@Nide
so if I don't produce a source that uses the very same terminology as the objectivists "causality is identity appealed to action" then you don't believe the identity of entities involved with each other has anything to do with their interactions? the identity of their interactions? So the mass of the earth and the distance of the moon from the earth have nothing to do with how long it takes to orbit the earth? interesting..... hysterical but interesting that anyone would hold to such a belief.
Justin,
You wrote, to Trinity: "...yes you are saying in effect that things don't act in accordance with their nature."
That is exactly right, Justin. Additionally, if you read carefully what I wrote was **my** summation of what he was, essentially, saying. I nowhere in that text attributed a direct quote to him as saying "that things don't act in accordance to their nature."
Stay tuned to see if Trinity's rebuttal offers a little more evidence for his claim, and if he uses a tiny bit more precision and honesty than he did in his case in chief.
Meanwhile, we're still waiting for him to justify other claims and assertions made by him and the YouTube preacher.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
I drank a bucket of coffee and now cant seem to fall asleep but that must have nothing to do with it because causality has nothing to do with identity.
Not at all.
Things act the way they do because God is in control of it all.
You say No "things are in control of themselves"
it's really based on induction which you can't account for.
"Well that's the way it was in the past so we "know"
it's gonna be like that in the future."
How do you know Justin that future things will be like the past?
oh boy universal skepticism yet again
"Not at all.
"Things act the way they do because God is in control of it all."
care to provide a non question begging argument for this?
"You say No "things are in control of themselves"
It would be more proper to state that things are what they are, reality just is. Control does not enter into it.
"it's really based on induction which you can't account for."
Induction presupposes.... are you ready... have you guessed already...
YUP!!
existence
identity
consciousness
"Well that's the way it was in the past so we "know"
it's gonna be like that in the future."
Hume ignored the fact that concepts are open ended and subject to constant refinement
"How do you know Justin that future things will be like the past?"
I base my conclusions on what I know not what I don't know. As Christopher Hitchens said arbitrary assertions can be dismissed arbitrary. Unless you can give me good reason for why things might change in an unexpected way I will dismiss it.
@Ydemoc
I should like to point out that theism does not resolve Hume's problem of induction, it only makes it much worse in fact. How can we tell that god wont change everything at a moments notice with not explanation. And there would be no way of knowing if he would or would not even in principle.
It's a simple question Justin
How do you know future things will be like the past:
Your justification begs the questions.
In other words you know because you know.
No tommorrow god can't change everything he's bound to his word.
"It's a simple question Justin
How do you know future things will be like the past:
Your justification begs the questions."
I know things will be like the way there were yesterday because I have properly identified the things in question. However some things wont be the same, the weather for example changes. The bus might be late or early.
Your question seems to go deeper tho, for example how do I know that gravity will work tomorrow. Again I have no obligation to take seriously arbitrary assertions or what ifs. Do you have any reason to think gravity will stop working? no you don't. I on the other hand know that gravity is a property of matter and the earth weights a lot, thus it will continue to have a gravitational field. But if gravity did stop working and we were able to some how survive this we would simply extend our concept of gravity to include the fact that it can stop functioning at times and we would investigate just how it did so as to predict how it might in the future. Concepts are open ended.... repeat until it sinks in. However what you and all skeptics want is absolute certainty and their ain't no such thing. Deal with it. It is not even an epistemological standard. There are only degrees of partial certainty.
In other words you know because you know.
No, I know that Powell blvd will be there in the morning because it is a street made of pavement and it is part of the identity of pavement that it cant move by its self. I know that I will be breathing oxygen in the morning if I am alive because that is what animals do. I took a course on biology after all:)
"No tommorrow god can't change everything he's bound to his word."
Told you that did he? and how did you measure his word?
ok I think I am going to call it a night
Justin there is no escape for you.
Any attempts to justify your inductive beliefs will assume inductive beliefs.
@Ydemoc
Yes Dawson has addressed this in full. Still these I wish to put it into my own worlds. Nide claims that our acceptance of the law of identity is grounded in inductive reasoning. I think he has not been reading what we have been posting but then again if A does not equal A why should we expect him to:) For correction to his claims I would like to point out that our recognition that A = A is perceptually self evident. We perceive things as being something, this is A = A, simple as that. Further as we have pointed out over and over the perceptually self evident does not have to be argued for. I don't need an argument inductive or deductive that I have a left arm, I can damn well see it:). Secondly as I have posted earlier induction as a method of reasoning itself is premised on those very same 3 axioms that he keeps trying to dig under to insert his god. But that is not going to work as any argument he puts for will have to conceptually presuppose those very same 3 axioms weather it be inductive or deductive. Further tossing in Hume's problem of induction is akin to the nuclear option in a debate, if it is taken at face value it destroys everyone's arguments. Third thing to bring up, as Nide has made it clear he has no understanding of concepts I think he does not get the idea of concepts being open ended.
Ydemoc you may find this article interesting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_and_crystallized_intelligence
I would say that Nide falls heavily on the crystallized side of the spectrum. He seems unable to draw logical connections on his own. He tends to rely on authorities to the exclusion of his own mental faculties. This is the hallmark of authoritarian thinking. One can always hope that he will one day start to think for himself however. Ok thats all.
Justin,
Interesting points above, and thanks for the link. I hope to examine it more in depth at some point.
You wrote: "...very same 3 axioms that he keeps trying to dig under to insert his god."
Yep. Like all believers, reality has him cornered. And due to his confessional investment, he doesn't like it. He seeks an escape route -- up, down, over, under and around -- but everywhere he looks, there reality is, there existence is.
So he does the only thing one can do when attempting to make the arbitrary come true: He retreats back into his mind, using his imagination as a way to prop up his confessional investment while fantasizing a way out. But no matter what goes on in his mind, reality is still there. He cannot escape it.
And this is what he refuses to accept. This is what he refuses to recognize.
Ydemoc
You got it all wrong Justin.
I base the law of identity on YHWH.
You base it on experience which begs the question.
That's the difference.
Justin,
Trinity says that you are begging the question by basing the law of identity upon experience.
But as Dawson notes: "...experience depends on the uniformity of nature (since experience, as the actual relation between a subject and the objects of its awareness, exists and is therefore a part of nature, and thus has identity), since experience is processional over time. It is not an appeal to experience, but rather to the preconditions of experience as such."
Dawson also writes: "Reality gives man a foundation for his experiences, namely the facts identified by the axioms. They are the preconditions of intelligible experience. Without them, there’d be no reality, no identity, no consciousness. You can’t get very far without all of these."
So what question is being begged here?
What question would Trinity be begging if he directly perceived the main character of his Storybook in the fictional place called heaven? None that I can see.
And how does an imperceptible, invisible, invisible magic buddy serve as a basis for the law of identity, or anything else for that matter? Blank out.
This is just another example of Trinity using his imagination in another failed attempt to make the arbitrary come true.
And he still hasn't told us how he justifies the claims and assertions that he and the YouTube preacher have made.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
"But as Dawson notes: "...experience depends on the uniformity of nature (since experience, as the actual relation between a subject and the objects of its awareness, exists and is therefore a part of nature, and thus has identity), since experience is processional over time. It is not an appeal to experience, but rather to the preconditions of experience as such."
I understand. The axioms are the pre conditions for even sense perception as well as inductive / deductive reasoning. Like I said earlier, they underlay all cognition.
The thing is Dawson's whole claim begs the question.
He knows because he knows.
There is no way out of it.
Justin,
Trinity has it all wrong, as he attempts to wedge his invisible, imperceptible, undetectable magic sky-daddy in there somehow, in an imaginative effort, to once again try and make the arbitrary come true.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
taken from the wiki page on the stolen concept fallacy. I think this sums up Nide's objection to our epistemology
Foundationalism
The philosopher Anthony Kenny argues that the idea, "common to theists like Aquinas and Descartes and to an atheist like Russell" that "Rational belief [is] either self-evident or based directly or indirectly on what is evident" (which he termed "foundationalism" following Plantinga) is self-refuting on the basis that this idea is itself neither self-evident nor based directly or indirectly on what is evident and that the same applies to other formulations of such foundationalism.[21] However, the self-evident impossibility of infinite regress can be offered as a justification for foundationalism.[22] Following the identification of problems with "naive foundationalism", the term is now often used to focus on incorrigible beliefs (modern foundationalism), or basic beliefs (reformed foundationalism).
I would argue not only that starting with perception is the only way to avoid infinite regress but that also the idea is self evidently true. After all we can see existence via the senses. That we from our very first acts of cognition assume implicitly the axioms in our perception of existence is obviously true. Despite all the talk of a priori knowledge, I know of no Christin that came to their beliefs without hearing of Christ or reading the bible with their own eyes. For Anthony Kenny to have even crafted this objection he would have to have used concepts and just how did he get those? If not integrated from sense perception then just how? No answer to that, blank out as Dawson would say. Additionally as I said even if we grant the problem of induction the status of a valid problem, god belief does not resolve it, in fact it makes matters infinitely worse via the implications of metaphysical subjectivism. What philosophers that agree with Hume don't seem to get is that everything in epistemology starts with sense perception and its attendant implicit assumption of the axiomatic concepts. The concepts one would use to even question sense perception as a valid starting point are grounded ultimately in that very same sense perception. Massive stolen concept fallacy to even question it.
It should be pointed out that Hume never even discussed how concepts are formed and how that relates to induction and because of this he failed to understand that sense perception is the only place to start. We gain precepts thru our senses, we integrate concepts from these and that in turn allows us to ask questions, even self refuting ones like "is induction valid?". Hume bereft of any theory of concepts also never identified that the axiomatic concepts are implicitly presupposed in all cognition, even in his attempt to discredit induction.
Basically Nide’s talk of induction, and I doubt he has even read Hume is just another tactic on his part to trick us into asking the question why existence, why identity, why consciousness. Sorry I am not going to fall for it. However once we realize explicitly that axiomatic concepts are axiomatic, that is implicit in all cognition. That all knowledge starts with sense perception and that concepts are open ended the problem of induction goes away. It is no problem at all.
Another thing about Hume, even tho he did not discuss concepts explicitly, There is an assumption of concepts and his conception appears to be that they are static. That once a concept is formed it is either completely correct or completely incorrect. Further because we can never know that it is completely correct he threw up his hands and says all inductive knowledge is invalid. What a wuss. Concepts are constant works in progress that not only subsume all the earlier concepts that make them possible but also include everything known about them now and what will be known about them. Knowledge is earned, is tentative and we can and at times will be wrong. I suggest everyone just get over that fact and get on with their lives. Like I said there ain't no such thing as absolute certainty, get over it.
Justin I think you are the one playing tricks on us.
You base Identity on reality which you admit changes.
In other words you destroy identity.
Remember evolution?
However, I know what to expect you'll spit out the old slogans out again in hope of maybe getting them to be true.
By the way I had an interesting exchange with Paul Baird over on Mike Russel's blog.
Just wanted your take on it.
Thanks.
.
Nide.... change, metamorphosis, processes, methods, these all have identity, why cant you understand that? Anyway would you post a link so I can find this discussion you want me to see.
http://richaelmussell.blogspot.com/2011/11/should-christian-debater-assume-whole.html
Scroll Down until you see Paul's first post.
Enjoy.
Justin,
Trinity is having such a terrible time grasping the fact that just because centuries upon centuries ago, mystics let their imaginations run wild, and wrote down in scrolls what they imagined and believed, this does not make what they wrote down nor what they believed, true -- especially, and most importantly, when what they wrote and believed was grounded in Primacy of Consciousness Metaphysics.
I know that you understand this completely, but I just wanted to remind all the rationally minded fence-sitters who may be looking on.
Ydemoc
Anything Ydemoc says belongs in the garbage can.
He has no training in anything that can advanced the discussions.
Justin,
Look how sloppy Trinity is when he writes this about me:
"He has no training in anything that can advanced the discussions."
What?! And he calls me out for lack of training?! Does he not see the irony in calling me out for what he assumes is my lack of training, when he himself cannot even put a sentence together properly?
Also, how does he know I haven't had training? All he previously asked, I think, was if I had taken a course in college on logic and philosophy. And I told him the answer was no. (Imaginary god forbid if this isn't what he asked me, for he might call me a liar again)
And training by whom? He never asked me that, I don't think. One can certainly be self-taught, can't they? Besides, I have advanced the conversation quite nicely in my opinion, as evidenced by Dawson, AJ, and Justin's replies to me. In fact, even Trinity calling me a moron and a liar advances the discussion quite nicely in my favor, for it exposes him and his worldview for what it is: His worldview, like the names he calls me, are not grounded in reality.
But what difference should my training, or lack thereof have with regard to the ideas put forth? Either he deals with what I write or he doesn't. If he chooses not to, or anyone else chooses not to, so be it. I will continue responding to his nonsense as long as I enjoy it, and as long as I think rationally minded fence-sitters out there are gaining something by it.
Furthermore, and once again in his haste, Trinity flirts with throwing some of what we read in his Storybook, right under the bus. For even some of the main characters, the apostles, were illiterate fishermen. What training did they have? Does one need training to be "saved"? Does one need training to discuss Storybook issues? Does one have to have training now to be in Trinity's Presuppositional Christian Clique?
The savior Trinity imagines must be sooo proud of him.
Ydemoc
Justin,
I enjoyed your post. Lots of good points in there.
Ydemoc
@Ydemoc
thank you, the issue of induction is a tricky one. Here is something that might interest you relivant to evolution
http://www.nature.com/news/yeast-suggests-speedy-start-for-multicellular-life-1.9810
It's not tricky at all Justin.
The more I think about the more I wanna crack a smile.
You as an "atheist" have no reason at all to believe that the future will be the like the past.
The best thing you can come up with is"well I have seen that the future has been like the past therefore I know that future will be like the past"
Thats a nasty little circle.
If you wanna hold on to the old useless slogans thats fine.
But at least admit that your position actually has no answers for anything at all.
lets see start with the self evident facts of perception, with the attendant implictily assumed axiomatic concepts and built from there, or ascribe it all to a invisible sky daddy that can not
be perceived at all. That if we take it seriously could at a moments notice change everything and we without any way even in principle of being about to know if he will or will not. Yeah sure and who is it that cant be assured of the future? I predict the future based on my knowledge built up conceptually from the perceptually self evident facts of existence while you ground your predictions in your ignorance of god’s plan. Appeal to ignorance fallacy. And think about this, what concepts do the concepts ignorance and fallacy presuppose... Yes that's right without valid sense perception and the axioms those very ideas would be nothing, meaningless.
Appeal to ignorance?
Your "axioms" only make things worse.
Now we both know that induction is based on probability.
Since you base identity on induction it follows that identity will only problably be true in the future.
It's actually quite embarrasing for you so I understand why you decide to be hostile.
“Thats a nasty little circle.”
in the axioms are implicit in all cognition so no we don't argue for them, so no you cant say we are begging the question here, we don't offer an argument. The axioms are conceptually irreducible, unavoidable and undeniable. Once identified as such thats all that need be said.
Valid sense perception, aka perceptually self evident is likewise not argued for, it is a necessary precondition for cognition and thus argument. Like I said before I don't need an argument that I have a left hand, I can damn well see it. So no arguments here either that has a conclusion that restates one of its premises. Altho I should point out that if god were real I could wake up tomarrow with a tenticle instead and I have no way in principle of ruling that out. In an objective universe where A = A I do have such a principle.
You resuppers always keep harping on the claim that everyone has resuppositions. Fine, we have identified ours and explained why we have them. I am not asking you to agree with them. You however have not given me a reason that makes sense why I should trade in mine for god.
"Since you base identity on induction it follows that identity will only problably be true in the future."
where, just where have I said that identity is based on induction. Indentity is implicit in the very act of preception. That is before you get to induction.
however given that you dont seem to understand that identity apples to change, processes and methods I doubt you have a proper conception of what the law of identity even means
let me say this again, induction presupposes the concept identity. The concept identity is not validated thru a means of induction
Thinking back on things I have said one thing I that could have lead to confusion and Ydemoc pointed this out in one of his posts. I was saying we learn of identity thru sense perception, and it is true that our explicit understanding of the concept is learned this way, Ydemoc pointed out that the concept was implicitly assumed in that very same sense perception all along and that is the correct way of viewing this once a understanding of concept formation is taken into account. There is after all a difference between explicit recognition of a concept and implicitly assuming it.
@Ydemoc
Nide says that appealing to the axioms is an appeal to ignorance. But what he is forgetting is that the concept ignorance presupposes them. Thus to call it an appeal to ignorance to identify them as axioms amounts to yet another stolen concept fallacy. But as we have seen repeatedly, Nide does not understand this fallacy or anything relating to concept formation and relationships.
Post a Comment