In the comments sections of the previous three entries on my blog (beginning with the most recent: Michael David Rawlings and the Primacy of a Bad Attitude, My Discussion with Michael Rawlings, and Is Math Christian?), we have had the opportunity to observe the spectacle of a most pompous individual.
From the beginning, Rawlings has come to us wielding multi-syllabic jargon and point-missing braggadocio in a most characteristic fashion. But according to Rawlings and the defenses he’s provided, what does the Christian worldview have to offer in terms of philosophical value? Let the reader decide, but the reader should be informed before settling his opinion prematurely. So here is an overview (but I caution the reader: this is by no means an exhaustive catalogue of Rawlings’ indiscretions and deficiencies – not by a long shot!):
- In metaphysics, Rawlings has explicitly affirmed the primacy of consciousness – i.e., the metaphysics which reduces to “wishing makes it so.” At root, this is what Christianity is all about: out there, beyond the knowable universe, there exist, according to believers, a super-consciousness to whose wishes and dictates the realm of existence conforms. And yet, at the same time, he acknowledges (how could he not) that “human consciousness” (he repeatedly ignores all the other types of consciousness we find in reality) does not have metaphysical primacy over existence, but yet he fails to produce an epistemology which is consistent with this recognition. Indeed, his own behavior is indicative of a person who struggles against the primacy of existence, apparently never having grasped that reality is not going to re-order itself in response to his tantrums and meltdowns. To top it off, he cannot explain what he as a Christian could possibly mean by ‘objective’ when he uses this term (and he has used it numerous times, and I’ve asked him several times to explain it – he never does).
- In epistemology, the fulcrum upon which all “knowledge” rests according to Christianity is eloquently summed up by John Frame’s open admission (speaking on behalf of believers) that “We know without knowing how we know” Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction (Part I)). This is at best the epistemology of self-inflicted ignorance, at worst an admission to having no epistemology whatsoever. Rawlings has not improved on this at all; instead, he has affirmed the view that conceptualization is an “automatic” process, the mechanics of which he cannot articulate or explain, and in spite of insisting that Christianity has its own theory of concepts, he speaks of knowledge in long chains of referenceless and convoluted abstractions which are clearly not intended to inform his readers with understanding, but rather to lose them in in a maze of go-nowhere complexity (indeed, Rawlings offers himself as an example of a victim who’s been utterly lost in its endless labyrinths – acting as though complexity in and of itself were a sign of a system’s virtues). Meanwhile, he has failed to connect any talk of the conceptual level of cognition to anything we can read in the bible. I have asked Rawlings to explain what Christianity has to say about the nature and formation of concepts, but he doesn’t even provide us with Christianity’s definition of ‘concept’, let alone point to where we can learn about the conceptual level of cognition in the bible. It is something which its authors and subsequently its believers take completely for granted, clearly believing that the whole process “just happens” – i.e., it’s “automatic,” meaning: there’s nothing to know about it. So much for “Christian epistemology.” We’ve seen enough to know that such a notion is, fortunately, nothing but a vanishing chimera.
- Rawlings’ only angle for securing any semblance of rationality (and that’s using the term exceedingly broadly) on behalf of his god-belief is to somehow conceive of the concept of ‘infinity’ as though it necessarily implies the existence of an “infinite consciousness.” But investigation of this line of “reasoning” has proved that it is nothing of the sort; indeed, merely probing Rawlings’ claims on this matter has set him off in a rage of straw-manning the opposition, non sequiturs, reification of stolen concepts, full-scale launches of insults and innuendoes, and tirades of bawling and invective. To make matters worse for his position, it was pointed out to Rawlings early on that the meaning of ‘infinity’ is conceptual and in fact derives from the nature of conceptual reference as such. Far from pointing to some supernatural “divine perfection” which exists only in the believers’ imaginations, the concept of infinity finds the impetus of its meaning in the nature of human cognition, specifically in the open-endedness of conceptual reference given the operation of measurement-omission. There’s nothing mysterious or otherworldly here. But to grasp this, Rawlings would need to know something about the nature of concepts, but again he doesn’t know anything about concepts (again, he thinks they’re “automatic” and has no explanation for the mechanics of their formation; he does not even offer a definition of ‘concept’). The deficiencies of his argument can be traced directly back to the deficiencies of his “epistemology,” which, as we’ve seen, is nothing but a mirage mistaken by Rawlings as something “unique and profound,” even though there’s certainly nothing unique or profound about it (the various mystical cults throughout history have produced the same thing in terms of essentials). When confronted with a defense of Peikoff’s view that the actual is always finite, he blatantly mischaracterizes it, completely ignoring the defense I assembled for it (even after he asked for one several times), and insists that his straw-man is what Peikoff really means. If Rawlings had a rationally defensible position, would he need to rely on such tactics? I trow not.
- Rawlings exhibits a repeating pattern of interaction throughout his discussion, and it has no redeeming virtues whatsoever. In the beginning he was fairly cordial and presented himself as though he were serious about intellectual interests and curious about Objectivism. (Of course, this turned out merely to be a front. We will see below that Rawlings is no stranger to internet discussion forums, and his behavior on this blog is in no way “unique” or “profound.”) At the same time he believed (or wanted us to believe that he believed) that certain mistakes were being made in attempts to interact with what Christianity teaches, and thereby sought to correct those mistakes. (Of course, this is quite odd in itself, since the chief perspective from which I have consistently critiqued Christianity is by exposing its basis in the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, which Rawlings himself explicitly affirmed when hoping to defend Christianity.) When Rawlings’ assertions were challenged, he suffered a meltdown, presumably since we were not accepting him as some kind of credentialed authority on the topic (yes, don’t forget he made a big deal, very oddly I might add, early on about his “credentials,” which he never identified). Clearly he wants his say-so to be accepted as the final word on matters, as if it were unimpeachable, unquestionable, unchallengeable. It’s not. Throughout the discussion, the more Rawlings was challenged on any point, the more he resorted to insults and other types of childish behavior, including re-posting entire series of previously submitted comments of his, even after they had been addressed and demolished, as though they were beyond scrutiny.
- When confronted with my argument that the Christian god does not and cannot exist because it is imaginary, Rawlings does not challenge the premise that the Christian god is imaginary. Rather, he curiously focuses on the premise that the imaginary is not real, apparently but not explicitly angling that something he imagines actually exists (he famously used the DVD cabinet he apparently wants to build as an example). According to Rawlings, the DVD cabinet he imagines somehow exists, and yet he still needs to buy parts in order to build it. It never seems to dawn on our genius guest that one does not need to build something when it already exists. In substantiating his case, he produced a mock dialogue in which the individual he encounters readily accepts that the DVD cabinet he’s imagining is real. Rawlings is so accustomed to being surrounded by members of his cult who share in his fantasies, that he projects the same indiscriminate and uncritical acceptance of the imaginary as real onto the characters of his mock dialogue to make the point that the imaginary is in fact actual. If his god’s existence is in any way analogous to the DVD cabinet that Rawlings imagines, there’s certainly no hope for rescuing his theism.
Off-list several interesting facts have been brought to my attention about Michael David Rawlings. Apparently Rawlings runs his own blog, which I have never visited. But from what I have learned, Rawlings has posted on his blog a commenting policy which reads:
From the beginning, Rawlings has come to us wielding multi-syllabic jargon and point-missing braggadocio in a most characteristic fashion. But according to Rawlings and the defenses he’s provided, what does the Christian worldview have to offer in terms of philosophical value? Let the reader decide, but the reader should be informed before settling his opinion prematurely. So here is an overview (but I caution the reader: this is by no means an exhaustive catalogue of Rawlings’ indiscretions and deficiencies – not by a long shot!):
- In metaphysics, Rawlings has explicitly affirmed the primacy of consciousness – i.e., the metaphysics which reduces to “wishing makes it so.” At root, this is what Christianity is all about: out there, beyond the knowable universe, there exist, according to believers, a super-consciousness to whose wishes and dictates the realm of existence conforms. And yet, at the same time, he acknowledges (how could he not) that “human consciousness” (he repeatedly ignores all the other types of consciousness we find in reality) does not have metaphysical primacy over existence, but yet he fails to produce an epistemology which is consistent with this recognition. Indeed, his own behavior is indicative of a person who struggles against the primacy of existence, apparently never having grasped that reality is not going to re-order itself in response to his tantrums and meltdowns. To top it off, he cannot explain what he as a Christian could possibly mean by ‘objective’ when he uses this term (and he has used it numerous times, and I’ve asked him several times to explain it – he never does).
- In epistemology, the fulcrum upon which all “knowledge” rests according to Christianity is eloquently summed up by John Frame’s open admission (speaking on behalf of believers) that “We know without knowing how we know” Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction (Part I)). This is at best the epistemology of self-inflicted ignorance, at worst an admission to having no epistemology whatsoever. Rawlings has not improved on this at all; instead, he has affirmed the view that conceptualization is an “automatic” process, the mechanics of which he cannot articulate or explain, and in spite of insisting that Christianity has its own theory of concepts, he speaks of knowledge in long chains of referenceless and convoluted abstractions which are clearly not intended to inform his readers with understanding, but rather to lose them in in a maze of go-nowhere complexity (indeed, Rawlings offers himself as an example of a victim who’s been utterly lost in its endless labyrinths – acting as though complexity in and of itself were a sign of a system’s virtues). Meanwhile, he has failed to connect any talk of the conceptual level of cognition to anything we can read in the bible. I have asked Rawlings to explain what Christianity has to say about the nature and formation of concepts, but he doesn’t even provide us with Christianity’s definition of ‘concept’, let alone point to where we can learn about the conceptual level of cognition in the bible. It is something which its authors and subsequently its believers take completely for granted, clearly believing that the whole process “just happens” – i.e., it’s “automatic,” meaning: there’s nothing to know about it. So much for “Christian epistemology.” We’ve seen enough to know that such a notion is, fortunately, nothing but a vanishing chimera.
- Rawlings’ only angle for securing any semblance of rationality (and that’s using the term exceedingly broadly) on behalf of his god-belief is to somehow conceive of the concept of ‘infinity’ as though it necessarily implies the existence of an “infinite consciousness.” But investigation of this line of “reasoning” has proved that it is nothing of the sort; indeed, merely probing Rawlings’ claims on this matter has set him off in a rage of straw-manning the opposition, non sequiturs, reification of stolen concepts, full-scale launches of insults and innuendoes, and tirades of bawling and invective. To make matters worse for his position, it was pointed out to Rawlings early on that the meaning of ‘infinity’ is conceptual and in fact derives from the nature of conceptual reference as such. Far from pointing to some supernatural “divine perfection” which exists only in the believers’ imaginations, the concept of infinity finds the impetus of its meaning in the nature of human cognition, specifically in the open-endedness of conceptual reference given the operation of measurement-omission. There’s nothing mysterious or otherworldly here. But to grasp this, Rawlings would need to know something about the nature of concepts, but again he doesn’t know anything about concepts (again, he thinks they’re “automatic” and has no explanation for the mechanics of their formation; he does not even offer a definition of ‘concept’). The deficiencies of his argument can be traced directly back to the deficiencies of his “epistemology,” which, as we’ve seen, is nothing but a mirage mistaken by Rawlings as something “unique and profound,” even though there’s certainly nothing unique or profound about it (the various mystical cults throughout history have produced the same thing in terms of essentials). When confronted with a defense of Peikoff’s view that the actual is always finite, he blatantly mischaracterizes it, completely ignoring the defense I assembled for it (even after he asked for one several times), and insists that his straw-man is what Peikoff really means. If Rawlings had a rationally defensible position, would he need to rely on such tactics? I trow not.
- Rawlings exhibits a repeating pattern of interaction throughout his discussion, and it has no redeeming virtues whatsoever. In the beginning he was fairly cordial and presented himself as though he were serious about intellectual interests and curious about Objectivism. (Of course, this turned out merely to be a front. We will see below that Rawlings is no stranger to internet discussion forums, and his behavior on this blog is in no way “unique” or “profound.”) At the same time he believed (or wanted us to believe that he believed) that certain mistakes were being made in attempts to interact with what Christianity teaches, and thereby sought to correct those mistakes. (Of course, this is quite odd in itself, since the chief perspective from which I have consistently critiqued Christianity is by exposing its basis in the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, which Rawlings himself explicitly affirmed when hoping to defend Christianity.) When Rawlings’ assertions were challenged, he suffered a meltdown, presumably since we were not accepting him as some kind of credentialed authority on the topic (yes, don’t forget he made a big deal, very oddly I might add, early on about his “credentials,” which he never identified). Clearly he wants his say-so to be accepted as the final word on matters, as if it were unimpeachable, unquestionable, unchallengeable. It’s not. Throughout the discussion, the more Rawlings was challenged on any point, the more he resorted to insults and other types of childish behavior, including re-posting entire series of previously submitted comments of his, even after they had been addressed and demolished, as though they were beyond scrutiny.
- When confronted with my argument that the Christian god does not and cannot exist because it is imaginary, Rawlings does not challenge the premise that the Christian god is imaginary. Rather, he curiously focuses on the premise that the imaginary is not real, apparently but not explicitly angling that something he imagines actually exists (he famously used the DVD cabinet he apparently wants to build as an example). According to Rawlings, the DVD cabinet he imagines somehow exists, and yet he still needs to buy parts in order to build it. It never seems to dawn on our genius guest that one does not need to build something when it already exists. In substantiating his case, he produced a mock dialogue in which the individual he encounters readily accepts that the DVD cabinet he’s imagining is real. Rawlings is so accustomed to being surrounded by members of his cult who share in his fantasies, that he projects the same indiscriminate and uncritical acceptance of the imaginary as real onto the characters of his mock dialogue to make the point that the imaginary is in fact actual. If his god’s existence is in any way analogous to the DVD cabinet that Rawlings imagines, there’s certainly no hope for rescuing his theism.
Off-list several interesting facts have been brought to my attention about Michael David Rawlings. Apparently Rawlings runs his own blog, which I have never visited. But from what I have learned, Rawlings has posted on his blog a commenting policy which reads:
Comment Policy (Due to the restructuring of this blog, comments posted prior to November 6, 2012 are longer available. I apologize for the inconvenience, but the new format is permanently fixed, and future comments will be secure.) 1. Debate. Discuss. Feel free to disagree, but keep it civil. This doesn't mean that satirical or sardonic remarks won't be allowed, but rude or hurtful epithets, particularly those launched without substance, will be deleted. 2. Irrationally slanderous or sexually explicit comments will be deleted. Comments containing threats of physical violence will be deleted. Comments containing excessive or gratuitous profanity will be deleted. I will not delete a post simply because someone finds it to be offensive, but boorish behavior will not be tolerated. It's really simple, folks. Be decent. Be mature. 3. Spam, advertisements or comments whose sole purpose is to direct traffic to other sites will be deleted. 4. Stay on topic. 5. Anonymous comments will not be allowed. Finally, I reserve the right to delete comments or close comments on posts for any reason, regardless of whether or not they conform with the above.
This does not need any additional editorial comment.
Also it is pointed out to me that Rawlings’ pattern of juvenile behavior is not unique to his commenting activity on my blog. One observer notified me of Rawlings’ posting activity on another forum where he has unleashed a similar display of tantrums and meltdowns. At one point he wrote:
Liars. You've all been shown that. You've also been shown why ID is scientific. In fact, you've been told how abiogenic research has affirmed the theoretical constructs and predictions of ID, and I invited you, more than once, to discuss the specifics of that research. LOL! But we all know why you phonies evade the findings of abiogentic research, don't we? Also, you will not acknowledge the undeniable regarding the metaphysics of science or the nature of the presupposition underlying your theory; you're merely trying to hold ID to the same materialist apriority. Your response is to simply repeat the same questions over and over again, just like Greenbeard mindlessly repeats the same assertion over and over again. None of you ever get around to directly addressing what has been given you. You're like mindless robots. I might as well be talking to the wall. So too-da-loo, loopy-doos!
So apparently Rawlings is an advocate of so-called “Intelligent Design” – a design which human beings, curiously, are continually improving. How could that be?
In another thread on the same message board, Rawlings writes:
And I will always be civil to persons who present their ideas in a civil tone, no matter how much I may disagree. Most times I ignore incivility. What I have no tolerance for are the moral outrages and flagrant lies of bootlick statists. A man who will abuse language or logical categories, that is, a man who will lie, twist and pervert reality, slander truth, will murder too given the power.
We must never lose sight of the fact that Michael David Rawlings’ words, since they are so conspicuously bereft of substance, are primary autobiographical. Just as when Christian apologist Phil Fernandes states in his debate with Jeffery J. Lowder that
I just believe that we are very good about lying to ourselves, and only accepting, uh, or interpreting the evidence the way we would like to.
Michael David Rawlings is speaking for and about himself.
A comment which Robert Bumbalough recently quoted states:
Being hostile toward #atheism is basically like having a hissy fit because I won't play "make believe" with you. Sorry. I'm not 5.
Indeed. Let’s face it: in the theist’s experience, the mere existence of atheists is cause for panic. Atheists are for religious believers essentially spoil sports. We aren’t going to play “make believe” with the believer, and what really riles someone like Michael David Rawlings is the fact that we don’t think philosophy is the handmaiden to make-believe. This is what prompts what in other contexts might appear to be an otherwise nominally capable adult to showing his true colors: suffering temper tantrums and breakdowns in public, melting down at the slightest resistance to his presumed “authority,” and unleashing his entire arsenal of insults and bad attitude, all the while undermining any shred of credibility he might claim to have as a thinker. Since his pattern of behavior has been positively reinforced by probably years of habit, I expect that none of this will matter to Michael David Rawlings, and that he’ll just continue showing himself to be pompous bawling ass he really is.
by Dawson Bethrick
by Dawson Bethrick
676 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 676 Newer› Newest»Michael keeps going on with his math-infinity rabbit trails, so perhaps he missed this:
Photo wrote: “As I said, forget about the fucking math Michael. It's over. I am not going to be distracted explaining to you that you now hold to one sub-discipline in math, then to another. Or the historical problems with deciding about infinity and its role in different operations. Or that you don't understand the meaning of mathematical terms. It's useless to explain that to you because you are mathematically illiterate and you just can't read. But it does not matter. You have admitted to lying.”
I find myself in complete agreement with photo here. It was obvious from the beginning that the “concept of infinity, therefore an infinite consciousness” route to Christian apologetics is a dead-end maze of meaningless rabbit trails that never produce the lifting power it is portrayed as having. I recognized this because such a means of arguing for mystical conclusions not only takes the primacy of consciousness for granted, it also depends expressly on ignoring the conceptual nature of infinity, as I pointed out. (Recall the quote I cited from Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology on the matter? Michael never interacted with this explanation of the nature of the concept of infinity.) Again, the fallacies inherent in Michael’s approach to apologetics can be traced to his lack of understanding when it comes to the nature of concepts.
It’s clear now that Michael has nothing to gain in the interest of defending his theism by pursuing his chicanery regarding the notion of infinity, regardless of its importance to mathematics. Mathematics is a conceptual discipline, which means that any talk of the concept of infinity with regard to its significance to mathematics only confirms the account Rand gives in her thesis pertaining to the nature and formation of concepts (again, something we will never learn about by reading the bible).
Even worse, photo has already exposed numerous flaws in Michael’s presentation regarding infinity, and those flaws have in various respects turned around to bite Michael’s own position sorely in its rear end, sending system-wide shockwaves throughout his entire “case” to the extent that he can be said to have assembled one.
So if Michael thinks he has a clearly logical case for something that is in fact “infinite” also being actual, he needs to present it once and for all in its essentialized form – i.e., in terms of clearly stated premises which clearly support their intended conclusion. There’s no reason for anyone to get lost in the labyrinthine meanderings of his comments which are laden with insults, bad attitude, contentless jargon. If he cannot relate his case to what the things we are directly aware of in a conceptually sound fashion, then he has no case to begin with.
If Michael decides not to take up this final challenge, then he forfeits the entirety of his efforts here.
Regards,
Dawson
Yup. Michael's display of misinterpreted math, even if it was not misinterpreted, means nothing. SO this bears repeating:
[Dawson here] So if Michael thinks he has a clearly logical case for something that is in fact “infinite” also being actual, he needs to present it once and for all in its essentialized form – i.e., in terms of clearly stated premises which clearly support their intended conclusion. There’s no reason for anyone to get lost in the labyrinthine meanderings of his comments which are laden with insults, bad attitude, contentless jargon. If he cannot relate his case to what the things we are directly aware of in a conceptually sound fashion, then he has no case to begin with.
If Michael decides not to take up this final challenge, then he forfeits the entirety of his efforts here.
But I would insist that anything coming from Michael should now be suspected to be a combination of different kinds of bullshit. He has admitted to talk as if he knew when he had just "assumed," to lie in order to put traps, and we have caught him in lies through and through. I think even trying to comply with Dawson's well put point above, Michael has put himself in a situation that's shitty beyond repair.
photoLiar, you just lied again.
You write: "He [Michael] thought that the 'quotient' of dividing with no end was an indivisible, immutable, infinity with no beginning and no end!)."
Gee, photoLiar, you had no problem finding the one expression in which I screwed up the distinction over which you're trying to save face against the logic and prose of everything else. Can't you find and quote the expression in which I wrote "the quotient was God"?
Dude, you're lying, just making that up. It's quite obvious.
How did I admit that I got my math from Richard? LOL! My statement clearly asserts the opposite. I thought that's what you were imply. Seemed like it.
In any event, dude the cheese slid off your cracker a long time ago. Looks like the cracker just crumbled too. LOL!
Duhson, pay attention. . . .
No, DuhsonZero. You took the very same statement as photoZero in which I admittedly composed the distinction poorly. So what? You're trying to make a federal case out of the one black rose that goes against the flow of everything else I wrote above and below that on the matter. Nitpicking over a rhetorical error that's not cognitively real. You still don't get it, do you, DuhsonZero? The material realm is a divisible entity, unlike God Who is indivisible and immutable.
You were played. Suck it up. Take it like man . . . or like the mathematically illiterate clown that you that you made yourself out to be.
LOL!
Carefully go over the rest of the statements I wrote. Go for it!
Except for that one statement, you read something in to my rhetoric that isn't there. You imagined it. You told yourself something that isn’t really there. Then you ran with it trying to make me out to be the dufus as you idiots confounded division with subtraction, as you foolishly took the limit of the common expression of division by infinity for a quotient, as you foolishly contradicted yourselves (per infinity's supposed lack of identity), calling what is an endless process, a process that ends with zero.
You lost sight of Peikoff's premise, that infinite division goes on forever, never reaching absolute infinity, that the extant quotient is always finite, because you imagined an instance in which you could make me out to be the dufus, dufus. And so you stupidly ended that which has no end at zero, DuhsonZero, up and against my staunch position that division by infinity is endless.
The next post will show you in even greater detail how I inserted that in your head by suggestion, but never really lied at all.
Hint: the material realm is divisible. Divisible and division are not the same terms. For one thing, the former is an adjective, and the latter is a noun! LOL!
Hook. Line. Sinker.
And your blather that all of this does not overthrow Peikoff's argument is claptrap.
I have addressed and utterly destroyed his argument, more than once. You're just too stupid/dishonest to observe that the quotient in any instance of division is always finite at any given moment, not just in the instance of division by infinity. Well, technically, irrational numbers are not finite, just indeterminable. Another mathematical fact that doesn’t help your case, DuhsonZero.
Infinity doesn't have identity and, therefore, can't exist?!
How does that follow, Dufus?
More mathematical illiteracy on display. . . .
Where in the annuals of thought do competent persons ever imagine that infinity has no identity . . . except in the stupidity of the faux philosophy of Objectivism?
Infinity is not indefinable or without identity in science or mathematics. Hogwash. Bull. Made up crap. Stupidity raised to the infinite power of Duh . . . sonZero.
In calculus, for example, it is defined in excruciating detail in the theorems and functions regarding the nature and practical applications of it in mathematics and science. The proofs in the mathematical calculations of infinity, including those employed in the function of dividing by infinity, demonstrate that. It is not said to be indefinable or without identity. Mathematically, it is merely an indeterminable number. The indeterminably of its value is the essence of its nature. That is it's identity! It is a number that has no beginning or end. That is to say, it is the number that encompasses all the numbers there are at once.
But wait. There's more!
[continued . . .]
The number line, in and of itself, is not just infinite, having no beginning or end, it is inherently riddled with infinities. In fact, it has an infinite number of infinites on either side of zero, which doesn‘t help your case, DuhsonZero.
Do you know what I’m talking about, DuhsonZero?
Further, any divisible entity may be divided without end, but not by finite consciousness. That statement is true. Peikoff, imagining a conclusion that does not follow, goes on to say that because the extant quotient at any given moment during the process is always finite, infinity has no identity. Therefore, infinite consciousness does not exist.
*crickets chirping*
Since that obviously does not follow, what is “the silent partner” of this asseveration? What is the apriority that he jumps the rails, as it were, in violation of any justifiably anchored and continuously coherent hierarchy of concepts, to get to this non sequitur? More to the point, what is the indemonstrable presupposition that goes against the logical ramifications of the irreducible primary, the mathematical axiom of division by infinity, takes that which leads to a perfectly rational and flawlessly linear conclusion and turns it into a gratuitous curiosity, indeed, what photo-Zoom-Right-Over-His-Silly-Head calls a paradox?
What is the presupposition that irrationally defies the logic of mathematics and by extension the very logic of existence itself?
What is this instance of stupidity that contradictorily asserts the primacy of finite consciousness against existence?
Answer: infinite consciousness doesn’t exist because the only consciousness that exists it finite, an indemonstrable, tautological non sequitur, a stupidity not in evidence.
Psst. Idiots. The irrationality is not that of the theist. The paradox is not that of the theist.
There's no friggin' paradox, photoParadox, unless God doesn't exist.
It's the atheist's friggin' irrationality. It's the atheist's friggin' paradox. Own it, Dingbats! That's the result of Peikoff's non sequitur.
Check and mate.
END
Richard, ain't it funny how Peikoff's math, such as it is, mattered when they thought it made sense? Ain't it funny how their "math," in which they confounded zero for the quotient, mattered when they thought it made their point?
But it stopped mattering the moment it became clear that they got it all wrong, that they spewed stupidity, from here to infinity, that it doesn't support their position at all!
Moving the goal posts again!
LOL!
LOSERS..
Photo wrote: “But I would insist that anything coming from Michael should now be suspected to be a combination of different kinds of bullshit. He has admitted to talk as if he knew when he had just ‘assumed’, to lie in order to put traps, and we have caught him in lies through and through. I think even trying to comply with Dawson's well put point above, Michael has put himself in a situation that's shitty beyond repair.”
Here’s the point: the guy says that a statement he stated earlier which incriminates his entire reputation as a thinker was a gaff, and then tries to characterize that gaff as some carefully set “trap.” Sorry, it just doesn’t fly. My position remains intact and unharmed. So it’s unclear how Michael’s gaff could be a “trap.” He still hasn’t shown that an actual can also be infinite, and that’s the original contention which set off his entire gaff-laden blathering about math, quotients, etc. So if there’s a zero here, it’s in any “progress” Michael can be said to have made in his case for an “infinite consciousness.” Beyond that, it’s really hard to read anything more by the guy because everything he’s been writing for over a month now is essentially just a bunch of insults and attempts to make others look inferior. That may be impressive in Michael’s micro-circle of “friends” (e.g., Nide), but it’s worthless here.
Regards,
Dawson
Richard,
Isn't funny that we have been consistent about when we were talking about concepts and abstractions, and when about actualities? Isn't it funny that Michael can't make this distinction?
What an ass your friend. I hope you were ready for that load of bullshit that he delivered and then jammed back up his own blown-up ass. You followed my advice and were careful about your licking Mich's ass, right?
BTW, the above should read: "What is the apriority he uses, but doesn’t mention, to jump the rails, as it were, in violation of any justifiably anchored and continuously coherent hierarchy of concepts, to get to this non sequitur?"
Michael tries to rally up his one cheerleader: “Richard, ain't it funny how Peikoff's math, such as it is, mattered when they thought it made sense?”
“Peikoff’s math”? Man, you really try to read a lot into stuff.
Michael: “Ain't it funny how their ‘math’, in which they confounded zero for the quotient, mattered when they thought it made their point?”
Gee, the only ones who “confounded zero for the quotient” that I saw were Michael and “Kyle.” I supplied the quotes for this. Here they are again:
<< Who wrote the following (on 11 Dec., in the comments of this blog)?
<< As Michael pointed out, the maxim actually does have practical mathematical applications, and a timeless creator can do that from nothing to a divisible something and back down to nothing again easily. That’s an obvious function or ability of a creator. It’s elementary. >>
It was someone posting under the name “Kyle Jamison.”
Who wrote the following (on 12 Dec., in the same blog entry)?
<< The divisibility and limited intellectual capacity of the finite verses the indivisibility and immutability of the Creator Who can will something into existence apart from Himself and divisionally reduce it back down to nothing again is asserted outright! >>
That was none other than Michael “you’re trying to bury my post continuations” Rawlings.
Then on 19 Dec., again in the same blog’s comments, who wrote the following?
<< However, finite consciousness cannot perform said division to its conclusion; hence, Aristotle concludes that there must be a consciousness of infinite perfection (indivisible and immutable) that can divide finite entities down to nothing, otherwise we have an indispensable mathematical axiom that is cogent, yet gratuitous. >>
Yes, you guessed right: it was Michael Rawlings who wrote this. >>
Michael: “But it stopped mattering the moment it became clear that they got it all wrong, that they spewed stupidity, from here to infinity, that it doesn't support their position at all!”
Au contraire. Unlike you, Michael, neither photo nor I have had to revise our position or budge from it. Manwhile, Michael, you have not made ANY progress in validating the notion that an actual entity can be infinite. So Peikoff’s point stands, even though you’ve made numerous attempts to misrepresent it as stating something it’s not.
I think it’s time for you to give it up, Michael, since you have lost and you continue to lose with every attempt to recover your position and insult those with whom you are dialoguing. I know, you’ll just go find some other forum where you’ll repeat the same mistakes. Isn’t there something in the book of Proverbs to the effect that fools despise correction? Take a look, Michael: it applies to you.
Regards,
Dawson
No, the math does matter, DuhsonZero. The math screams God's existence, DuhsonZero!
And it's precisely because of your disregard for the ramifications of mathematical axioms that you conclude your stupidities.
Your irrational non sequiturs. Your imaginary paradoxes.
Shove it.
Check and mate.
The problem has always been about distinguishing abstractions from actualities. Michael insist on mistaking them and taking for granted that if he finds some infinity in the abstract, therefore there's an infinity in the actual. But all he does is come and go affirming that division to infinity is possible, then that it is not possible, then that the quotient is nothing, then that the quotient is an indivisible, immutable, infinity with no beginning and no end, then again that it is nothing, then that the quotient is never nothing, all in the abstract. His math illiteracy is the least of his problems. He has failed miserably to connect the abstract with the actual. the extrapolation of infinity with actual infinities. As if that were not enough, he pretends that those who clearly distinguish a mathematical exercise (or the many exercises across mathematical sub disciplines), from actualities are the ones who have problems. Not only that, he has performed all of these mistakes and contradictions, and then he openly destroyed any possibility to be credited with any honesty after confessing that he does not read what we say, he rather assumes that we said whatever he prefers us to have said. Then that he openly lies to set traps. I agree with Dawson. There's no progress. But I do not think that there can be any progress. Michael does not care about progress. he only cares about how illiterate he looks to the eyes of his many imaginary friends.
photoLiar,
"Isn't funny that we have been consistent about when we were talking about concepts and abstractions."
Liar, ya got played. Ya got caught uttering stupidities, contradictions, nonsensical crap about math, which mattered so much before, but not now when the REAL MATH comes out. . . .
Yeah, keep trying to save face over one statement in a million while keep uttering another statement I never made at all, one you never directly quote me making.
It won't save your stupid face.
Check and mate.
Now, let's get back to THE REAL MATH OF THE FUNCTION ITSELF.
Recall. . . .
I repeat: "You’re implying things about functions and limits and variables right now that are all wrong too, just like your crap about division. I’m about to shove that back down your throat.
And the funny thing is, just like before, right now you can’t imagine how that could be so.
It’s just more of the same thing: not thinking things through/assuming things about the nature and the parts of functions based on a little knowledge about common equations. That’s all your allegations of my supposed contradictions are. Your ignorance is on display once again. You’re about to be embarrassed, shown for the ass that you are, once again.
These statements are all wrong. . . .
In response to this statement of mine: “The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless.”
photoLimit (a.k.a., photoZero) stupidly writes: “What an ass! How did you manage to shovel this shit back up your ass before it even got out of your ass Michael? Do you even think of what you are writing? I guess no. You are so desperate that you think that writing contradictions makes your case any better? More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!”
Are you saying that all functions have limits, that the nature of limits (LIMITS!) are not, nonetheless, operationally limitless, that because they’re applied to indeterminable numeric distances, it’s a contradiction to say they are definitely limited, yet limitless?
You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?
________________
You claim that the limits of the function for dividing any real number by infinity are limit theorems. Are you saying that limit theorems and limit proofs are the same thing?
You actually believe that you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?
_________________
This is the stupidest of all. . . .
But first, photoVariable (a.k.a., photoZero and photoLimit) stupidly writes: “Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them.”
You actually believe you couldn’t possibly be wrong, don’t you?
END
RECALL THE SNEAK PEAK
As for your nonsense about limit theorems. . . .
Limit theorems, as opposed to limit proofs, pertain to the evaluation or analysis of the nature of the limits of the various functions of infinitesimal values of calculus. In other words, they’re functions of a greater hierarchical order with limits of their own, though not always. These are also referred to as “theorems of limits” or “theorems on limits.” There are in fact a number of limit theorems of infinity expressed as functions. Also, functions that serve to demonstrate various findings in regard to the problems of probability, convergence, differentials or polynomials, for example, are said to be limit theorems.
In our case, the issue is not a matter of analysis or an unknown probability, for example, relative to any given, previously/circumstantially unknown inputs and outputs. The issue is the undeterminable value of infinity per the basic mathematical operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication or division. Regardless of the nature of the values, i.e., positive or negative, these operations are known to be the processes of relationally increasing wholes, reducing wholes or partitioning wholes. The theorems of these mathematical operations are presupposed, and in the case of dividing any given real number by infinity, the axiomatic limits of the function are discrete proofs for certain asseverations of the more general and complex limit theorems regarding the nature and practical applications of the indeterminable value of infinity itself.
Though it was not an easy search, I did finally find what I was looking for: the basics of what a function and its various parts are and how they are related. From the page at the other end of the following link, we may all clearly see that the variable(s) of any given function are just that, the variables (or inputs) of the function, not the function itself, which is constant and relates “the function of the variable,” not to be confused with the framework of the larger function’s calculation, to an output(s).
See the top of the page: http://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/function.html
From this we may see that functions and their parts are precisely what I said they were the other day. Also, note that not all functions have limits. In fact, most don’t.
Shut up, photoBuffoon!
END
Michael bawled: “No, the math does matter, DuhsonZero.”
Is that because it really does matter, regardless of what anyone thinks, feels, believes, prefers, wishes, imagines, commands, etc. (i.e., the primacy of existence), or because some consciousness (yours or the ones you imagine) want it that way (i.e., the primacy of consciousness)?
Gotcha.
Michael bawled some more: “The math screams God's existence, DuhsonZero!”
Again, is that because it really does matter, regardless of what anyone thinks, feels, believes, prefers, wishes, imagines, commands, etc. (i.e., the primacy of existence), or because some consciousness (yours or the ones you imagine) want it that way (i.e., the primacy of consciousness)?
See, gotcha again.
Michael bawled some more again: “And it's precisely because of your disregard for the ramifications of mathematical axioms that you conclude your stupidities.”
And again we must ask: Is that because it really does matter, regardless of what anyone thinks, feels, believes, prefers, wishes, imagines, commands, etc. (i.e., the primacy of existence), or because some consciousness (yours or the ones you imagine) want it that way (i.e., the primacy of consciousness)?
Michael huffed: “Shove it.”
There there, dear. Run along now.
Michael: “Check and mate.”
I’m sure you imagine this too.
Regards,
Dawson
Oh yes, Michael, I provided plenty of quotes for that statement of yours. You made it when you first came to presume your newly acquired vocabulary: "quotient." But I am not giving you the quote again (would be a third time, and that's too much for you to miss). Time for you to exercise your amazing computational literacy.
But who am I kidding, you can't follow more than a sentence at a time. You could not possibly find all the contexts where you connected division by infinity and your god, clearly implying that this god would yield the conclusion of the process of division as a nothing. If you can't find that, you won't find the comments, and the contexts, where your quotient was the indivisible, immutable, infinity with no beginning and no end. Even if you found the comments, you would not understand what was going on. You are that much of an illiterate. You lack reading comprehension, you lack cognitive skills, you lack mathematical literacy, you lack logic, and, worse of all, you lack integrity.
As I said, the math is no longer important. I said why: you are missing the reason you started this charade: connecting the abstract infinity to actuality, then to that divine bullshit of yours. Non-sequiturs over non-sequiturs. Your construct already had many holes. Now you gave the first part a final blow. All by yourself. So, in your desperation to show mathematical literacy, you displayed the opposite and killed your own construct in the process. This is why the math is not important. Your integrity was lost. Any possibility of being confident that you could be sincere about any effort to explain those jumps from math to actual to divine will now be suspected to be anything except efforts to explain. You did this yourself ...
Michael David Bawlings, a.k.a. "Self-Blown-Up-Ass"
Photo wrote: “The problem has always been about distinguishing abstractions from actualities. Michael insist on mistaking them and taking for granted that if he finds some infinity in the abstract, therefore there's an infinity in the actual.”
Right. And the root of this problem is his worldview’s ignorance of the nature of concepts and the process by which the human mind forms them, as I have pointed out repeatedly earlier in the discussion. Michael has not been able to recover his position from this line of criticism because he cannot produce a distinctively “Christian theory of concepts” which salvages his mind-numbing errors. And even then, that wouldn’t be enough, for he has already admitted that his worldview is seated ultimately on the primacy of consciousness metaphysics (i.e., wishing makes it so). So his case is utterly hopeless. That is why he continues to sneak and snatch from the objective worldview, borrowing the primacy of existence as though no one would notice (indeed, it escapes his own notice). The resulting self-contradictions choke his own worldview, and he resents being reminded of this. That is why he continually finds it “necessary” to sneer, insult and ridicule. He has no case, so he attacks people personally. He’s essentially a schoolyard punk.
Photo wrote: “But all he does is come and go affirming that division to infinity is possible, then that it is not possible, then that the quotient is nothing, then that the quotient is an indivisible, immutable, infinity with no beginning and no end, then again that it is nothing, then that the quotient is never nothing, all in the abstract.”
Right again. As we saw earlier, the guy doesn’t know if he’s coming or going. It’s clear that there’s no use trying to follow the guy. Wherever he’s eventually going, no sane person would want to go there.
Photo wrote: “His math illiteracy is the least of his problems. He has failed miserably to connect the abstract with the actual.”
Agreed. His worldview is premised on detachment from reality. This is made possibly essentially by blurring the distinction between the real and the imaginary. We’ve seen this play out in his conversation, not only in his stammering about an “infinite consciousness” or “divine perfection,” but also in his insistence that the DVD cabinet he imagines is actual.
Photo: “As if that were not enough, he pretends that those who clearly distinguish a mathematical exercise (or the many exercises across mathematical sub disciplines), from actualities are the ones who have problems.”
Right. It’s amazing, frankly. His mind is this whacked out.
Photo: “Not only that, he has performed all of these mistakes and contradictions, and then he openly destroyed any possibility to be credited with any honesty after confessing that he does not read what we say, he rather assumes that we said whatever he prefers us to have said.”
Right. Remember the point that Cohen makes? Christians don’t care to listen. It’s simple as that.
Photo: “Then that he openly lies to set traps.”
Again, for such an individual, truth does not matter. Indeed, truth is an obstacle for the believer to find ways to circumvent. But it always bites him in the backside in the end.
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
Agreed, Michael can't even get beyond his most basic problem: his proclaimed primacy of consciousness. We can't expect him to get to abstractions to actualities to divinities any time soon.
Photo,
Wadda you know about abstractions?
If Infinty is not actual, where do numbers begin and end?
Honestly, photo, I'm tired of your idiocy and deceptions.
Now you know why you're the number one idiot.
See ya.
Michael wrote:
<< 1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000. . . .
OUTPUTS
n/x = B{1 . . .y} >>
Don’t tell me: “And therefore God.” Right?
Whatever you want to believe. So long as you’re not “trying to bury my post continuations.”
I still can’t stop laughing at that one. What a hoot!!
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
Shut it.
Honestly, I have no interest in dealing with an old fool's delusions and deceptions.
But I'm curious. are you planning collecting social security?
NOW FOR THE REST OF YOUR CRAP. . . .
I wrote: “The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless.”
(By the way, it’s sort of interesting that you didn’t quote the entire context: “The limits of the function have definitive limits, photozero, which, in this case, is to say that they are definitively limitless as opposed to the stupid absolute end of the operation you imposed as a result of asserting an absolute end on the lower range of the operation, placing it at zero, rather than eternally approaching zero, photozero, while contradictorily declaring that n was divided forever, photozero.”
Yeah, I would have avoided quoting the rest of the paragraph too if I were you. It‘s sort of embarrassing to be protesting so violently about one alleged error when the rest of the context recalls the jaw-droopingly stupid error made by you. Of course, I’m not you, so I don’t have to worry about such things or try to lie and bluster my way out of them. LOL!)
photoLimit (a.k.a., photoZero) stupidly writes in response: “What an ass! How did you manage to shovel this shit back up your ass before it even got out of your ass Michael? Do you even think of what you are writing? I guess no. You are so desperate that you think that writing contradictions makes your case any better? More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!”
First of all, let me thank you for bringing this to my attention, photoLimit. This is bad form: “The limits of the function have definitive limits”. Ugly. That would be a tautological truism, woefully redundant, photoLimit. I’ve been around you guys too long, photoLimit. Let us just say that the limits of the function are defined, yet limitless, photoLimit. There. That’s much better.
Yep, that’s right, photoLimit, “limitless” stays. Grab that shovel of yours and get ready to scoop up some excrement and shove it right back up the orifice from which it came, namely, yours, photoLimit.
[Continued . . .]
But first, photoVariable (a.k.a., photoZero and photoLimit) stupidly writes: “Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them.”
Again, photoVariable, you left out pertinent content, didn’t you? Oh well, more embarrassment for you.
I’m talking about the function of the calculation and its inherent limiting functions (plural), photoVariable. These functions never change, photoVariable. They are constant, photoVariable. I’m not talking about the function of x (singular) within the function of the calculation, photoVariable, and the value for the dividend n once assigned, never changes, photoVariable. If these functions were not constant, photoVariable, we would have no definitive framework for the variables to which we may assign values in order to yield the set of outputs for B and chart the correlation, photoVariable.
(By the way, for future reference, given that it’s become necessary to illustrate the successively endless streams of values contained in the respective sets of this function in order to underscore the operative essence of it’s limiting functions, I’m changing the symbolic designation for the set of outputs to B, photoLimit, so that, reading left to right below, the symbolic designation for the set of inputs can be A, photoLimit. Also, I express the function in its entirety, including its formal details, so that we may all see with even greater clarity what a fraud you are, photoLiar.)
Nide asked: “where do numbers begin and end?”
Nide, you’ve asked this before, so clearly you must think it's an important question. I do have an answer, but I know it will be beyond your intelligence. But let’s not worry about how I might answer it. I’m just a puny human mortal, a “finite consciousness” which your worldview despises.
What I want to know is where the bible addresses this question. What does it say about numbers? What are numbers according to the bible? Where do they start? You clearly think it's an important question, so how does your bible address it?
For all your answers to this, you need to cite book, chapter and verse to support them. Otherwise we just have the blather of yet another “finite consciousness” posing as something it’s not. What does the bible say on this, and where does it say it?
Regards,
Dawson
[Continued . . .]
Define A as the successively endless set of inputs/divisors of function f’s upper limit, wherein the greatest value for x is the extant input/divisor of the set.
Define B as the successively endless set of outputs/quotients of function f’s lower limit, wherein the smallest value for y is the extant output/quotient of the set.
Hence, f(x) = y ∈ B =
lim (n/x) = 0.
x-->oo
PhotoZero (a.k.a., photoLimit, photoVariable and photoLiar), this expression means that “the function of x equals “y (the extant output/quotient ∈ B) when the function f takes the input x and divides it into any given real number n as controlled by the inherent limiting functions of the upper and lower ranges of function f, respectively, “as x approaches infinity (the extant input/divisor ∈ A), n/x approaches 0.”
[Continued . . .]
Hence, once again, photoZero, the limit of the function of dividing any real number by infinity is 0, photoZero. Zero is not the friggin’ quotient of the function, photoZero. (I’m just rubbing that in for good measure, photoZero.)
In other words, photoConfusion, I’m not talking about f(x) (“the function of x”) within function f, photoConfuson. I’m talking about function f itself and it’s discrete limiting functions of “as x approaches infinity and n/x approaches 0,” which call for and yield the respective sets of inputs and outputs. The limits of the function (or the limiting functions of f) in and of themselves relative to the definitive framework of the function as a whole and the constraint “approaches” are understood to be constants, photoVariable (a.k.a., photoZero, photoLimit, photoLiar and photoConfuson). In other words, the inputs and outputs constantly tend toward infinity and zero, respectively . . . forever: constant, defined limiting functions that are nonetheless operatively limitless in terms of their inputs and outputs, photoVariable.
You’re confounding the function’s variables (or in the language of functions, “the inputs”) within the function’s limits, photoVariable. Moreover, functions and their limits, for those that have the latter, are equations. We do not say or reckon that an equation is a variable as if the equation itself were not a constant expression containing variables, photoVariable.
So that you don’t lose sight of things again, photoLimit, start with the function’s inherent limits: “as x approaches infinity, n/x approaches 0,” photoLimit. In other words, these limits are defined against absolute infinity and absolute zero, respectively, photoLimit, yet the streams of successive values contained in their respective sets, like infinity, are limitless or endless, photoLimit.
lim (n/x) = 0.
x-->oo
[continued . . .]
Hence, the variables in any given function/equation are not the friggin’ function, photoVariable. You’re all wet, and you’ve left piles of excrement everywhere, photoConfusion. Grab a shovel and clean your mess up, photoConfusion.
The discrete limits of the function/calculation “as x approaches infinity” (upper range) and n/x approaches 0 (lower range) are the defined inputs (the set of the upper range containing an undeterminably infinite number of successive divisors) yielding defined outputs (the set of the lower range containing an undeterminably infinite number of successive quotients). They are limitless in number, ever-approaching infinity or zero, respectively.
[Continued . . .]
Let n = 1.
INPUTS
x = A{1 . . . x}
_________________________________
1
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000. . . .
OUTPUTS
n/x = B{1 . . .y}
_________________________________
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
0.000001. . . .
_________________________________
Nide wrote: “Shut it.”
And yet he still addresses a question to me. Like Michael, he doesn’t know if he’s coming or going.
Nide wrote: “Honestly, I have no interest in dealing with an old fool's delusions and deceptions.”
If he’s referring to me, then why does he ask me questions? Again, like Michael, he doesn’t know if he’s coming or going.
Nide asked: “But I'm curious. are you planning collecting social security?”
Nide, there is still an outstanding question on this matter waiting for you to address. Since you have not addressed it, I will pose it to you again. Here it is:
Do you think it’s wrong to collect social security?
This is a yes-no question. Answer it and explain your answer.
Now, after you’ve done this, can you cite anywhere in the Objectivist corpus which states, suggests or even implies that it would be wrong for someone to collect social security disbursements?
Again, this is a yes-no question. If your answer is “no” – i.e., you cannot find any statement in the Objectivist corpus which states, suggests or implies that it would be wrong for someone to collect social security disbursements, then admit it and confess that you have no beef against Objectivists on this matter.
If you answer “yes,” then cite whatever you think the Objectivist corpus says to support your answer.
See, it’s really simple, Nide: Just be honest, and try for at least a minimum level of scholarship here.
Regards,
Dawson
[Continued . . .]
As for your nonsense about limit theorems. . . .
Limit theorems, as opposed to limit proofs, pertain to the evaluation or analysis of the nature of the limits of the various functions of infinitesimal values of calculus. In other words, they’re functions of a greater hierarchical order with limits of their own, though not always. These are also referred to as “theorems of limits” or “theorems on limits.” There are in fact a number of limit theorems of infinity expressed as functions. Also, functions that serve to demonstrate various findings in regard to the problems of probability, convergence, differentials or polynomials, for example, are said to be limit theorems.
In our case, the issue is not a matter of analysis or an unknown probability, for example, relative to any given, previously/circumstantially unknown inputs and outputs. The issue is the undeterminable value of infinity per the basic mathematical operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication or division. Regardless of the nature of the values, i.e., positive or negative, these operations are known to be the processes of relationally increasing wholes, reducing wholes or partitioning wholes. The theorems of these mathematical operations are presupposed, and in the case of dividing any given real number by infinity, the axiomatic limits of the function are discrete proofs for certain asseverations of the more general and complex limit theorems regarding the nature and practical applications of the indeterminable value of infinity itself.
[Continued . . .]
Though it was not an easy search, I did finally find what I was looking for: the basics of what a function and its various parts are and how they are related. From the page at the other end of the following link, we may all clearly see that the variable(s) of any given function are just that, the variables (or inputs) of the function, not the function itself, which is constant and relates “the function of the variable,” not to be confused with the framework of the larger function’s calculation, to an output(s).
See the top of the page: http://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/function.html
From this we may see that functions and their parts are precisely what I said they were the other day. Also, note that not all functions have limits. In fact, most don’t.
Shut up, photoBuffoon!
Finally, on this matter, while I can competently handle algebraic functions and the basic functions of calculus, including most of the more common limit proofs: the analytic and application functions/theorems of advanced calculus are beyond my kin. At a certain point, my understanding breaks down. It all becomes Chinese for me. These things start getting into abstract intuitions that are mind-boggling for all but those packing IQs well-above average. I can grasp some of them in terms of their practical applications as translated into English by someone who understands them. I can even decipher discrete portions of their equations, but that’s like noting a speck of dust floating past your screen. If you can’t reliably relate these portions to one another, let alone decipher the rest above a certain level of complexity, never getting anywhere near the whole. . . . Forget about their implications! I can’t get past first base. The formulas get staggeringly long and complex.
Photo, do you think anyone's listening to Michael any more?
He's continuing on and on, but he missed the point long, long ago. He's just occupying space at this point. But hey, it's his time to waste.
Regards,
Dawson
[Continued . . .]
But I know more than enough to demonstrate photoLiar’s duplicity.
Now onto the closing post, that sweetest of cherries to top the arguments that have already annihilated your depraved, specious crap and Objectivism’s utter lack of common sense and reason. Objectivism: the philosophy of personality cult for sociopaths and dimwits. Naturally, I reserve the opportunity, if not the right or withal, given that it’s not my blog, to repost oldies but goodies exposing the laughing stock that DuhsonZero, his cohorts and Objectivism are.
END
Oh no, Michael might accuse me of "trying to bury [his] post continuations" again!
Egads,
Dawson
Hi again, Michael,
Richard asked Robert: "But I am curious as to what you think about Randnuts collecting social security?"
You wrote: "I would guess [Richard's] probably alluding to the hypocrisy of her personal life..."
I do not concur with your assessment (or "guess") regarding Richard's query to Robert concerning Rand (or Objectivists) receiving Social Security. (Big surprise that I wouldn't agree, right?)
There are several reasons for my disagreement:
1) On July 18, 2011 8:53 PM, using the moniker r_c321, Richard posted the following comment to Dawson's blog:
"I reject everything [R]and says."
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2011/07/proof-that-christian-god-does-not-exist.html
2) I have seen the issue regarding Rand accepting Social Security raised before. This, along with what I've noted above leads me to conclude that this is a clear case of Richard alleging that Rand and/or Objectivists was/are hypocritical for taking Social Security. In this instance, I do not think his question to Robert had anything whatsoever to do with an attempt to find flaws in her personal life.
3) On past occasions, Richard has shown no reservations for alleging hypocrisy by Rand in her personal life. For instance, he has specifically raised the issue regarding her smoking.
4) Richard has been on this blog for around 18 months or so (minus the hiatus he took). In that time, he has continually looked for any angle to bash Ayn Rand and her philosophy.
I would think that the four points above would be sufficient to support the view that Richard was *not* "...probably alluding to the hypocrisy [< your word] of her personal life..."
But just in case there's room for doubt....
(5) When pressed on what he said in point (1) above, Richard unequivocally reaffirmed his view. On August 02, 2011 7:30, PM, once again using the moniker "r_c321, Richard stated:
"I will say it once again I reject EVERYTHING rand says."
(http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2011/08/presuppositionalism-vs-objectivism-how.html)
For him to now essentially concur with your assessment of what he was going for in his reply to Robert, well, that's just blatant dishonesty on his part.
If I'm mistaken, he can certainly set me straight. And maybe he will. It would be quite easy for him to do, actually. His simply answering the following questions would suffice:
(a) Has Richard modified his views such that he no longer "reject[s] everything [R]and says."?
(b) If yes, then when, specifically, did Richard's views change?
c) If yes, what specifically caused him to modify his views?
d) If he has modified his views, is he now in agreement with Rand's stance on receiving Social Security?
e) If yes, when did he modify this view?
Ydemoc
"Nide, you’ve asked this before, so clearly you must think it's an important question. I do have an answer, but I know it will be beyond your intelligence. But let’s not worry about how I might answer it. I’m just a puny human mortal, a “finite consciousness” which your worldview despises."
Yea, the arrogant know it all.
"See, it’s really simple, Nide: Just be honest, and try for at least a minimum level of scholarship here."
If your a fool ie an objectivist, yea it's wrong. So, are you planning on collecting social security?
Dawson asked me:
Photo, do you think anyone's listening to Michael any more?
He's continuing on and on, but he missed the point long, long ago. He's just occupying space at this point. But hey, it's his time to waste.
And here's Michael in his prior job as the black night: Michael aka the Black Knight.
Ydemoc the former number one idiot,
why do you think rand collected social security?
DuhsonZero, the math doesn't matter, eh? The math mattered when you thought it was on your side. . . . It mattered a lot then.
But the REAL MATH doesn't help your case, DuhsonRomperRoom, so suddenly the math becomes irrelevant.
And I suppose the argument that utterly destroys Peikoff's crap isn't relevant/doesn't exist either.
The math mattered when photoLiar was slamming my simpler exegesis regarding the framework, the parts, the calculation and the meaning of the math.
It mattered then when he was pulling crap out of his orifice. You were fine with the “math” of photoLiar. Yep. But now the math of reality doesn't matter because my detailed abstract demonstrates that photoLiar lied his ass off and doesn't have the first clue about what he's talking about.
Oh, make no mistake about it, DuhsonZero, photoStupid is reading it alright. He’s trying to see if there’s anything I didn’t say just right or, more to the point, if there’s anything he can rip out of context and pretend that it’s wrong.
I repeat, Peikoff is refuted. The man's an idiot, like you, DuhsonJackass, and photoDingbat. His argument is a non sequitur, which violates the rules of concept hierarchies, and that’s all it ever was, i.e., a bunch of crap, just like photo Liar’s “math.”
Richard/Hezek/Nide,
Wadda you know about abstractions?
Enough.
If Infinty is not actual, where do numbers begin and end?
I answered the second part. Seems like you did not care to read and understand the answer. Putting "If infinity is not actual" before it makes it a malformed, loaded, question. One that mistakes abstractions and actuality.
Honestly, photo, I'm tired of your idiocy and deceptions.
Well, it is you who refuses to try and understand the answers. I would say that if you are not an idiot, you are quite good at becoming one by your own intellectual laziness. Therefore by your own will. As per deceptions, you embrace presuppositionalism, a rhetorical technique based at its very core in deception.
Now you know why you're the number one idiot.
Of course. You looked at the mirror and said: that's photo!
Dawson,
Photo, do you think anyone's listening to Michael any more?
I would have been too quick to answer "Richard must be," because that's just not possible. Richard is intellectually lazy (most probably also intellectually deficient, but he sure does not even try). I am not reading any more. It has become a cacophony that just tries and "buries our posts continuations." Nothing else. Besides, he will surely post them again and again, as if by repeating the same crap made them any more convincing ... you said so before:
Christians are notorious for having hurt feelings when their god-belief claims are not accepted as the truths they affirm on their mere say so. Their feelings are hurt even more when their “arguments” are exposed as the silly collections of incoherence that they are. But in spite of their hurt feelings, some Christians keep coming back for more punishment, pushing the same nonsense like a dog coming back to its own vomit, apparently expecting that his next iteration of the same nonsense, perhaps in a new guise, will somehow slide under the radar of philosophical detection. I have bad news for the believer: it won’t.
Spot on.
Photo the deceiver,
You said Infinity is not actual.
So, Monkey Brains, How is what I said loaded?
Ydemoc,
4) Richard has been on this blog for around 18 months or so (minus the hiatus he took) ...
Hiatus? He was recovering from those sessions of his own shit been shovelled back up his own ass, and from the deception of being rejected by the rest of the presuppo community.
Richard,
You said Infinity is not actual.
It's not. If it were there would be nothing else. Try it yourself. Imagine an infinite number of apples. There would be no space for you.
So, Monkey Brains, How is what I said loaded?
You don't know? Seriously? You lack integrity, how could I trust that you made a loaded question by mistake? Unknowingly? Tell me if you really want to know. I doubt that once I explain you will even read the answer. You will just jump over and continue with whatever trick you want to play. Should we try and demonstrate? Let me know.
"the rest of the presup community"
Photoass,
well they had to I was getting all the attention.
But remember when I confronted Bolt he ran like the coward that he is.
Nice try ass head.
Photostupid,
let's try this again:
If Infinity is not actual, where do numbers begin and end?
Seriously, how dumb are you?
I don't have any problem with Rand taking social security. It was her money all along, and she paid more in than she ever got back, I’m sure.
If I had my way, like her, I wouldn't have paid a dime into social security ever. I can and have taken care of my own retirement. I'd have more invested had the government not ripped me off all these years for something I never asked it to manage for me in the first place.
And like Rand, I will do everything I can to get back every penning I can from the government when I retire, though it won't be worth as much as it would have been in terms of inflation and investment. Not that I need it. That's not the point. It’s mine, and I didn't agree to participate. I was forced to.
Rand was still a whack job.
______________
Now, since you want to ask me about some other person on this blog. How about photoZero's and DuhsonZero's duplicity about the math that doesn't matter now because the real math destroys everything they've been babbling. Got any opinion on that?
How about Duhsonville's pretense that I haven't refuted Peikoff, indeed, how about Duhsonville's utter malarkey, his pathetic, sad-sack, little-girl sob story in the face of my annihilation of Peikoff's silliness? Got any opinion on that?
Seriously, Ydemoc, you guys go on and on about personal crap and never address substantive topics. You ever going to answer any the questions I asked you way back when?
Robert ran away from my arguments.
Why?
Because I was exposing his pseudo-scientific malarkey left and right. Predictability is categorically comparable to causality, just for starters!
More on that in the cherry post.
I know it hurt when your loved presupp community rejected you Richard/Hezek/Nide. But don't take it on me. I am just relating the events.
Richard,
If Infinity is not actual, where do numbers begin and end?
I told you, yours is a malformed and loaded question that already mistakes the abstract and the actual.
Photostupid,
who's this "pressup community"?
The only one hurt was bolt after I confronted him.
Photoass why do you think he ran?
Ok photo stupid,
Is Infinity actual?
Michael,
why do you think she collected social security?
I thought she had a large cult fanatic following. Couldnt they have paid her bills,
Richard,
I do not care about the details of your drama with your previously loved presuppo community. If Bolt did not love you any more, of if he ran or did not ran from you while you were trying to hug him and kiss him, or lick his ass. That's your problem and your drama. I was just relating the events as far as we saw them from here. Anything else is, again, your problem. Remember that it was you who closed business. I understand that your ass' recuperation would be enough for that, but you closed after someone here related about the drama that was going on between you and your community.
Richard writes: "if Infinity is not actual, where do numbers begin and end?"
Bingo!
But Richard, we're not dealing with commonsense, not that I have to tell you that. If infinity isn't real (and what the hell does that mean, anyway? seriously) none of the numbers are "real."
You think they've ever considered the uncountably infinite number of real numbers between the number 1 and the number 2? Between 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, 5 and 6, 6 and 7, 7 and 8, 8 and 9, 9 and 10? . . .
Was she broke, Richard? I didn't know that.
Either way, I got no problem with her taking SS.
I think most of the rest of her personal life is batty as a three-legged horse.
And there comes Michael to mistake the abstract with the actual again, and then feel victorious.
How's that self-blown-up ass healing Michael? I am guessing you blew it much more with that much posting you did above. I am even afraid to look and discover that you were able to blow up your own ass even worse than before. As hard as that would be to imagine.
Was whatever math you must have been trying to misrepresent above in part something you mis-learned when you consulted about limits? After all, one or two weeks to integrate the word "quotient" in your vocabulary (I still remember how candidly and proudly you said "the quotient is the result of the operation, daddy!"), then a month to mis-learn about limits, some extra days to start this new math rant. By the amount of comments "burying the continuation" of everybody else's comments, I would guess that your new rant was a mix of mis-learened math during the same month, plus more misunderstood math added during the extra days before you posted this new math rant.
Michael,
if she took social security, she probably was broke.
But, yea, it's evident that we will not get anywhere with photo. He's an idiot.
I wish he would just shut his mouth already.
Richard, so when the Objectivist counts to five, he just pretends that the infinite set of real numbers that lie between each of the whole numbers aren't real, right? He just pretends he didn't accept their reality to get from one to two in the first place?
Richard, have you seen those "Just how happy are Geico customers" commercials?
Just how Dumb is Peikoff's argument?
Dumber than a doorknob on a three-legged dog!
You think they've ever considered the uncountably infinite number of real numbers between the number 1 and the number 2? Between 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5, 5 and 6, 6 and 7, 7 and 8, 8 and 9, 9 and 10? . . .
Yes Richard! because whatever bullshit Michael flings at you you have to eat it!
How fitting that this nonsense came after:
But Richard, we're not dealing with commonsense, not that I have to tell you that.
Of course Michael is not dealing with common sense. He can only bring plenty of nonsense.
If infinity isn't real (and what the hell does that mean, anyway? seriously) none of the numbers are "real."
Holy shit! never saw a most blatant fallacy of equivocation before. And I was asking if Michael managed to blow up his own ass worse in those long comments above, only to discover, with horror, that he manages to do just that even in the smallish ones.
But what can we expect from a math illiterate who takes a week or two to learn the word "quotient," and a month to mis-learn about limits and functions?
But, yea, it's evident that we will not get anywhere with photo. He's an idiot.
And there goes Richard/Hezek/Nide to obediently eat of Michael's crap.
DuhsonLiar writes: "Don’t tell me: “And therefore God.” Right?"
Uh-huh, don't tell me, so you're pretending that the point of my abstract on the equation doesn't go to photoLiar's crap on functions?
Goal Posts. Fakes. Liars.
Tell me something, Jackass, when you have five apples and count them do you just pretend that the infinitely divisible wholes of each don't exist? How about when you eat each of those infinitely divisible wholes?
Objectivist: I accept the reality of the infinity that resides in each whole or between each whole number I count as a matter of inescapable necessity, but infinity has no identity.
Zoom! Right over!
‘Course Peikoff’s just part of the scam, I’m sure. He knows mathematics and science can’t work without zero or infinity. It’s all you suckers lining his pockets that’s the real hoot!
Michael,
Did you get a cookie for integrating the word "quotient" into your vocabulary a few weeks ago?
Will you get a couple more cookies for what you mis-learned during the last month in order to post about limits and functions?
Photo the deceiver,
howya like us now?
hahaha......dingbat.
Good night friends. I leave because Michael is "burying my post continuations," and I am sleepy.
Richard/Hezek/Nide,
howya like us now?
Not much. I feel nausea for people like you and Michael who lack integrity and are intellectually dishonest and lazy.
At times it is fun to shovel your shit back up your asses, but you do that quite well yourselves. Then it's only nausea for you again ... and so on.
Good night.
@Micheal
question for you. If infinity can exist in actuality because we can conceive of it, then what of "i", the square root of -1. Is it possible to have "i" number of cups on my desk because this number is a valid mathematical tool?
photo Liar just goes on and on. . . .
Michael: "If infinity isn't real (and what the hell does that mean, anyway? seriously) none of the numbers are 'real.' "
PhotoZero: "Holy shit! never saw a most blatant fallacy of equivocation before."
Focus, photoZero, we’re talking about numbers right now. Numbers.
So now you're saying that the uncountably infinite number of real numbers between, say, 3 and 4, are not comparable? It’s an infinity of numbers, Jackass, having no beginning and no end. It's precisely the same thing, albeit within. The number line is riddled with infinity, ain’t it?
Yes? No?
Richard, we just got our answer. Photo-The-Mathematically-Illiterate-Buffoon has never considered the implicatons.
photoLiar: "But what can we expect from a math illiterate who takes a week or two to learn the word "quotient," and a month to mis-learn about limits and functions?"
Yeah, right. Like any of that's true. Like you have any credibility left whatsoever. Tell me ya sociopath, ya psycho, ya pathological liar, PHOTO-THE-QUOTIENT-IS-ZERO, do you have any substantive, direct refutation to offer in the face of my exegesis on functions and limits and the equation itself?
What’s that? Did you say something real? Speak up, Jackass.
Justin,
It's not the same thing, pal.
For example, negative numbers aren't real. However, they are useful so we use them.
Dick/Richard/C_3211/Nide/Kezekiah: I wish I made the list.
The way I see it it goes; 1=Dick, 2=Michael/Kyle (tied)
Pretty "hilarious" that Hez went into seclusion after his great victory.
As an aside, I think Tricky Dicky is a much better man than Michael/Kyle and the whole crew at Choosing Hats despite his comments here and based on my dealings with them.
Earlier Nide had asked: “where do numbers begin and end?”
I responded:
<< Nide, you’ve asked this before, so clearly you must think it's an important question. I do have an answer, but I know it will be beyond your intelligence. But let’s not worry about how I might answer it. I’m just a puny human mortal, a “finite consciousness” which your worldview despises.
What I want to know is where the bible addresses this question. What does it say about numbers? What are numbers according to the bible? Where do they start? You clearly think it's an important question, so how does your bible address it? >>
Nide now comes back with: “Yea, the arrogant know it all.”
This is Nide’s resentment speaking. It’s telling us something we already know: that he has no substance to share on questions that he himself has posed to others and clearly thinks are important.
So, Nide, how does the bible answer the question “Where do numbers begin and end?”??????
He couldn’t possibly be interested in how I might answer this question, for not only did he command me to “shut it,” but he also said (referring to me): “I have no interest in dealing with an old fool's delusions and deceptions.”
But does Nide take this opportunity to show us how the bible might “enlighten” us on the matter? No, he doesn’t. Indeed, he completely abandons the bible. He leaves it on the shelf to gather dust. He doesn’t dare open it, for he will only get lost if he does. His choice not to provide references to the bible on the matter on which he inquires, is sufficient to tell us that he has no confidence in the bible and/or that the bible doesn’t provide an answer to his own inquiry, or – worse – both. I suspect it’s both.
That doesn’t bode very well for Christianity. But that’s not my problem.
Regards,
Dawson
I asked Nide: “Do you think it’s wrong to collect social security?”
Nide wrote: “If your a fool ie an objectivist, yea it's wrong.”
Really? How so? Whether you realize it or not, you’re basically saying that a person does not have a right to income that he has earned. This is not what Objectivism teaches. Clearly you’re still unfamiliar with what Objectivism teaches. After all this time, still clueless on what Objectivism teaches. You just don’t like it because your god-belief is threatened by it. Hey, no one’s stopping you from joining your god-belief cult, Nide. Objectivists won’t stop you from doing this. We acknowledge your right to throw away your mind.
On last time: Can you show us anything from the Objectivist corpus which states, suggests or implies that collecting social security disbursements is wrong?
Again, this is a yes-no question. If yes, then step up to the plate and supply the relevant quotation(s) from the Objectivist corpus. Otherwise, just admit that you’re simply blowing smoke.
Nide is a perfect example of what Rand termed “envy” – hatred of the good for being good (cf. her article “The Age of Envy” in her book Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution).
Come to think of it, Michael Rawlings is another perfect example of this. After all, he resents objectivity, reason, concept formation, perceptual awareness, objective values, individualism, laissez-faire capitalism, etc. He hates not only the good, but everything that makes the good possible. No wonder Nide cowers next to him so!
Nide asked: “So, are you planning on collecting social security?”
In other words, am I planning on recouping earnings of mine that were confiscated by institutional injustice? You bet I am!
Each year I receive a report from the SSA documenting how much it has stolen from me over the years. The report goes back to the 1970s when the SSA first started stealing from my earnings. It is money that I have earned which has been taken from me without my consent and against my will. It is thus a form of injustice. I have a right to all of it; the government never had a right to any of it. But it was confiscated from me anyway. To say that it is wrong for me to collect it once it is offered back to me in disbursements, is not only to say that the injustice of taking from me is morally right (a contradiction in terms), but also that it is morally right never to let me collect it back (another contradiction in terms). Indeed, it is to say that the pursuit of the unearned (which is what the SSA does) is morally righteous – which is another contradiction in terms.
Good grief, Nide, you have a lot of contradictions nestled under your ass!
I’m glad these aren’t my problems!
Regards,
Dawson
On issue of Rand (supposedly) collecting social security, Michael apparently disagrees with Nide. Michael wrote: “I don't have any problem with Rand taking social security. It was her money all along, and she paid more in than she ever got back, I’m sure.”
I’m sure she did too. And yes, it was her money all along. Again, property rights. Rand’s right to her rightful property was infringed. Why is it wrong for her to get back what is rightfully hers? Nide does not say. Indeed, Nide cannot show how Rand collecting social security (assuming she did) is wrong according to Objectivist principles. And yet, that seems to be what he’s angling at. But can he produce any evidence to support this? Of course not. Indeed, Ydemoc has already posted a relevant quote from the Objectivist literature on this point indicating the contrary of what Nide apparently has in his puny little putrid mind. He just hates the good for being good.
That Nide and Michael disagree with each other is not our problem.
Michael then wrote: “Rand was still a whack job.”
Again, Michael can’t resist taking personal potshots. But let’s consider the source: Michael David Rawlings, whose epistemology is nothing more than “we know without knowing how we know”; who holds that concepts are formed “automatically”; who embraces the primacy of wishing over facts; who thinks the DVD cabinet that he imagines actually exists; who in utter ignorance of the nature of concepts thinks the concept ‘infinity’ necessarily implies the existence of an “infinite consciousness”; whose worldview is responsible for two millennia of enslavement, suffering, stagnation, collectivism, mass intellectual genocide, etc.; who thinks a philosopher who championed objectivity, reason, values, individual rights, etc., “was still a whack job.”
I’ll go with Rand, thank you.
Regards,
Dawson
I asked: "Don’t tell me: ‘And therefore God.’ Right?"
Michael responded: “Uh-huh, don't tell me, so you're pretending that the point of my abstract on the equation doesn't go to photoLiar's crap on functions?
There’s no pretending on my part here. I’m just asking if you think what you’ve presented anywhere in this discussion somehow secures the conclusion “Therefore the Christian god exists.” So far, I’ve not seen anything from you that even makes an inch of progress toward such a conclusion. If you think you have, you’re simply deceiving yourself.
Michael wrote: “Tell me something, Jackass, when you have five apples and count them do you just pretend that the infinitely divisible wholes of each don't exist?”
If the apples I’m counting actually exist, why would I need to pretend anything in order to count them? Blank out. Why would I need to pretend that something actual doesn’t exist? Again, blank out. Remember, I start with existence. I don’t try to reason my way to existence from non-existence. When will you ever finally grasp this? I know, I know, blank out.
What you fail to grasp is the fact that numbers are conceptual in nature. On an objective understanding, they relate directly to the concept ‘unit’. So the problem you raise is a non-problem, at least on a rational understanding of concepts.
But on your view, there’s no escape from an implicit infinite regress in all this. If there’s an infinity of divisions (as you put it: “the uncountably infinite number of real numbers between, say, 3 and 4” – what exactly is an “uncountably infinite number”?) between any two consecutive numbers, then there’s an infinity of divisions between all of the divisions one can potentially number between those divisions, and so on and so on, ad infinitum. If one begins with and remains grounded on existence, all of this is purely academic and has no deleterious implications. Moreover, none of this implies that there exists an “infinite consciousness” which “can” do all this purposeless counting.
So long as I have the objectively formed concept ‘unit’ (which I do), there’s no need or reason for me to get sidetracked with such nonsense. This is all your problem, Michael, not mine. It’s right up there with your denial of the axiom of consciousness. Remember that? You’re still waving in the winds of this self-destructive detonation that you’ve accepted as result of your embrace of Christianity. Only, you haven’t grasped it yet. I see it. Why don’t you?
Michael asks: “How about when you eat each of those infinitely divisible wholes?”
Typically they taste delicious. My wife loves them, too.
[continued…]
Michael writes: “Objectivist: I accept the reality of the infinity that resides in each whole or between each whole number I count as a matter of inescapable necessity, but infinity has no identity.”
If this is what you think Objectivism teaches, you’re deluding yourself. Even worse, you’re completely ignoring the cognitive role of concepts. That’s no surprise to me of course. As for Objectivists, we don’t view entities as the *result* of conscious activity. Remember? That’s the primacy of existence. That includes mathematics, which is properly a conceptual discipline. You think this is a problem for essentially two reasons: 1) you accept the primacy of consciousness (existence is a creation of conscious activity), and 2) you lack a theory of concepts which explains all of this (i.e., which grounds your knowledge in reality).
So when you say “Zoom! Right over!” I can only interpret this as yet another autobiographical expression of your own ignorance of the conceptual nature of mathematics as well as fallout from your embrace of the primacy of consciousness. Then again, what could we expect on your behalf? After all, you think concepts are “automatic.” In other words, you don’t understand the first thing about concepts. This in itself amounts to an infinite regress for you in terms of epistemology: if one concept that you’re trying to understand was formed “automatically,” then so are the concepts by which you’re trying to understand it, and so on. And it’s turtles on down from there. That’s epistemology, Michael Bawlings style.
Hey, none of this is my problem.
Michael wrote: “‘Course Peikoff’s just part of the scam, I’m sure. He knows mathematics and science can’t work without zero or infinity. It’s all you suckers lining his pockets that’s the real hoot!”
Peikoff knows that mathematic can’t work without the concept ‘unit’, and therefore cannot work without the objective theory of concepts. But we can’t expect Michael Rawlings to understand this. His worldview has no theory of concepts. It offers him nothing but ignorance when it comes to epistemology. As John Frame admits, “We know without knowing how we know” (Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction (Part I)).
Now, Michael, if you think you can improve on John Frame’s open embrace of sheer ignorance, then please try your best. Start with the issue that Frame himself attempted to tackle, namely from the story of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22, where Abraham somehow “knows” that the voice he’s “hearing” is that of the god which supposedly is the same as the Christian god (since the NT epistle of Hebrews cites Abraham as a model example of faith).
Hmmm….. Listen to those crickets chirping….
I’m glad these aren’t my problems!
Regards,
Dawson
Photo said...
"Holy shit!"
Quite literally.
Only religion can do to a man what we've seen with Michael. A man claiming to be "a semi-retired, self-employed married man in my fifties and a former Army Ranger" reduced to acting like a bitter teenager, resentful of his sad little life in his mom's basement ... and all because there are people who refuse to share in his religious delusion.
He's so sure of his own superiority - Dunning-Kruger in overdrive - that he can't even recognise the most basic flaw in his worldview.
Even though it has been pointed out by various posters at various points over the 2 month+ course of the discussion he simply can't get his head around how he's arguing as if there are facts/truths that are what they are regardless of whatever anyone or anything may want/wish/demand/hope etc..., i.e. affirming the truth of the primacy of existence, yet all the while he's arguing for the Christian God i.e. a worldview that affirms the primacy of consciousness and in doing so has no basis for either facts or truth.
This simple lack of consistency with the worldview he professes to hold undermines every argument he puts forward - whether he gets the actual argument right or not. At every turn he's stealing concepts left, right and centre from a wordview (Objectivism) that he hopes to deny using those very same concepts. It's no wonder he prefers to think concept formation is automatic, to remain mired in the subjectivity of his beliefs, to continue to know without knowing how he knows, as even a casual check as to where those concepts have actually come from would shatter his religious worldview entirely.
He has become a liar and a thief in defence of a worldview that frowns heavily upon those sins.
And when a mirror has been held up before him, showing him to be the liar and the thief that he his, his only response is to lash out in his embarrasment and humiliation, to insult and to mock. Projecting his self-loathing onto those who have done nothing more than show him where he is getting it all wrong.
It has truly been an absolutely marvelous sight to behold.
"Good grief, Nide, you have a lot of contradictions nestled under your ass!"
By the way Dawson, Randnuts also collected medicare because here silly little books weren't enough to support her.
What happned to her cult fanatic following?
Isn't hilarious that a system that Randnuts decried all her life ended up helping and benefiting her.
hahahahaha.....objectivism aka the philosophy of stupidity...
So, now we know Randnuts was really a socialist at heart.
hahhahaha.....Dawson, how do ya like me now?
Thank God for America.
Justin,
You write: "question for you. If infinity can exist in actuality because we can conceive of it, then what of "i", the square root of -1. Is it possible to have "i" number of cups on my desk because this number is a valid mathematical tool?"
You’re missing a couple points here, aren’t you?
First, DuhsonZero and PhotoZero were full of crap with their nonsense about zero being the mathematical quotient, rather than the mathematical limit, of dividing any given real number by infinity, weren't they?
They clearly believed that was the case, didn’t they?
PhotoZero is still full of crap, still trying to perpetrate a fraud about functions and limits and the like, falsely accusing me and denying the realities of calculus, isn't he?
Let's get it straight at the level of mathematics first, you know, so that we are clearly thinking about it.
What is the point of all these posts being spewed by DuhsonZero and PhotoZero mangling the FACTS of the mathematical and scientific designations of infinity and its calculi all about? How can we discuss the matter in any rational or coherent way beyond mathematics with all of that in the way?
Second, the question you’re asking me, with all due respect, seems confused. Now, I mean no insult. I’m just asking you to help me out, as I don‘t want to say something wrong.
You seem to be asking me about the existence of infinity in some metaphysical sense relative to a special application in mathematics. Justin, the boundless, though well-defined and identified numeric concept of infinity is one of those applications. In mathematics and science, particularly in physics, its applications are actual, indeed, indispensable, just like those of zero. Though often mistakenly identified as such, infinity is not an imaginary number (or unit) like i (i squared = -1), which, of course, allows us to resolve equations within the two-dimensional complex plane that would otherwise be irresolvable in the linear plane of the one-dimensional real number system. Mathematically speaking, infinity is a numeric concept (“There is an infinite number of numbers,” or “infinity is every number there is at once.”) treated as a number of an undeterminable value, one that resides outside the set of the uncountably infinite real numbers and the set of the countably infinite set of integers.
So when you say infinity are you talking about it in terms of mathematics and science, perhaps even referring to the infinitesimals of calculus? Or are you talking about infinity in some metaphysical sense? It’s sort of hard to do justice to your question if we’re not on the same page in terms of context.
I’ll wait for your response.
Michael: Goal Posts. Fakes. Liars.
We can give as good as we get. Why bother with silly insults & flame war? Surely you don’t enjoy such foolishness. Why don’t you just grow up, or go away, and discuss with those more amenable to your views? If you honestly believe your views are defensible, take them over to an O-ist forum with a larger readership base.
Michael: Tell me something,…, when you have five apples and count them do you just pretend that the infinitely divisible wholes of each don't exist
Apples are actual entities and are made of ordinary baryonic matter that can only be divided finitely down to sub atomic constituents. The fallacy you're asserting here is called a package deal. This happens when someone proposes
An improper and suspicious equation of essentially distinct terms or concepts. A package-deal is "the fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or ‘package,’ elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value." (Leornard Peikoff, editor’s note to Ayn Rand’s "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made," Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24.) A package-deal uses "the shabby old gimmick of equating opposites by substituting non-essentials for their essential characteristics, obliterating the differences." ("How to Read (and Not to Write),"The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 26, 3.)
What you’re doing is to equate a concept derived from an abstraction, infinity, with an actual entity, an apple. Concepts only occur as cognitive phenomena; they are not concrete existents like apples. Since infinity and zero are like all numbers and maths in that they are only conceptual phenomena, then it is proper to say they are not actual. This is why imaginary concepts or notions, such as your imaginary DVD cabinet or God are not actually real.
Anton Thorn discussed package deal fallacies. In more sophisticated religious apologetics, a frequently met package-deal is the equation of concepts with their referents. This package-deal finds its roots in Platonic intrinsicism in that it is an attempt to erase the distinction between an object and the concept identifying it. The catchphrases to watch out for might be terms like 'immaterial entities', 'conceptual entities', or 'abstract universal entities' (cf. Plato's non-material 'Forms'). Such package-dealing results from the attempt to treat concepts as if they were concretes existing externally, rather than abstractions or mental integrations. Acceptance of this distortion of reality allows the religionist to posit knowledge independent of man's consciousness, knowledge whose source does not belong to this world, but to another, supernatural point of origin. The famed Christian apologist Greg Bahnsen is well noted for his heavy dependence on this particular fallacy in his debates with non-Christians, calling the Laws of Logic examples of 'immaterial entities'. The root of this error is a package-deal.
Michael: Objectivist: I accept the reality of the infinity that resides in each whole or between each whole number I count as a matter of inescapable necessity, but infinity has no identity.
This is a straw man and a package deal. Objectivism holds that infinity is not actual as it is only a potential; you’re arguing against an imaginary Objectivism. Additionally, an infinite set cannot have identity because it's quantity can't be determined. An identity can be assigned to a conceptual symbol that represents the potential of infinity. You are engaging in a package deal fallacy by equating the symbol’s conceptual identity with referents, physical entities having dimensions, in existence.
This one deserves to be repeated. I nominate it for post of the week. Good job freddies_dead!
Photo said...
"Holy shit!"
Quite literally.
Only religion can do to a man what we've seen with Michael. A man claiming to be "a semi-retired, self-employed married man in my fifties and a former Army Ranger" reduced to acting like a bitter teenager, resentful of his sad little life in his mom's basement ... and all because there are people who refuse to share in his religious delusion.
He's so sure of his own superiority - Dunning-Kruger in overdrive - that he can't even recognise the most basic flaw in his worldview.
Even though it has been pointed out by various posters at various points over the 2 month+ course of the discussion he simply can't get his head around how he's arguing as if there are facts/truths that are what they are regardless of whatever anyone or anything may want/wish/demand/hope etc..., i.e. affirming the truth of the primacy of existence, yet all the while he's arguing for the Christian God i.e. a worldview that affirms the primacy of consciousness and in doing so has no basis for either facts or truth.
This simple lack of consistency with the worldview he professes to hold undermines every argument he puts forward - whether he gets the actual argument right or not. At every turn he's stealing concepts left, right and centre from a wordview (Objectivism) that he hopes to deny using those very same concepts. It's no wonder he prefers to think concept formation is automatic, to remain mired in the subjectivity of his beliefs, to continue to know without knowing how he knows, as even a casual check as to where those concepts have actually come from would shatter his religious worldview entirely.
He has become a liar and a thief in defence of a worldview that frowns heavily upon those sins.
And when a mirror has been held up before him, showing him to be the liar and the thief that he his, his only response is to lash out in his embarrasment and humiliation, to insult and to mock. Projecting his self-loathing onto those who have done nothing more than show him where he is getting it all wrong.
It has truly been an absolutely marvelous sight to behold.
Michael: if you are arguing for the Christian God as freddie mentioned above, then please tell us how one can equal three or three equal one.
Additionally, since the NT Gospels can't honestly be dated in the first century, why should any rational person believe the resurrection stories?
Do you believe Jesus ascended up into the sky as told in Luke-Acts? If so, why is there only outer space up there rather than Heaven?
Do you believe devil-evil-spirits cause sickness and mental illness?
Are you a young earth creationist? Do you believe in the Genesis Garden of Eden story's portrayal of original sin? If not, then do you reject Mark & Matthew's ransom theory and John's human-sacrifice-scapegoat soteriologies?
Dawson typed a good one.
Again, Michael can’t resist taking personal potshots. But let’s consider the source: Michael David Rawlings, whose epistemology is nothing more than “we know without knowing how we know”; who holds that concepts are formed “automatically”; who embraces the primacy of wishing over facts; who thinks the DVD cabinet that he imagines actually exists; who in utter ignorance of the nature of concepts thinks the concept ‘infinity’ necessarily implies the existence of an “infinite consciousness”; whose worldview is responsible for two millennia of enslavement, suffering, stagnation, collectivism, mass intellectual genocide, etc.; who thinks a philosopher who championed objectivity, reason, values, individual rights, etc., “was still a whack job.”
I’ll go with Rand, thank you.
Yes. Me too. Objectivism makes my life better than Christianity ever did or could.
Well, let's see. I scanned over DuhsonZero's latest crap and freedies-shoeshine blather.
Nope. We still have no substantively coherent arguments directly addressing anything, just bald statements.
Psst. DuhsonZero. The quotient is zero, eh? The issue is infinity, but the mathematical and scientific conceptualizations, necessities and calculi don't matter, eh? We don’t need to rightly understand the mathematics of the matter first, eh? We obscure it, eh? Obfuscate, eh? We mock and trivilize the cognitive facets, eh? We just take Peikoff's idiotic fantasy, never mind his reasoning, for reality, and that's it, eh?
Brainwashed loons.
Division is subtraction, eh?
Psst. Ever heard of subliminal suggestion, ya brainwashed loon?
(Like taking candy from a baby.)
Psst. DuhsonZero, all things that are added to, subtracted from or multiplied are divisible, ya brainwashed loon.
(Like white on rice.)
Both differences and quotients are outcomes, ya brainwashed loon.
(Like strollin’ along.)
The “conclusion” of division is an infinite number of parts of a whole, not a zero number of parts of a whole lot of nothing’, ya brainwashed loon.
(Played like a violin.)
Why did you imagine that division and subtraction were the same thing, ya brainwashed loon?
Hook. Line. Sinker.
Nope. Never lied. Ya did it all yourself . . . with just the right nudge.
(Like pickin’ apples from a tree and shoving ’em down your yawning gap.)
What a crock Objectivism is. Objectivist: An easily manipulated mental midget who thinks what he’s told or thinks he’s been told, a.k.a., Brainwashedtus Dimwiticus Maximus.
Anton Thorn on Frozen Abstractions
Frozen Abstraction: This fallacy occurs when one attempts to substitute a particular concrete or concept for the wider abstract class to which it belongs. One of Ayn Rand's prime examples of this fallacy is the substitution of a specific doctrine of ethics, such as altruism, for the wider abstraction 'ethics' itself, as if the two were interchangeable, conceptual equals. Religionists commit this very error when they argue that all ethical norms must be pious in nature, usually entailing the advocacy of sacrifice at its root (just as altruism does).
Examples of frozen abstraction fallacies abound in conversations with religionists. The tendency of religionists to treat all moral virtues, for instance, such as justice or righteousness, as necessarily god-centered (belonging to not just any god-belief, but to their version of god-belief specifically to boot) is a prime example. Another example would be when sectarian Christians argue that their version of Christianity constitutes all of Christianity proper, while in fact there are so many versions of the same religion, each claiming to be Bible-based, that it's virtually impossible to keep track of all the variations on this theme. To put it into terms of concretes: While all apples are fruit, not all fruits are apples. The frozen abstraction fallacy abnegates this fact.
Another favorite frozen abstraction used by many religionists is the notion that atheism can only be defined as "the rejection of God". It is true that the concept 'atheism' includes the rejection of gods and god-belief, however this condition does not exhaust the essence of the concept. Atheism is defined as absence of god-belief. This includes outright rejection as well as lack of belief due to ignorance of god-belief claims (such as a newborn, who cannot possibly have a god-belief, or someone raised in an insulated society wherein no god-beliefs have developed and survived). Rejection of god-belief presumes both the familiarity with god-belief notions and god-belief claims as well as a decision not to accept those claims. If the concept 'atheism' applied only to those who had familiarity with god-belief notions and claims but chose to reject them, what concept would cover those who had no god-belief because of their non-familiarity with god-belief claims, such as newborns and individuals who have never heard of gods or god-belief notions? Certainly the concept 'agnosticism' could not apply here, for agnosticism entails this familiarity but a failure to decide one way or another instead of a decision to reject god-belief. Beware of this frozen abstraction; many atheists commit themselves to it, too, having bought the lie from the influence of religion.
Ok, I'll take my shot at the infinity issue. I say there can't be an actual infinity and here's why.
If an alleged infinite set is considered an existent object, then the Set is what is under scrutiny, and the elements of the Set are not. To derive information about the Set via inspection is to examine the Set qua Set without regard to its contents or to any algorithm that may have been used to discriminate and segregate elements into the grouping. What Michael has been doing is to identify the algorithm that used to discriminate and segregate numeric elements into the grouping of the set as the set. This is another package deal fallacy. Subsequently Michael claimed to have recognized the Set as being infinite with properties identifiable apart from any number. A set is defined as a group of elements. It is not defined as the individual elements. A set is an ensemble that obtains as a gestalt of its member elements. When examining a Set in an effort to determine its properties, it is disingenuous to extrapolate from the Set’s elements to the totality of the Set, for the Set is the object of interest rather than its elements. Honest inquiry also means not using the segregation algorithmic definition to back any claim to knowledge of the Set’s property. The Set as a whole ensemble, a total gestalt, an independently existing object apart from any consideration of its constituent component members is the matter of concern.
Consider the following Set.{SET OF A BIG HONKING BUNCH OF NUMBERS THAT MAY OF MAY NOT BE INFINITE} In order to determine any properties shared in common by all the numeric elements of the Set that may be intrinsic to the Set, the Set must first be recognized as a number. Without examining any of the numbers in the Set, {SOABHBONTMOMNBI}, to prevent extrapolation from individual elements to the whole set or taking any consideration of any algorithm used to put numbers into {SOABHBONTMOMNBI}, how can a person glean information about the set? What number is {SOABHBONTMOMNBI}?
In order to approach to a possible answer the question of what is a number should be answered. Dictionary.com’s #2 definition says “the sum, total, count, or aggregate of a collection of units or the like.” If a number represents a concept of aggregate of a collection of units, then there must be specificity entailed by the concept of a particular number in order to distinguish various instances of (“the sum, total, count, or aggregate of a collection of units or the like”) one from another. This means recognition of specificity is necessarily required to conceptualize (“the sum, total, count, or aggregate of a collection of units or the like”) into the meaning of a particular number. Returning to the prior question, what number is {SOABHBONTMOMNBI}? How can specificity of a conglomerate, an ensemble, a gestalt, a Set be ascertained only by examination of the totality of the group without regard to identities of any numeric elements it may contain or to any algorithm that was used to discriminate and segregate elements into the grouping? It seems quite unlikely to me for any person to even be able to accomplish such a task. I think Michael’s claim that an infinite set can be ascertained is patently false. How could a person even determine if a collection of numbers contained an infinite quantity since the very definition of number metaphysically requires specificity. That which is specific is definite and thus finite. The fantasy of infinity presupposes non-specific and non-determinate instantiation, and that is a contradiction in terms and a stolen concept fallacy.
Michael: We still have no substantively coherent arguments directly addressing anything, just bald statements.
That applies to you. The burden and onus of proof is on you. You are making the extraordinary claim. I'm certain, the author and readers of this blog don't care what you think. However, you seem to care what the author and readers believe as if you think beliefs are volitional. You've not presented any valid or sound argument for your God belief. Yet you type plenty of libelous vitriol and completely without justification. Why is that?
Michael: Since there can be no actual infinity, the following simple argument defeats Classical and Christian Theism.
1.To be GOD, an entity must be an ontological person that is infinite in scope.
2.To be an ontological person is to have a specific identity.
3.To have a specific identity is to necessarily be finite.
4. The God of Classical or Christian Theism has a specific identity.
5. The God of Classical or Christian Theism therefore is necessarily finite and cannot be infinite.
6. By modus tollens from 1 and 5, The God of Classical or Christian Theism cannot be GOD as it cannot both be infinite and finite.
To refute this argument the Law of Identity must be shown false. If someone were to be successful in showing the Law of Identity false, the implication then would be that there is no material existence for material existence requires the Law of Identity. If what we understand to be the world around us does not actually exist, then it is a fantasy of some sort as are we. Then all the evil in the universe is directly attributable to the source of the fantasy. If that were The God of Classical or Christian Theism, then it would be directly responsible for all the suffering, pain, misery, death, affliction, natural disasters, predator-prey and parasite-host relationships. The infliction of suffering for sheer enjoyment of witnessing sentient beings (or fantasies of sentient beings) in misery qualifies as EVIL. If the Law of Identity is false, and if either The Gods of Classical or Christian Theism are responsible for what we think of as reality, then those Gods are malevolently EVIL. And all who worship them are duped and deceived.
(Michael, Please respond to this without resorting to libel, insults, smears, cursing, or ad hominem attacks.)
freddies_dead said,
It has truly been an absolutely marvelous sight to behold.
It's good to know that somebody appreciates art.
Dawson's working the ball. Look at his head fake; Michael falls for it hook-line-sinker! It's Dawson for the Slam-Dunk!
Bahnsen Burner has left a new comment on the post "Rawlings' Bawlings":
Michael writes: “Objectivist: I accept the reality of the infinity that resides in each whole or between each whole number I count as a matter of inescapable necessity, but infinity has no identity.”
If this is what you think Objectivism teaches, you’re deluding yourself. Even worse, you’re completely ignoring the cognitive role of concepts. That’s no surprise to me of course. As for Objectivists, we don’t view entities as the *result* of conscious activity. Remember? That’s the primacy of existence. That includes mathematics, which is properly a conceptual discipline. You think this is a problem for essentially two reasons: 1) you accept the primacy of consciousness (existence is a creation of conscious activity), and 2) you lack a theory of concepts which explains all of this (i.e., which grounds your knowledge in reality).
So when you say “Zoom! Right over!” I can only interpret this as yet another autobiographical expression of your own ignorance of the conceptual nature of mathematics as well as fallout from your embrace of the primacy of consciousness. Then again, what could we expect on your behalf? After all, you think concepts are “automatic.” In other words, you don’t understand the first thing about concepts. This in itself amounts to an infinite regress for you in terms of epistemology: if one concept that you’re trying to understand was formed “automatically,” then so are the concepts by which you’re trying to understand it, and so on. And it’s turtles on down from there. That’s epistemology, Michael Bawlings style.
Hey, none of this is my problem.
Michael wrote: “‘Course Peikoff’s just part of the scam, I’m sure. He knows mathematics and science can’t work without zero or infinity. It’s all you suckers lining his pockets that’s the real hoot!”
Peikoff knows that mathematic can’t work without the concept ‘unit’, and therefore cannot work without the objective theory of concepts. But we can’t expect Michael Rawlings to understand this. His worldview has no theory of concepts. It offers him nothing but ignorance when it comes to epistemology. As John Frame admits, “We know without knowing how we know” (Presuppositional Apologetics: An Introduction (Part I)).
Now, Michael, if you think you can improve on John Frame’s open embrace of sheer ignorance, then please try your best. Start with the issue that Frame himself attempted to tackle, namely from the story of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22, where Abraham somehow “knows” that the voice he’s “hearing” is that of the god which supposedly is the same as the Christian god (since the NT epistle of Hebrews cites Abraham as a model example of faith).
Hmmm….. Listen to those crickets chirping….
Yea the art of photo's stupidity.
In addition to completely leveling Nide’s contentions, I wrote: "Good grief, Nide, you have a lot of contradictions nestled under your ass!"
Nide now writes: “By the way Dawson, Randnuts also collected medicare because here silly little books weren't enough to support her.”
Hahahahahahahahaha!!!! Notice how Nide has to abandon his rant about social security now. Since he knows that barking up that tree is a go-nowhere for his smear campaign, he has to make up something else. Fucking hilarious!
Yes, I’ll take the point – another score for Dawson, thank you!
Nide asked: “Dawson, how do ya like me now?”
You’re right on schedule, Nide! I love it!!
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
you idiot dimwit.
it was to add the flames of Randnuts aka welfare lover.
You wanna act dumb? Good.
Dawson is not only an idiot but extremely delusional.
Howdaya like that pal?
Nide wrote: “you idiot dimwit. it was to add the flames of Randnuts aka welfare lover.”
It doesn’t matter. The point is the same: (1) you abandoned your shtick about Rand collecting social security because you realized this is a dead end; it’s clear you won’t get any support from your newly adopted hero Michael on this matter; and (2) now you invent another shtick, again having no facts to back up the accusation nestled in its core, in order to try the same thing again: to smear Rand for some alleged hypocrisy. It’s fucking hilarious!!
Nide: “You wanna act dumb? Good.”
Hey, just pointing out your foolishness. Don’t get sore at me for your own stupidity.
Nide: “Dawson is not only an idiot but extremely delusional.”
And again, Nide’s right on schedule: unable to salvage his position, he reaches for the personal attack.
Quite unoriginal, Nide. But I realize that, at the end of the day, that’s all you’ve ever had to begin with.
Nide: “Howdaya like that pal?”
I’m lovin’ every minute of it!!!
Just delicious!
Regards,
Dawson
Hello friends,
Here's how Michael's mess happened:
In his most elaborate math infinity to divine perfection post, among many many other problems I asked about this one, he stated:
<< any divisible entity may be divided without end ... It follows, infinity is that which is indivisible, immutable and has no beginning or end. >>
Now there was a nonsensical phrase in between, which does not change the problem with those two, it's just a bald assertion that such division above was "a perfectly rational mathematical axiom."
Anyway, I asked Michael this about that non-sequitur, not to jump the intermediary parts and tell me how he went from the one to the other:
[Me here:]
<< Here you just jumped some important details. What are you talking about? What infinity was indivisible? You said that the object can be divided without end. Where then indivisible? If the object starts being divided, then there was a start in this dividing. So how would it not have a beginning? Try and think what is it that you are talking about here. What's infinite as a result of dividing without end? The division process? The object? The obtained segments? >>
Michael panicked that he had no answer, so he just made lots of repetitions thinking, as Dawson has said before, that maybe by just repeating his jump would be more convincing. By then Michael still did not know the meaning of the word "quotient." Ten days later, he had learned the basic arithmetics and he was so happy, that, in order to intimidate us, he decided to use that word in his answer to my question, so happy that he made a huge mistake as follows:
<< The mathematical abstraction here, from the perspective of finite consciousness, is the unknown quantity of infinity, i.e., the quotient. The quotient of division is not the mathematical operation of division. It’s the outcome >>
Note that he is therefore saying that the quotient is an "infinity which is indivisible, immutable and has no beginning or end."
But if we were in any doubt, his next paragraph confirms what I just said:
<< Further, I do not jump, anymore than Aristotle jumps, to the notion that “infinity is that which is indivisible, immutable and has no beginning or end.” The “jump” is merely your failure to grasp the obvious, intermediate apprehension on which the extrapolation is premised, and that has been spelled to you more than once. >>
I pointed to this problem very amicably as follows:
<< Here for all your "friends" to see: Michael thinks that the quotient, the result, of dividing without end is infinity. Take note, and then go try it yourselves. Yup, you've got it. Michael is mathematically incompetent. >>
After that I told him that the quotient was not infinity but zero. Which is what we learn in arithmetics. Michael actually, had stated before that the conclusion of the operation was "nothing." I suspect that his problem was that, since he had just learned the word "quotient" he had to use it, and he used without thinking what he was saying. That, or he never understood that "construct," he had accepted it as it came without ever thinking about it.
But we will see that later. I pointed that the quotient was zero, and showed how the extrapolation is made with a series of divisions, each against larger and larger numbers, which lead to the extrapolation that if you divide by infinite you get zero. An extrapolation, therefore far from an axiom, and just a conceptual exercise that still has nothing to do with reality.
[... this is 1, 2 will follow ...]
Dawson,
Why do you think Randnuts decried welfare but then collected it?
It couldn't have been because she really thought that the country that gave her refuge was stealing from her.
Was she really that inconsiderate, unappreciative, and stupid?
Even after she bit the hand that fed her, that hand was still nice enough to give her welfare.
Thank God for America.
It's funny that Jackass aka Dawson complains about Christians "denying realtity" but here he is doing that very same thing. What a dipass.
Nide: “Why do you think Randnuts decried welfare but then collected it?”
What makes you suppose she collected welfare in the first place? What actual hard evidence can you produce to support this contention? Rand made a fortune from her novels. Atlas Shrugged was and still is one of the best-selling novels of the past century. Rand also had income from her many speaking engagements, her newsletters, etc. Also, when her husband died, she had everything he left to her. I know a lot about Rand, but I’ve never found any actual evidence that she was ever on welfare.
So if you can’t supply such evidence, your question is fallaciously complex. And it’s clear that your ambition here is simply to smear Rand. It’s also clear that your earlier attempt to smear her – regarding social security – fell flat on its face. Otherwise you wouldn’t be trying this desperate move.
So, got any evidence, Nide?
Going once… going twice…
Regards,
Dawson
[... number 2 ...]
Of course, furious as he was, Michael consulted and consulted, until he found something about limits. Somebody told him that the arithmetic solution is presented in basic Calculus as a limit theorem, and that such is the source of the arithmetic zero. Since, instead of a final result, the limit does what I did, go to larger and larger numbers, to show that the limit is zero, he thought of "getting me" by showing that zero would not occur no matter what number we out in there. Of course, he "forgot" that he said that the quotient was that infinite above. He just had to ridicule me. He could also smuggle an infinity in the number of numbers you could test before getting to the limit. His source was not that stupid, but they both, Michael and his source, agreed to mistake the limit with the process of finding the limit. The limit is clearly zero. The process can be carried out as long as you want. So, they both mistook the ultimate quotient with the operation leading to the ultimate quotient. Ups!
Anyway, it still does not matter, because if he wanted to deny the zero, then he denies division by infinity, he denies his whole construct. Yes ladies and gentleman. Michael was so eager to get me that he killed his precious construct. he lost sight of what he wanted to accomplish.
Of course, I told him this, and he became so furious that he had to come with much more misunderstood math. Which he did. I have not read the whole thing, but it's not important, he is quite lost there, and we have more important issues to see about Michael's disabilities and proneness to think first of his hurt ego than about what he wanted to accomplish.
So I showed him that he was "thinking" (or posted without knowing what he was talking about), that the result of dividing without end was nothing (zero). Something that he now denies yelling at top volume. The first paragraph I showed him was this:
<< He created the universe out of nothing but his sheer will! And He can divisionally reduce it back down--bit by bit--from its most comprehensibly complex expression, past the infinitesimal, to the nothing it was before. >>
Of course, I did not think it necessary to quote the whole context. For one, Michael can't put together more than one sentence in his mind, so the context gets him lost, for another, it is not necessary. But look at Michael's answer!
<< When exposing pathological liars, the only ones moving the goal posts, you have to set traps. >>
In other words, he is saying that he lied! Then:
<< Indeed, the insertion of the term divisionally is gratuitous. The operative outcome of reduction (i.e., subtraction) is not division! >>
Now, there's no way in hell that "divisionally reduce" can mean "subtract." It can transform into "reduce by division," but not into "subtract," in any possible way. But this is what Micael affirms now. I suspect that his helper(s) asked him if he had used the division to nothing referring to god, they helped him find the first reference, and they thought that they could lie and say that it was subtraction because it does not say "divide to nothing." This thanks for Michael's love to making his statements look "grandiose" by inserting as many words as possible.
But he was claiming victory too soon. For one, he was saying openly that he lied to set this trap. For another, it annihilated each and every one of those math-infinity-to-divine-perfection, since now, besides being a non-sequitur (a package deal as Robert kindly reminded us), it becomes completely nonsensical to talk first about how infinite minds can't do such division, but god can take it to its final conclusion. Therefore Michael has been offended and insulting, and angry, and obsessed, with defending what he knew to be a lie.
[... this is 2, 3 will follow ...]
Dawson,
You twit.
She collected social security and Medicaid. It's a fact.
If she had so much money, why did she collect these things?
It coulnt have been because she thought America stole from her. I mean they were nice enough to give her refuge.
So, what's the real reason?
Was she just a greedy pig? You did claim she made a "fortune" from her dumb little books.
[... this is 3 ...]
Anyway, I could quote each of the instances of "divisionally reduce" in their context, and no fair reader would think that Michael could possibly refer to subtraction. But I found this gem:
<< In other words, Aristotle emphatically notes that a line (or any divisible entity for that matter) may be divided indefinitely. That is an indispensable mathematical axiom that is objectively and universally apprehended by all, one that applies to finite entities only. However, finite consciousness cannot perform said division to its conclusion; hence, Aristotle concludes that there must be a consciousness of infinite perfection (indivisible and immutable) that can divide finite entities down to nothing, otherwise we have an indispensable mathematical axiom that is cogent, yet gratuitous. >>
Yes. Direct, without adorning words, showing that Michael indeed was talking about dividing by infinity and getting nothing, zero. the very thing he now affirms to be impossible.
Not only that, Michael posing as "Kyle" also wrote:
<< All Peikoff is really saying is that the maxim has no real value because we can’t divide something forever. As Michael pointed out, the maxim actually does have practical mathematical applications, and a timeless creator can do that from nothing to a divisible something and back down to nothing again easily. >>
Very same thing. This clearly refers to some superbeing who can divide to get nothing. So, besides lying about what he meant in those "constructs," Michael revealed that him and Kyle were the same person. Otherwise, how would two who don't know each other agree to lie about the very same thing?
Then, of course, caught in lies upon lies, even lying about having lied, he still wants to save cheeks by ridiculing my math. He has completely forgotten what he wanted to accomplish. So, that he obliterated the higher proportion of his "construct" for divine perfection does not matter. Now he just want to sell it by mere bald assertions, which, by the way, he himself considers to be nonsense.
The situation is much worse. This was just about the math. He is becoming more and more ridiculous about the math. In the meantime, his construct lies there, obliterated by Michael himself before he could even try and rescue it from its many other problems.
<< When exposing psychopathic stupidity and dishonesty: first, set a trap and then spring it . . . at the most exquisitely sweet moment of irony. It’s all in the timing. >>
Indeed, Michael trap sprang up his own ass. and indeed it exposed Michael's psychopathic stupidity and dishonesty. Michael has admitted to lying for Christianity and blown up his own ass in the process.
Michael continues showing that blowing up his own ass is his true expertise. he continues to do so every time he posts a comment.
ENDED
Richard writes: "Dawson is not only an idiot but extremely delusional."
And don’t forget easily manipulated. . . .
First by Peikoff, then by photoZero, though ultimately, ironies of ironies, by me!
LOL!
Division is subtraction!
The quotient is zero!
Divisible means division!
Conclusion means a zero number of parts of a whole lot of nothin'!
How ya likin' me now?
Played like a violin. Like strollin’ along. Like takin' candy from a baby.
Where’s the appreciation for the genius of it all, for the irony? I get no appreciation. Not even a grudging “Yeah, ya got me,” or “Good one!” Think Rolling Stones: “I can’t get nooo-oo-oo appre-ci-a-tion. . . .”
LOL!
‘Course, even I never anticipated you dunces would take things to the literal extreme of numeric zero, confound the limit of its actual calculation relative to the infinitesimals of the outputs/quotients with the “appearance” of the function’s abbreviated, common expression.
Bonus!
Naturally, the fact that photoKnow-Nothing did that clearly shows that he had absolutely no prior knowledge about the realities of the limits of functions in algebra or calculus whatsoever, let alone in those of trigonometry.
I don’t know why DuhzonZero’s blasting me or questioning my integrity. He should be blasting photo-Make-It-Up-As-I-Go-Along.
Bust-a-gut-laugh-out-loud funny!
Nide wrote: “She collected social security and Medicaid. It's a fact.”
If it’s a fact, Nide, then document it. That’s all I’m saying. But notice that social security and Medicaid are not the same thing as welfare. Social security is redistributed withholdings from income generated by people who produce wealth. Similar with Medicaid: our income is taxed – i.e., part of the wealth we create is confiscated from us against our will – and some of it goes to pay for “services” such as this. If Rand took either or both, she was only getting back – finally! - part of what she was previously forced to finance!
So what’s the problem?
Besides, none of this matters, Nide. The truth of one’s philosophy does not depend on the integrity or lack thereof of its practitioners. My math teacher back in the eighth grade always had a flask of alcohol in his back pocket. He was lit up much of the day. Does this mean that algebra is somehow false? Well, by the route you seem to be taking here, that’s what you would have us conclude.
And you call me an idiot?
Good grief! Throw this one back – it’s still too young.
Regards,
Dawson
Michael wrote: “We still have no substantively coherent arguments directly addressing anything, just bald statements.”
Robert responded: “That applies to you.”
Indeed it does. Michael has affirmed the existence of such a thing as an “infinite consciousness.” This is the god he worships as part of his involvement in the cult known as Christianity. He has been challenged to validate the notion of an “infinite consciousness.” Additionally, this “infinite consciousness” is also supposed to be an entity in its own right (as opposed to an attribute of an entity, as in the case of man’s consciousness); it is supposed to be non-biological; it cannot be capable of activity (since it is said to exist outside of time – activity is activity in time); it can have no life-preserving purpose (since it is supposed to be eternally indestructible – its purpose is not to identify values it needs in order to exist, as in the case of human consciousness); it could have no means of perceiving that are in any way analogous to man’s means of perceiving, since this requires a body and the “infinite consciousness” which Michael imagines has no body; it is indistinguishable from something that Michael may merely be imagining (indeed, he has already stated on record that he thinks something he imagines is in fact actual - that’s the only way I can understand his ranting about his DVD cabinet).
There may be more features to this “infinite consciousness” that can be noted, but these are enough to show that Michael indeed has a very tall order on his hands.
Has Michael made any progress towards proving any of this? Nope, not one millimeter of progress. He started out apparently expecting everyone simply to nod in agreement with his notion that an actual can be infinite, and when this was challenged, he suffered repeated meltdowns and his real side came out (as I showed in earlier comments, Michael blew onto this blog under a pretense of wanting to learn and “make friends”). He has sought to bury the matter under piles and piles of jargon and screed, and yet we’ve held his feet to the fire. This has only stoked his contempt all the more. But in the meantime, he made zero progress towards the goal of validating anything having to do with his god-belief.
Earlier in this thread, on 8 Jan., I wrote the following:
<< So if Michael thinks he has a clearly logical case for something that is in fact “infinite” also being actual, he needs to present it once and for all in its essentialized form – i.e., in terms of clearly stated premises which clearly support their intended conclusion. There’s no reason for anyone to get lost in the labyrinthine meanderings of his comments which are laden with insults, bad attitude, contentless jargon. If he cannot relate his case to what the things we are directly aware of in a conceptually sound fashion, then he has no case to begin with.
If Michael decides not to take up this final challenge, then he forfeits the entirety of his efforts here. >>
Since writing this, Michael has not yet taken up this challenge. So until he does, he forfeits the entirety of his efforts here.
Hey, that’s not my problem!
Regards,
Dawson
Shut up, photoZero-Variables-Are-Limits. You have no credibilty.
Michael wrote: "Shut up, photoZero-Variables-Are-Limits. You have no credibilty."
Michael, in case you haven't noticed, no one here (of course with the exception of Nide) takes orders from you. Not only do you have no authority here, you have no credibility. You are a liar and a pretender, and the record shows precisely this. You came here on false pretenses and resorted to juvenile behavior the moment your pretended authority was not obeyed at "face value." Indeed, you have no face value because you've lost face time and time again.
So photo, let 'er rip all you like. I'm lovin' every minute of it. Great reading so far (I'm still catching up with your latest).
Regards,
Dawson
Oh Michael the same ass-hole as always, seeing that I have shown him to be the imbecile he is, he shows himself to be the imbecile that he is by reposting a full load of his previous comments trying to "bury the continuation of my comments." The imbecile thinks that other readers here can't find comments when they are "buried" just because Michael himself can't. What an ass.
Worse, he thinks that readers don;t understand one bit of math just because a few weeks ago Michael himself did not know the word "quotient."
What are you afraid of Michael? Your many forms of illiteracy are clear for all to see anyway.
Michael and Richard don't have a case to support their pretense of rational theistic belief. Why don't they just come clean and admit the only reason they believe is due to their own subjective personal religious experience? I suppose it's because they know that the feeling they mistake as the inner witness of the Holy Spirit of their God is actually just a brain phenomenon. How funny it is that people hate and murder millions and erect religious police States due to an evolutionary adaptation of Homo Sapien's brain.
Speaking of hate, Richard and Michael do indeed hate Justin, Ydemoc, freddie, and me, but they reserve a special hatred for Dawson or any other competent Objectivist philosopher. How unlike the Synoptic Jesus these guys are. If Jesus had been a real guy and were brought to our time by H.G. Wells' time machine, I think he'd be quite ashamed of people like Richard/Nide and Michael. LOL.
Michael insists on making an ass out of himself:
<< LOL! Division is subtraction! >>
I agree with the LOL Michael. Indeed your assertion that division is subtraction is ridiculous. You said so yourself, that to reduce divisionally was subtraction, not division. Well done Michael, well done!
You sure know how to blow up your own ass!
<< The quotient is zero! >>
Well, you did not know the word quotient just a few weeks ago, I give you a cookie for learning that word. But let's not forget that you said that you insisted on the final conclusion being nothing, then on the quotient being an indivisible, immutable, infinity with no beginning and no end. Ups!
You sure know how to blow up your own ass.
<< Naturally, the fact that photoKnow-Nothing did that clearly shows that he had absolutely no prior knowledge about the realities of the limits of functions in algebra or calculus whatsoever, let alone in those of trigonometry. >>
How intimidating! Michael just learned the words "algebra" and "trigonometry"! Congrats Michael. Here, have a cookie!
Yes, yes, I remember how proud you were a few weeks ago when you learned the word "quotient":
<< The quotient is the result of division, not the operation of division, daddy! >>
How cute. Here, have an extra cookie for that one Michael.
Michael brayed,
<< I don’t know why DuhzonZero’s blasting me or questioning my integrity. He should be blasting photo-Make-It-Up-As-I-Go-Along. >>
It is you who blasted your image and made it evident that you have no integrity. It's not a question. You have no integrity. You said so yourself. You assured us that you were lying about division to nothing, you also talked about me substituting quotients for divisors as if you knew only to later admit that you just "assumed." You continue to interchange who is who and what we said in your many rants as if you knew. You have been caught in lies too. Lies upon lies upon lies. Even lying about having been lying. Heck, you have made it very clear that you have no integrity. Zero. Nothing. Nada.
We should not be surprised that you are misreading about math when you should be worried about those bald and ridiculous assertions that because you have some useful math, therefore divine perfection. A non-sequitur, a package deal, alias complete bullshit. That's your problem Michael. Trying to ridicule me by misusing concepts in the math above leads nowhere. You have problems to solve that you just won't solve by obsessing so much on your hurt ego and trying to save it by "getting" me. Worse if you pretend to do that with math you just have leaned, wrongly, during the last few weeks. It won't work Michael. Math requires longer to be grasped that these few weeks, and every time you write something about it, it becomes clear that you don't know one bit what you are talking about. Stop it and go back to the meat as Dawson has told you:
<< So if Michael thinks he has a clearly logical case for something that is in fact “infinite” also being actual, he needs to present it once and for all in its essentialized form – i.e., in terms of clearly stated premises which clearly support their intended conclusion. There’s no reason for anyone to get lost in the labyrinthine meanderings of his comments which are laden with insults, bad attitude, contentless jargon. If he cannot relate his case to what the things we are directly aware of in a conceptually sound fashion, then he has no case to begin with.
If Michael decides not to take up this final challenge, then he forfeits the entirety of his efforts here. >>
Further exemplifying your many illiteracies leads you nowhere. Focus. Make sure to tell us which parts you are just "assuming," and make sure to leave "traps" out so that we can judge your arguments by their merits, rather than suspect at every turn that you might just be lying and assuming ... who am I kidding? You have no integrity! See? You have eliminated any possibility for you to make any case. No matter how much effort you put, just gaining our trust will take a lot. But that's nothing you care about, do you?
Dawson,
Did your teacher decry alcohol. Did he tell people not to drink?
The funny thing about Randnuts was that it was ok if she did whatever she wanted but others couldn't.
Evidence?
Are you nuts? It's all over the net.
Are you afraid of what you will find?
Hey, Dawson, is it true that Randnuts refuse to believe that cigarettes cause cancer?
.
DuhsonZero writes: "Michael, in case you haven't noticed. . . ."
LOL!
Psst. DuhsonZero, in case you haven't noticed . . . with regard to photoZero. . . .
And don’t forget easily manipulated. . . .
First by Peikoff, then by photoZero, though ultimately, ironies of ironies, by me!
LOL!
Division is subtraction!
The quotient is zero!
Divisible means division!
Conclusion means a zero number of parts of a whole lot of nothin'!
How ya likin' me now?
Played like a violin. Like strollin’ along. Like takin' candy from a baby.
Where’s the appreciation for the genius of it all, for the irony? I get no appreciation. Not even a grudging “Yeah, ya got me,” or “Good one!” Think Rolling Stones: “I can’t get nooo-oo-oo appre-ci-a-tion. . . .”
LOL!
‘Course, even I never anticipated you dunces would take things to the literal extreme of numeric zero, confound the limit of its actual calculation relative to the infinitesimals of the outputs/quotients with the “appearance” of the function’s abbreviated, common expression.
Bonus!
Naturally, the fact that photoKnow-Nothing did that clearly shows that he had absolutely no prior knowledge about the realities of the limits of functions in algebra or calculus whatsoever, let alone in those of trigonometry.
I don’t know why DuhzonZero’s blasting me or questioning my integrity. He should be blasting photo-Make-It-Up-As-I-Go-Along.
Bust-a-gut-laugh-out-loud funny!
Nidiot asked: “Did your teacher decry alcohol. Did he tell people not to drink?”
I don’t recall, but I don’t think it makes any difference. Rand nowhere says “don’t collect social security” any more than she said “you don’t have a right to the return of property that has been stolen from you.”
Nidiot: “The funny thing about Randnuts was that it was ok if she did whatever she wanted but others couldn't.”
What did Rand do that she told others they could not do?
Nidiot: “Evidence? Are you nuts? It's all over the net.”
I’m not asking for hearsay and fourth-hand reports ultimately premised in the ambition to smear. Find actual evidence that Rand lived on *welfare* - that was what you accused her of doing.
Nidiot: “Are you afraid of what you will find?”
It’s your accusation, Nide. Are you afraid of what you’ll find?
Nidiot: “Hey, Dawson, is it true that Randnuts refuse to believe that cigarettes cause cancer?”
I don’t know. But even if she did, it wouldn’t have any bearing on the truth of the philosophy she presented in her writings.
No one is denying that Rand was as human as the rest of us. That’s what you don’t seem to get. What you really don’t get is the fact that Objectivism is in fact not a cult. We do not “worship” Rand. We do not deify her as though she were somehow super-human. That’s Christianity, not Objectivism. You’re confusing the two and projecting Christianity’s own vices onto Objectivism. Doesn’t work. It makes you look quite foolish as well as oblivious to the drastic differences between Christianity and Objectivism.
Regards,
Dawson
Rawlings bawled: “I don’t know why DuhzonZero’s blasting me or questioning my integrity.”
If you don’t know that, even after I’ve explained it numerous times, you’re either utterly daft, or you’re just moving through life in outright denial. Go back and check the record. If you need me to copy-paste my comments where I exposed your deceptiveness, just ask. I’ll happily do so.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand: how about taking up the challenge? Or, do you want to forfeit the entirety of your efforts in this discussion since early November?
It’s up to you.
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
Remember the immortal word's of the Lord Jesus:
Whatever is in your heart will be revealed by the words that come out of your mouth.
Good. I'm glad you got my point.
"nidiot"? no my name is Richard. But I know how much you enjoy denying reality.
See ya.
Michael,
What is photo up to now?
Honestly, I haven't read any of his comments that he has left today. The dude has pressed me beyond my limits.
Hi again, Michael,
I had written: "I was reviewing some older comments from previous threads, and I noticed that on December 17 [2012] you mentioned that, "He [Kyle] and I [Michael] are discussing Judeo-Christianity's epistemology on my blog now."
A few days later, you wrote: "I missed your question, Ydemoc."
That happens.
You continued: "I can’t tell you much about that. Kyle said that he wanted to know more about Christianity’s epistemology on this blog [Dawson's] and, presumably, started a conversation on my blog to that end."
I saw that comment of Kyle's, (on December 15, 2012 8:58 AM) where he wrote: "I'm out of here, Michael. These guys are nuts. I left a comment under 'Labsci and I Discuss Evolution' on your blog. I’d like to follow up on the epistemology with you there if that’s okay."
You wrote: "Apparently, one aspect of his interest regarding Christianity's epistemology goes to its presupposition for the assimilation of scientific knowledge as it relates to evolution."
Yes,"apparently"-- because I didn't really gather that from any of the comments that he left over on your blog.
http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/02/labsci-and-i-discuss-evolution.html?showComment=1355596274296#c7600100891732268491
In fact, there wasn't much to at it all, regarding epistemology, the entire exchange, a mere 8 comments. And fairly short ones at that!
You wrote: "He has yet to get back to me with any questions or comments regarding the theological aspects of its epistemology."
This certainly explains not finding any other comments by him on your blog.
You wrote: "So as of yet, I don’t know what he had in mind. ????????????????"
I guess, given your comment -- "He [Kyle] and I [you] are discussing Judeo-Christianity's epistemology on my blog now" -- I was under the impression that an actual discussion with Kyle regarding "Judeo-Christianity's epistemology" was taking place, concurrent with your comment.
Oh well, what can ya do. Maybe he'll return and he'll end up following up on all this.
Ydemoc
Ydemoc,
Well, actually, Ydemoc, mechanistic naturalism is the material aspect of Christianity's rational-empirical construct of epistemology. We did briefly discuss that in regard to how it would apply to the issue of biological development.
At the time I wrote that statement, we had begun what I assumed would be an in-depth discussion. But like I said, he hasn't gotten back to me, so I don't know what else he had in mind. Sorry. I have no power over what others do. I was disappointed too. I hope everything is well with him. Maybe some urgent business came up.
If you still want to talk about Christianity's epistemology, why not just take up the conversation where he left off or however you want to go with it. I won't bite. You're certainly welcome to do so anytime..
Well, it's late for me Ydemoc. I'm out of here. Actually, I thought I had shut the computer down hours ago. I just happened to see your comment and responded. Later.
Tomorrow I'm answering Robert's post on the actual-potential dichotomy.
I’m still waiting for Michael to address the following:
[QUOTE]
Michael wrote: “My argument with her goes to her nonsense of conflating the distinction between humanist altruism and Christian love.”
For one thing, Rand opposed any form of ethics involving self-sacrifice. She was very clear in condemning self-sacrifice as immoral. Whether you want to call it altruism or something else, self-sacrifice is what she opposed. Rand was not so much concerned for labels as she was about principles and their effects in terms of man’s values. Clearly self-sacrifice is endorsed by Christianity. So the distinction you seem to have in mind is trivial.
That being said, perhaps you could spell out what this “distinction between humanist altruism and Christian love” is? What exactly is it, and what sources can you cite to inform these two categories? What for instance qualifies the latter as a category of “love”?
Lastly, can you cite anything in Rand where she does what you say she does, and explain how this is relevant to critiquing her case against sacrifice-based ethics?
Focus, Michael. Focus. The issue is self-sacrifice.
[QUOTE]
So far, I’m only hearing “crickets chirping” from Michael.
Regards,
Dawson
Michael wrote: “At the time I wrote that statement, we had begun what I assumed would be an in-depth discussion. But like I said, he hasn't gotten back to me, so I don't know what else he had in mind. Sorry. I have no power over what others do. I was disappointed too. I hope everything is well with him. Maybe some urgent business came up.”
This is most curious. It was on 17 Dec. that Michael wrote “[Kyle] and I are discussing Judeo-Christianity's epistemology on my blog now." “Now” suggests that the discussion mentioned was current and ongoing. But the last comment left by “Kyle” on Michael’s blog that has surfaced was posted on 15 Dec., two days prior to Michael’s comment about his discussion with “Kyle” on my blog. In blog-dom, two days is a long time, especially if the entirety of a discussion is confined only to one day, as in the case of Michael’s exchange with “Kyle” on his (Michael’s) blog.
If one reads through the “discussion” between Michael and “Kyle” on the blog Ydemoc has referenced (located here), one gets the impression that the entire exchange is rather staged. On my blog, “Kyle” stated that he was an “agnostic” (11 Dec., in the comments of this blog). But in the back-and-forth between Michael and “Kyle,” the relationship between the two seems conspicuously cozy. The tone in the comments authored by “Kyle” are suspiciously agreeable by my estimate; “Kyle” is soaking up everything Michael says without question. Then suddenly, without explanation, the discussion stops. And there’s nothing there about epistemology!
[continued…]
Also curious is how Michael has acted in a manner protective of “Kyle” on my blog. See for instance Michael’s comment on this blog time-stamped December 17, 2012 10:56 AM:
<< In conclusion. . . .
Photosynthesis wrote: “What's a historical observation of theology and philosophy? That there's a mathematical concept of infinity, therefore divine perfection?”
“Kyle Jamison” responded: “Specifically, as it applies to divinity, I know it from the Book of Job, Aristotle’s Metaphysics and my own reflections on the mathematical maxim of division.”
Yes. The antecedent of “it” in Kyle’s response per photo’s question logically goes to “a mathematical concept of infinity”. I think that’s precisely what Kyle intended, and I don’t see a problem. Where are you getting a problem out of this?
photo’s first question goes to the historicity of the construct in theology and philosophy (Or does it? as he seems to be confusing this academic observation with a logical fallacy.). Hence, clearly, Kyle is talking about the mathematical axiom of infinity as it applies to divine perfection in the corpus of theological and philosophical thought, utterly unaware of photo‘s apparent confusion over the nature of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.
What’s the problem?!
Where does Kyle state that this construct is analogously expressed in the Aristotelian fashion in Job . . . or anywhere else in the historical corpus of this construct for that matter?
Are you seeing something I’m not, Dawson? Hmm?
So, photo is either claiming (1) that Kyle is saying that the matter is expressed in the Aristotelian fashion in Job, or (2) photo himself is claiming that the matter is expressed in the Aristotelian fashion in Job. Hence, the supposed inconsistency.
1. Clearly, Kyle made no such claim. Hence, if this is what photo has in mind, he’s obviously reading something into Kyle’s statement that is not there!
2. If photo is claiming that the matter is expressed in the Aristotelian fashion in Job, the charge of deceit goes to me, as I’m the only one who went on to explain in no uncertain terms that it is not expressed that way in Job.
Therefore, it is photo’s responsibility to explain himself to us. It is his responsibility to explain how he extrapolated the non-existent claim attributed to Kyle or to provide scriptural citation(s) showing that I’m wrong about the fashion in which the matter is expressed in Job. >>
[continued…]
Michael seems suspiciously protective of someone who announced himself as an “agnostic”; this all happened after Michael announced on 7 Dec. on this blog that “Atheists really are notoriously bad thinkers, you know, and dishonest too boot.” Now granted, there is a distinction between atheism and agnosticism, but so far as Christians are concerned, my experience is that Christians generally cast agnostics in the same category with atheists – i.e., in the category of “unbeliever.” There are occasional exceptions to this (typically driven by expedience in my experience), but such automatic categorization (and attendant enmity) is the norm from what I’ve seen.
So here are some summary facts to consider here:
1. Michael states on 17 Dec. that he and “Kyle” are discussing “Christian epistemology” together; no such discussion can be found.
2. Michael states that this discussion between him and “Kyle” is taking place “now” – when in fact the only exchange between Michael and “Kyle” that can be found on Michael’s blog occurred on one day in the space of about three and a half hours a whole two days prior to Michael making this statement.
3. Michael and “Kyle” seem to agree on much, and don’t seem to disagree at any point, even though “Kyle” introduced himself on my blog as an “agnostic.”
4. Michael announces on my blog on 7 Dec. that “Atheists are notoriously bad thinkers” and “dishonest too boot” [sic], but immediately strikes up a very cozy and amicable relationship with agnostic “Kyle.”
5. In spite of his announced agnosticism, “Kyle” seems suspiciously agreeable to everything Michael says about Christian metaphysics (mind you, not “Christian epistemology”). At every turn, “Kyle” seems to be saying “Oh, I get it, that makes perfect sense” without using these words explicitly. At no point does “Kyle” raise any objection to what Michael states, even though objections are what we would expect from someone who is not Christian and has adopted an agnostic perspective on these matters.
6. “Kyle” makes certain statements that seem to play directly into Michael’s hand, such as citing the “book of Job” as an early source on the “mathematical concept of infinity.” If you recall, “Kyle” wrote (on this blog on 11 Dec.) the following: “Specifically, as it applies to divinity, I know it from the Book of Job, Aristotle’s Metaphysics and my own reflections on the mathematical maxim of division.” This was in response to photo’s question “What's a historical observation of theology and philosophy? That there's a mathematical concept of infinity, therefore divine perfection?” To say the least, it seems puzzlingly suspicious for a non-Christian to cite “the book of Job” as a source from which one “knows” the “mathematical concept of infinity,” regardless of that to which it is thought to apply.
[continued…]
7. Michael seems oddly protective of “Kyle” in the exchanges here on my blog. This is the case in spite of the fact that “Kyle” announced himself as an agnostic.
8. On 21 Nov. on this blog, Michael writes: “It's an historical fact, one that leftists typically deny because they assume the essence of this truth is something other than what it is.” Meanwhile, on this blog, in his 11 Dec. comment, “Kyle” writes: “It’s an historical observation in theology and philosophy, as old as time.” The use of the phrase “an historical” – while common in certain academic circles – is not common in casual discussions one finds on a blog (especially of the sort where certain participants - indeed one and the same! – are using words like “whore,” “snake,” “imbecile,” etc., in reference to one’s fellow conversants).
9. On 5 Nov., on this blog, Michael announced: “I've been reading you for a awhile. Just never commented before.” In a strikingly similar statement, “Kyle” wrote (11 Dec. on this blog): “Been watching this thing with some interest for awhile.” Notice the characteristic use of the word “awhile.” In both cases it is preceded by the preposition “for.” One online dictionary states that “awhile means 'for a time' and a while means 'a period of time'.” It is curious that both Michael and “Kyle” misuse the same word, and in the same context, namely in an opening statement announcing previous lurking activity.
While there may be other smoking guns suggesting a closer relationship than Michael has insisted is the case between himself and “Kyle” that I have not documented here, these are more than sufficient to confirm suspicions that “Kyle” may in fact not be the outsider to the conversation that Michael would have us believe he is.
Regards,
Dawson
Nidiot wrote: “’nidiot’? no my name is Richard.”
Richard, as in Dick?
Whether “NIdiot” is your name or not, does not matter. The point is that you are a Nidiot.
Think of yourself as a prototype of sorts. You have consistently been proud to play the fool, both here and elsewhere (think of the FF podcasts). So think of yourself as the first Nidiot.
If you like, you can hope that your god broke the mold and there won’t be any more.
But your choice to continue posting comments on my blog signals your consent for me and anyone else to address you and refer to you as Nidiot from now on. So if you don’t want me to address you this way, you just need to move on and stop commenting here.
Otherwise, if you respond and continue posting here, that must mean you want to be known as Nidiot here.
See? It fits perfectly.
Regards,
Dawson
Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...
Tomorrow
Has anyone else noticed how it's always "tomorrow" with Michael? Next post, next time, tomorrow, soon. That's when he alleges he'll be giving us something substantive. So far we've had nothing, nada, zip, zero. Tomorrow comes and he's back with another rant about mathematics (usually incorrect), a repost of several of his already answered points, or he's doing nothing but insulting and mocking. Projecting his self-loathing onto those who refuse to play make believe with him (that DVD cabinet still isn't getting any more real no matter how hard Michael wishes it to).
Do we get the Christian epistemology he claimed he'd provide? Hell no. All we've got is, as Frame puts it, "we know without knowing how we know" and as for that Christian Theory of Concepts that we were so brazenly assured would be presented, you guessed it, nothing, nada, zip, zero once again. Michael prefers to divert attention away from his failing to accomplish these basic tasks. Instead there are endless whines about mathematical concepts that it has taken him nearly 6 weeks to learn (well, sort of) and, as photo correctly points out, his trap/dishonesty about thoses concepts has done nothing but destroy his precious "the infinite therefore divine consciousness" construct that he was attempting to defend. Alternatively he'll latch on to any new point - as he has done with several of the things Robert has stated - as long as it doesn't require him to explain how he forms and integrates knowledge.
It's not really a surprise, after all Christians have been awaiting their saviour for over 2000 years now. A couple of months waiting for something in a discussion would be positively speedy in comparison. However, could it be that just like the non-existent saviour Jesus's return we're never going to witness even the first coming of a Christian epistemology beyond Frame's guesswork? Or a Theory of Concepts drawn directly from scripture? It certainly seems that way to me.
And if he should finally get around to trying to present these ideas? Well, I have no doubt that he'll make his arguments as if existence holds metaphysical primacy i.e. that what he is arguing for is what it is regardless of what anyone or anything wants/wishes etc..., and will simply pretend that there's no inconsistency between that and the worldview he professes to hold that affirms the opposite i.e. that consciousness holds metaphysical primacy and wishing makes it so.
Great.
I'm nidiot and you're the old fool.
See? It fits perfectly.
See ya later, pal.
When Nidiot first started commenting, I thought him to be a fraud seeking to bait others, then I realized that his lack of intelligence was genuine. Then I felt sympathy for him as I would for a wounded animal. That changed when I learned of his stalking activity on this blog. Then I tried to dissuade him by posting angry rebuttals. Then his foolishness became rather amusing in discussions that ended when Nidiot decided to take Chris Bolt's advice to cease interaction due to Nidiot's very poor apologetics performance seriously. I'm surprised he is still about. Most people would find some other activity with which to occupy themselves.
Richard a.k.a Nidiot,
«Honestly, I haven't read any of his comments that he has left today.»
You haven't read any comments. You are intellectually lazy, incompetent, and dishonest.
«The dude has pressed me beyond my limits.»
I pressed Michael so far beyond his limits that he is obsessed with getting me rather than with making his original point(s). He can't remember what he said he wanted to accomplish and instead obliterated his own "constructs" for divine perfection. Anything but accept that he does not know math! Anything! Michael will declare himself an atheist before he accepts that he knows no math.
Since that's your idol, Nidiot, what can we expect from you?
@Dawson
I have emailed you a link to a source on a somewhat scientific subject I think would be in your interests to investigate.
Michael and Richard. All the silly bantering, pseudo-bickering and insulting gotchas aside. You're still human beings with intrinsic natural rights. I respect that, so I don't desire for you to spend the rest of your lives enslaved to bogus religious delusions like Chritstianity.
You are aware the central and main claim of Christianity is the Resurrection of Jesus as historical event. However, there is no such historical evidence supporting those claims. This message is to alert you John Loftus' post at debunkingchristianity to a couple of books that will challenge your faith in the resurrection of Jesus by showing how weak that historical case actually is. Don't waste your lives on the Christian delusion.
Price and Lowder's book is well worth the money and McCormick's book is highly recommended.
The argument I posted yesterday is not for strong atheism. Rather it only contends against the God of Classical Theism, the triune God of Chistianity, or any other theistic God belief in a being of infinite scope that is also imagined as a finite person.
1.To be GOD, an entity must be an ontological person that is infinite in scope.
2.To be an ontological person is to have a specific identity.
3.To have a specific identity is to necessarily be finite.
4. The God of Classical or Christian Theism has a specific identity.
5. The God of Classical or Christian Theism therefore is necessarily finite and cannot be infinite.
6. By modus tollens from 1 and 5, The God of Classical or Christian Theism cannot be GOD as it cannot both be infinite and finite.
The argument is ineffective against belief that a non-personal God exists as imagined in Deism or in a poly-modal/personal but infinite God as imagined in Hinduism.
Another Episode of The Objectivist’s Desperate White-Knuckled Grip on the Illusions of His Own Making
Robert Can't-Distinguish-The-Difference-Between-Slogans-And-Arguments Bumbalough writes: "This is a straw man and a package deal. Objectivism holds that infinity is not actual as it is only a potential; you’re arguing against an imaginary Objectivism. Additionally, an infinite set cannot have identity because it's quantity can't be determined. An identity can be assigned to a conceptual symbol that represents the potential of infinity."
Yeah. Right. Unlike anything you've ever done here in regard to the things you’re arguing against, I actually stated Objectivism’s argument in its entirety in previous refutations, so blow off. Indeed, if one didn't know better, one would think I actually believed your crock with the passion and conviction I could give it. I actually make sure and demonstrate that I know what I’m arguing against. I don’t argue against straw men, straw man.
The Objectivist’s argument is specious. I’ve already shown that. The comments you’re complaining about pertain to the aftermath of it’s annihilation.
Yeah, that’s right. I already addressed the constituents of Objectivism’s irrational construct for identity. It’s an incoherent pile of odiferous categorical distortions and non sequiturs. But by all means, let’s assess the issue in a more detailed examination of the actual-potential dichotomy of identity.
(By the way, shut up about flame wars. There’s only four people in this wagon who have ever made any real attempt to exchange ideas in good faith, and you’re not one of them. Besides, stop embarrassing yourself: “Mama’s basement, go get laid.” Lame. You chumps can’t even muster an original insult.)
Why would one accept your presupposition that identity is categorically comparable to quantity alone at the exclusion of quality? Why is quality subordinate to quantity, and how can quantity define the whole? Is that your sensory perception showing? Zip it up. Quality goes to essence; quantity goes to extension. And quality is the higher order of things. You’re clearly mistaken. That’s what’s known as the logical fallacy of categorical hierarchy.
(But in any event, you’re talking about the quantities of the material realm of being. You’re not talking about the transcendent at all. Your construct of identity begs the question, doesn’t it? It’s the very same stupidity as DuhsonZero’s “Divine Lonesomeness,” only there he begs the question relative to the material realm of being in terms of the dichotomy of subject-object. God doesn’t exist because everything that exists is material. That’s all you’re really saying. Zoom! Right over! Stupid. Fallacious.)
Only actualities have potentialities. Material actualities are divisible and mutable. Hence, material potentialities are not imaginary or nonexistent things at all. The Objectivist is a very confused animal, indeed, incessantly violating the primacy of existence on the behalf of his finite consciousness.
A is A.
[continued . . .]
Material things either exist—in some form or another, in some state of being or another—
or they don’t. The potentialities of the material realm of being are the inherent existents of actualities. Such potentialities are no less real than extant actualities. They are the material existents contained within material actualities that are categorically distinct from and contingently subordinate to the extant state of material actualities at any given moment in time.
And all of humanity knows (except for the mathematically and scientifically illiterate rubes of Objectivism) that any divisible entity may be divided without end.
Infinite sets do have identity. You’re full of crap. You’re in need of a bowel movement or a lobotomy. (In your case, I’d opt for the latter.) The material realm of being is an infinitely divisible amalgamation of mass. (Hence, according to you, it has not identity and doesn’t exist.) And infinite sets are indispensable to the enterprises of mathematics and science, for the material realm of being (as all of humanity knows, except for the mathematically and scientifically illiterate rubes of Objectivism) is comprised of a countable, albeit, unknown number of subsets containing an uncountable number of infinities. And all of humanity knows (except for the mathematically and scientifically illiterate rubes of Objectivism) identity is predicated on both quality and quantity, and the former has primacy over the latter, as the nature of quality is essence while the nature of quantity is extension, and the extension of the material realm of being is infinitely divisible.
The conceptual sets of mathematics, including the uncountably infinite set of real numbers and the countably infinite set of integers, are (as all of humanity knows, except for the mathematically and scientifically illiterate rubes of Objectivism) indispensable to the enterprise of evaluating the concrete infinities of the material realm of being. Identity is not and cannot be premised on quantity alone, for all entities of the material realm of being are not (as all of humanity knows, except for the mathematically and scientifically illiterate rubes of Objectivism) the sum of their extant actuality, but the sum of their inherent potentialities.
[continued . . .]
For the sake of argument: as for the actualities that may or may not reside beyond the limits of sensory perception and, therefore, the limits of scientific inquiry/falsification, Peikoff’s argument is in fact premised on nothing more substantial than the tautologically obtuse banality that infinite consciousness does not exist because the only consciousness that exists is finite. In other words, he presupposes the unfalsifiable—namely, a metaphysical naturalism—as if he were not making a bald declaration of faith up and against the evidence of the concrete and mathematical infinities all around him suggesting otherwise.
It is at this point that DuhsonZero-Played-Like-A-Violin cries, “Foul! That’s not what Peikoff argued!”
Oh? Because the number of parts are always finite at any given moment in time, infinity has no identity and, therefore, no existence? Well, no one but dingbats violate the hierarchy of categorical distinctions by stupidly granting the primacy of quantity over quality with regard to the issue of identity in the first place, let alone imagine that the identity of materiality can be ascertained on the basis of quantity alone. And only dingbats imagine that they are disproving the existence of God when they are talking about the constituents of the material realm’s identity. So much for that. And the apprehension of the most recently achieved finite number of parts in the process of dividing by infinity is not that of a finite pile of rocks, but that of a finite pile of human consciousness.
And the finite number of parts apprehended at any given moment in time by that finite pile of human consciousness would be the very same finite number apprehended if it were an infinite consciousness doing the division. The operation never ends, ya dingbats! It goes on forever, and God would be able to divide any divisible entity without end. He goes on as long as He pleases, and there’s never any friggin’ zero in the set!
[continued . . .]
Behold the inexplicable tenacity of the Objectivist’s illusion. Behold how he desperately clings to that extant finite number—white-knuckled grip—even after being subliminally manipulated into demonstrating why its utterly irrelevant to the issue of God’s existence.
Of course one will never find in the centuries of philosophical thought a challenge against God’s existence on the basis of infinity or identity (let alone on the basis of the subject-object dichotomy: the imbecilic crock of “Divine Lonesomeness” found nowhere else but on this blog), except in the Johnny-come-lately drivel of the faux philosophy of Objectivism.
(“Don’t read Objectivism. Read real philosophy.” There’s a bumper sticker for ya, Justin, one that’s actually sensible.)
There’s nothing imaginary about the evidence. The mathematical infinities of the material realm of being are inescapable, and identity’s irreducible primary in regard to the dichotomy of conscious entities-inanimate entities is inescapable. The possibility of God’s existence cannot be rationally denied, and it is self-evident that God’s existence or nonexistence is not contingent upon the limitations of finiteness in any way, shape or form.
The term atheist says it all: the possibility of God’s existence is inescapable; the atheist acknowledges that fact every time he opens his filthy yap to deny there be any transcendent substance behind identity’s irreducible primary of origin.
God either exists beyond the material realm of being or He doesn’t, and there’s nothing on this side of the divide that undermines the conclusion that He must be. Indeed, the infinities all around us evince a linear line of logic leading to that very conclusion. Otherwise, what we have here are an infinite stream of mathematical axioms that obtain to both the material and the rational that are nonetheless gratuitous curiosities. And according to you, Robert Goal-Posts Bumbalough, the rational actualities are “encodings of embodied material particles” in our brains: concrete biochemical data, something all of humanity knows.
(Psst. With regard to the physiological aspect of consciousness, that’s the biblical position as well. Ah! The irony. How sweet is that?)
Only the stupid or intellectually dishonest fail to see that there is no paradox in regard to these actualities unless God doesn’t exist.
Atheism is the paradox, not theism.
Now, instead of spouting slogans in drive-bys in the place of direct argumentation as is your wont, how about addressing the obvious flaws in your logic that are readily self-evident to anyone with an IQ above that of a rash, which is to say, all of humanity except the mathematically and scientifically illiterate rubes of Objectivism.
END
Michael,
I wouldn't pay any attention to Robert. He's a nut case.
Photo,
Adios.
Robert Brain-Dead-Brainwashed-Objectivist-Who-Stupidly-Conflates-The-Categorically-And-Hierarchically-Distinct Bumbalough writes:
“1.To be GOD, an entity must be an ontological person that is infinite in scope.
2.To be an ontological person is to have a specific identity.
3.To have a specific identity is to necessarily be finite.
4. The God of Classical or Christian Theism has a specific identity.
5. The God of Classical or Christian Theism therefore is necessarily finite and cannot be infinite.
6. By modus tollens from 1 and 5, The God of Classical or Christian Theism cannot be GOD as it cannot both be infinite and finite.”
_____________________________
Michael, the incomparable master of subliminal suggestion writes:
1. God, as opposed to the material realm of being, is indivisible, immutable and has no beginning or end. That is His identity. Period.
3. Fallacious identity. Identity is not premised on quantity alone, and quality has primacy over quantity. But more to the point, as all of humanity knows, except for the question-begging dingbats of Objectivism, finiteness is the identity of the material realm of being, which is an infinitely divisible amalgamation of mass. Finiteness is not the essence of identity. Finiteness would be the nature of something identified. All you’re really saying is that nothing exists but the finite, a presupposition premised on an unfalsifiable metaphysical naturalism. Your. Argument. Is. The. Specious. Malarkey. Of. Dingbats. And. Is. Utterly. Destroyed. In. Greater. Detail. In. The. Above.
Next!
freedies_deadhead complains about theories of concepts. No, jackass, you dingbats don't want to talk about Judeo-Christianity's epistemology because you don't want to face the true first principles of apprehension. So we're talking about the malarkey of Objectivism's theory of conceptual banalities.
Michael wrote: (By the way, shut up about flame wars. There’s only four people in this wagon who have ever made any real attempt to exchange ideas in good faith, and you’re not one of them. Besides, stop embarrassing yourself: “Mama’s basement, go get laid.” Lame. You chumps can’t even muster an original insult.)
Ok, have it your way. Try this one on for size. Think back to your most humiliating childhood traumas. Whatever they were, they colored your subsequent self-image so you unconsciously choose activities that reinforced that bad self-image and then projected it onto others. Do you like that shit? Of course you do, because you see and think of yourself as a worthless person. That’s why you’ve belief in some sort of religious nonsense and desperately want to validate your faith through suffering as a martyr of sorts by conducting internet flame wars under the guise of apologetics.
Michael: Why would one accept your presupposition that identity is categorically comparable to quantity alone at the exclusion of quality?
In the past you asserted Judeo-Christianity rejected the analytic-synthetic dichotomy and thus that you also reject it. But here you’re attempting to smuggle in the ASD by asserting a floating abstraction fallacy. Qualities of infinite sets cannot be discovered empirically because the elements within the Set are not available, because the elements are not the Set. The Set is the grouping, the gestalt of the elements within. To exam the elements and infer a conclusion therefrom is to reason inductively, and thus according to you, begging the question as to all those many elements that cannot be inspected. Christianity rejects induction and observation as means of acquiring knowledge in favor of magic-just-knowing-without-knowing-how-they-know. Conclusions about qualities of infinite sets can only be adduced analytically by analysis of the definition of algorithms used to segregate numbers into the Set. As I mentioned previously, a number is defined as “the sum, total, count, or aggregate of a collection of units or the like.” If a number represents a concept of aggregate of a collection of units, then there must be specificity entailed by the concept of a particular number in order to distinguish various instances of (“the sum, total, count, or aggregate of a collection of units or the like”) one from another. This means recognition of specificity is necessarily required to conceptualize (“the sum, total, count, or aggregate of a collection of units or the like”) into the meaning of a particular number. Meanwhile, the gestalt of the Set are aggregate of a collection of units shared in common. Since quantity can only be obtained empirically or synthetically by inductive inspection and since only a small fraction of elements could be observed, then the quality of quantity of an infinite set cannot be known. Since identity is composed of both quantity and quality and neither can be adduced from observation of either Set boundary or internal elements, an infinite set has no identity, and your using the ASD to make the categorical distinction you mentioned. I suppose this is another instance of you being caught in a lie unless your use of ASD was unintentional.
This argument, stands, but it is not effective against Deism or Poly Modalism.
1.To be GOD, an entity must be an ontological person that is infinite in scope.
2.To be an ontological person is to have a specific identity.
3.To have a specific identity is to necessarily be finite.
4. The God of Classical or Christian Theism has a specific identity.
5. The God of Classical or Christian Theism therefore is necessarily finite and cannot be infinite.
6. By modus tollens from 1 and 5, The God of Classical or Christian Theism cannot be GOD as it cannot both be infinite and finite.
Michael fumbled in his own end zone.
God, as opposed to the material realm of being, is indivisible, immutable and has no beginning or end. That is His identity. Period.
The God notion is intrinsically self-contradictory. There can't be an entity that is immaterial, transcendent, and infinite. Immaterial means not made of anything, i.e.:, mass-energy, fields, space-time. Transcendent means no location in space-time, no dimensional specifications, no duration. Thus whoever and by whatever means asserts God is real is stealing concepts and selling a bogus package deal.
Michael says: Your. Argument. Is. The. Specious. Malarkey. Of. Dingbats. And. Is. Utterly. Destroyed. In. Greater. Detail. In. The. Above.
I say: Only in your dreams. That aside, I think you should post a detailed defense of your God belief on objectivistliving.com and freeratio.org.
Michael and remember you reject Hartle and Hawking's Wave Function of the Universe despite its acceptance by main stream physics and big league Christian apologists like Craig and Plantinga, so you reject the idea that something can come from nothing in the sense of nucleating from unconditional probabilities of possible worlds, or as Krauss wrote in "Universe From Nothing", Nothing is unstable.
This means you must account for where your alleged God came from. Please inform us as to your hypothesis of the origin of your God.
@Robert
Craig and Plantinga accept the Hartle/Hawking no boundry universe? really? That seems rather self defeating of them. I dont think either of them would make such a carless mistake or am I missing something completely?
Michael continues to bray,
«you dingbats don't want to talk about Judeo-Christianity's epistemology»
Actually Michael, it is you who does not want to talk about Christian epistemology. You have posted and repeated posts about everything but any attempt at getting to explaining Christian epistemology. Only one of your posts seemed to be attempting such thing, but it failed at providing any biblical support, besides starting with a series of bald assertions, unsubstantiated assertions, that you called "axioms." Therefore, it is you who not only does not want to talk about it, you rather create distractions to then blame us for your failures at presenting such a thing.
«because you don't want to face the true first principles of apprehension»
If there are such principles in Christianity, it should be easy for you to present them succinctly and let them speak for themselves as being the true principles of anything. Show us the biblical passages and let them show us how useless it would be to deny that those are the "true first principles of apprehension™." This should be easy of those are really Christian (they should be in the bible), axiomatic, and true principles. Shouldn't it?
So, be succinct, tell us in no equivocal terms what is it and where we find it in the Bible. Better yet, tell us where in the bible these things are. After all, you claim them to be clearly Christian. You don't want us to think that they are just eisegetes. Do you?
Come to think of it, if you were able, Michael, to repost so many times the same crap, all those distractions, what has stopped you from showing us "the true principles of apprehension™"? What has stopped you from presenting "authentic" Christian epistemology™? It's been at your fingertips all this time. But you rather keep wasting it on trying to save your ego (to no avail, since you only make it much worse).
So?
Hi Justin. Nice to chat with you. According to Quentin Smith, both Craig and Plantinga accept Hartle and Hawking's Wave Function Of The Universe as valid physics, but that they claim it is consistent with Theism. Smith shows it isn't.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/hawking.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/quantum.html
http://www.philoonline.org/library/smith_1_1.htm
@Robert
I don't think it would take much to show that. Anyone acquainted with the HH model would know that it passes through the horns of the infinite regress / created universe dilemma. The HH model in effect if true removes any room in existence for the god of gaps to hide in. It removes the biggest of all gaps, the question why is there something rather then nothing. If the question is invalid or meaningless, what need for god. I find it difficult to believe that men such as Craig and Plantinga don't also understand this, sure I am not missing something? I wonder how Craig and Plantinga conceptualize the HH model and if their understanding is invalid because clearly someones is. Either theirs or my own.
I will check out the links you posted, hopefully they will clear this up for me
Michael claims that Quality goes to essence; quantity goes to extension. And quality is the higher order of things.
A = A. The thing is what it is. This means the thing is all that it is. By claiming
(L) a categorical hierarchy relative to quality vs quantity,
Michael is using the Analytic-Synthetic dichotomy to redefine identity. This means he accepts and used the ASD contra his earlier assertions to the contrary in regards to rejecting Hartle and Hawking's Wave Function of the Universe. This he did to escape the paradox that arises from the conflict between the doctrine of creation ex nihilo's necessary supporting premise,
(M) "From nothing, nothing comes.)
and its necessary consequent,
(N) "God is not bound by logic."
Since (L) relative to (M) infers (N) implies dissolution of the Free Will Defense against the Problem of Evil. The earlier paradox I noted comes back into play, and Michael hangs himself on his own petard.
Two more comments by Michael, and in none does he present the Christian epistemology. Who is it then who does not want to talk about it?
Again Michael, if nobody stopped you from posting your crap, then why won't you post that Christian epistemology? What? There's no such thing? Ah! We suspected as much. Thanks.
Psst. Stow your Objectivist psychobabble. Nobody cares.
Robert Psychobabble Bumbalough incoherently blathers: “In the past you asserted Judeo-Christianity rejected the analytic-synthetic dichotomy and thus that you also reject it. But here you’re attempting to smuggle in the ASD by asserting a floating abstraction fallacy.”
Actually, you’re simply exposing the shallow depths of your reading in the history of ideas and events. Quit pretending. You’re store is not stocked with anything approaching the variety and volume of the merchandise sitting on the shelves in my store of knowledge about these things.
First, pay attention. I’m clearly talking about the material realm of being. Hence, I’m talking about the pertinent calculi of mathematics and science in the terms of their underlying metaphysics. In that context, the term quantity is the generic philosophical term for extension, i.e., measurement. Likewise, quality goes to essence, i.e., composition. Hence, I’m talking about the numeric values and chemistry of the material realm. Measurement does not yield identity, chemistry does. Measurement, a subdominant aspect of identity, tells us how much. Science, employing the calculi of mathematics, determines the identity of things on the basis of quality and quantity, not just quantity.
Identity and quantity are clearly not synonymous. Moreover, identity and finiteness are clearly not synonymous.
That renders the rest of your blather moot, irrelevant, a stupid waste of space. Rand is an idiot. Peikoff is an idiot. You’re an idiot. The only ones smuggling ASD in are you cultists as you stupidly assert the primacy of your finite consciousness against the obvious categorical logic and actualities of existence.
You’re dismissed.
The Cherry to Top the Sweet Smell of Objectivism’s Utter Annihilation
The mathematical operation of dividing any divisible entity an infinite number of times, an operation that has no end, is the preeminent mathematical revelation of God. There’s no friggin’ zero in the set, photoZero. There’s no friggin’ nothing’ at the end of the rainbow, photoConfusion. That’s the whole point! Aristotle understood that. The inspired authors of the Bible understood that. And by definition, guess what else has no end? God, of course. Indeed, by definition, He has no beginning. That’s the whole point! There is no end to this rainbow, photo-I-Confused-Division-With-Subtraction-And-It-Flew-Right-Over-My-Head. You too, DuhsonZeroDingbat.
Now, as I’ve shown, and as you have all now finally acknowledge for the first time after being caught out for dufuses, confounding subtraction with division, we readily apprehend that any divisible entity may be divided without end, but not by us. Hence, there must be Someone Who can. Otherwise, what we have here is an indispensable axiom that is cogent, yet gratuitously paradoxical.
Why conclude the paradoxical? Why render the logic of existence irrational?
Answer: Because you dingbats are not holding to the principle that existence has primacy over finite consciousness at all. Instead, you’re asserting the primacy of finite consciousness, namely, yours, over existence: there is no infinite consciousness because finite consciousness is the only consciousness that exists. Really? Begging the question? Irrationally violating the standard rules of logic and calling it reason, unjustifiably turning mathematical axioms into paradoxes?
The other thing that’s blowing your minds is how God would continue to divide the material realm of being down to the nothing it was apart from Him before He created it. Well, first of all, He wouldn’t, that is to say, division is not the process of divisionally reducing something down to nothing. It never was, was it photoZero and DuhsonZero? The process of division is not the eradication of something; it‘s the partitioning of something.
As I wrote in the above, the conceptualization of infinite division in the cosmological terms of theology is an analogical cognition of a material something as opposed to a material nothing. Hence, what we’re talking about here is the divisional reduction of the material realm of being from something to nothing; which is to say, we’re not talking about division at all, but subtraction. And now you clowns are finally on record conceding that you had the two mathematical operations confused all this time in your heads, imagining things. First you dufuses tried to make me out to be the dufus over the actualities of division by infinity. Oops. Busted! Now you dufuses are trying to make me out to be the dufus over the actualities of subtraction. Oops. You’re imagining things again, things never written, as a result of not following the actual logic and the meaning of the various expressions relative to ultimate actualities.
Zoom! Right over! Objectivists don’t think; they spout slogans.
(Does it burn?)
As soon as I noted that Michael had posted two more comments, none of them containing anything about Christian epistemology, he erased one, and reposted it after my note. Quite convenient, isn't it?
If you could do that Michael, delete and repost, what is stopping you from posting about Christian epistemology? There's no such thing? Ah! We suspected as much. Thanks!
[continued . . .]
Strange. My experience of reality is dramatically different than that of the Objectivist. It would seem that all kinds of fantastic things can occur in his world of “reason.” The last time I divided a loaf of bread, for example, I still had two halves of a whole. I don’t recall one of them ceasing to exist.
(There’s no friggin’ zero in the set!)
And given the immutability, indivisibility and eternally self-subsistence of divinitus perfectus: This spirit of pure consciousness that has no beginning or end could quite easily wile away eternity dividing that which is contingently divisible for as along as He pleased. No sweat. It’s elementary, Dear Dufuses.
The duration of the process of mere division is endless; the duration of divisionally reducing (or eliminating) something to nothing is arbitrary; therefore, the latter could be concluded at any moment after the first instance of division. Any further acts of division would have no bearing on the matter whatsoever. I knew if I stated the distinction to you cultist in those terms, given your inclination to let the likes of Peikoff do your thinking for you, it would fly right over your heads.
*crickets chirping*
All this time, all of you with your bigoted, closed-minded, univocally stunted thought processes have been utterly incognizant of a very simple and obvious distinction: the difference between division and subtraction. When dealing with fools who care nothing about truth and decency, you give them reams of rope before you tie the noose and toss it over the tree branch. I’ve been miles and miles ahead of every swinging one of ya from the beginning. The spectacle of Robert Goal-Posts Bumbalough’s depravity was especially helpful.
I told you before, DuhsonZero, that I had been observing your site for sometime. Well, I can’t close your blog or Objectivism down, but I can exponentially expose them for the banality that they are to thousands with just over a dozen friendly observers in this age of virtually instantaneous communication.
What a laughingstock!
“Divine Lonesomeness.” Existence exists! Causality presupposes existence! (Duh! The obvious nancing about as profundity. . . .) Infinite consciousness doesn’t exist because the only consciousness that exists is finite consciousness, begging the question, a tautological non sequitur. The quotient is zero, yet n is divided without end. The QV is a metaphysical nothingness. Appeal to authority. Unpredictability negates causality. Science negates the transcendent. The objects of sensory perception are the cognitive limits of actuality and reason. A creator needs a creator. Functions are variables, and their limits are not operationally limitless in essence. Limit theorems are proofs. Division is subtraction, subtraction is division. Goal Posts. The operational aspects of identity are not universal. Nothing exists beyond the material, yet the Objectivist’s concept of consciousness is not that of materialism/physicalism: “encodings of embodied material particles”, concrete biochemical data. Hume. The Objectivist is forever spouting unlearned and irrational nonsense akin to two plus two is five, or two plus three is four.
*crickets chirping*
[continued . . .]
But let’s talk about subtraction. In metaphysical/existential terms, relative to finite consciousness, one does not actually subtract something from something and make it nothing . . . unless one is an Objectivist, apparently. That is to say, beyond the math of the standard numeric value system, one does not actually have two apples and subtract these two apples from themselves and make them nothing. One does not take the energy and matter of two apples and cause them to become nothing in violation of the law of conservation. Finite consciousness cannot do this. That’s why when subtraction is related to the world of things beyond the encoded zero (or the nothing) of the standard mathematics “embodied in material particles” (concrete biochemical data) in our brains, we talk about “taking some portion away from a whole.” Where does the portion taken away go?
When photoZero or DuhsonZero have two apples and eat them, they “take the apples away.” The act of eating the apples does not cause their material substance to become nothing, but something else. The matter and energy of the apples undergo a change. Later, photoZero and DuhsonZero have a bowel movement and excrete a portion of this matter and energy in the form of an odoriferous pile of idiocy, like how division and subtraction are the same mathematical process or how cogent mathematical axioms are gratuitous paradoxes.
(In the meantime, back in the real world of sound reasoning, all of the mathematical operations and the geometric forms scream God’s existence. The infinite number line, no beginning or end. Indeed, the numeric distance between any two integers on the number line is undeterminably infinite, uncountable.)
But seriously, what we have here is a world of material things that are finite and mutable, contingently subject to be one thing or another at any given moment in time. Given the temporal nature and state of the material realm of things, what might that suggest about its duration or origin? What does that pesky, though logically indispensable, zero in the numeric value system of standard mathematics, that we just can’t get out of our heads and some can’t rightly understand, suggest about origin?
Oh, we can reckon five minus five equals nothing or that five minus ten equals less than nothing, but we can’t effectuate that reckoning in the material realm of things in any tangible sense. However, we can reckon that beyond this cosmos there is no material realm of being, a nothingness or a something less than nothingness. But wait! Nothingness or more nothingness? A something that is nothing or a something that is more than nothing?
Absurdity!
Are there more cosmic domains beyond this one or is there just the gravitational energy of the quantum vacuum? Is that a something suspended in nothing or a nothing proceeded by something?
Absurdity!
Hum! One more and no Christian epistemology! We know there's no such thing Michael, but admitting that there's no such thing long ago would have sufficed.
[continued . . .]
Nope, regardless of what may or may not reside beyond our universe, the only sensible thing we can say—for here we are!—is that something has always existed and that nothing is apparently impossible. Do we avoid the irrational by asserting that? Apparently, for it poses no immediate contradictions, and here we are! But do we escape the paradoxical in terms of assigning a location or a boundary to this something? Well, perhaps not from the perspective of finite consciousness. But then again, here we are!
Further, the being of divinitus perfectus could continuously create whatever He pleases, including an infinite chain of successive cosmological domains out of a quantum vacuum or not. That’s why an infinitely regressive conceptualization of the material realm of being can’t lay a glove on the construct of divinity, and there’s certainly nothing in the Bible that precludes that cosmological possibility. The only challenge to the existence of God that can stick entails indemonstrable absurdities that are no less absurd, as I have shown, when applied to the problem of accounting for the material realm of being.
Here we are!
Only fools make baby talk about how a something is actually a metaphysical nothing or does not constitute a metaphysical cause. Talk about imposing the primacy of finite consciousness against existence! Indeed, only fools or scientifically illiterate buffoons conflate unpredictability (or uncertainty) with the eradication of the inescapable necessity of causality as if they were categorically synonymous things. Indeed, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle at the subatomic level of being where general relativity breaks down does not and cannot assert any such thing. Robert Goal-Posts-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence Bumbalough knows very well that I busted him asserting a scientifically false and incredibly stupid thing. That’s why he ran away from my post.
*crickets chirping*
Indeed, conflating the limitations of sensory perception and, therefore, the boundaries of legitimate scientific inquiry with the nonexistence of the transcendent as if they were categorically synonymous things is a most unscientific and incredibly stupid thing to do as well. Robert Goal-Posts-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence Bumbalough knows he was busted for that too and ran away.
*crickets chirping*
Indeed, given that both logic and science necessarily presuppose the eternality of causality, the most rational conclusion with regard to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is that we simply don’t know enough at this point in history to resolve the chain of cause-and-effect beyond the reach of general relativity. What appears at this point to be unpredictable, may not in actuality be unpredictable at all. Heisenberg knew that and never asserted anything beyond that. It’s self-evident.
[continued . . .]
Indeed, both the work of the pioneers of quantum physics (Planck, Heisenger, de Broglie, Kennard, Schrodinger, Lorentz . . .) and that of others since have already resolved a number of previous “mysterious” in terms of cause and predictability, though we are still very far away from resolving the position-momentum dichotomy. But we have since learned that the uncertainty principle is a universal property of all wave-like systems and not related to the oberserver effect of instrumental measurement, which demonstrates that the problem is not necessarily, technologically or scientifically, irresolvable after all, as was once thought.
*crickets chirping*
How ya likin’ me now, Robert Goal-Posts-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence Bumbalough?
*crickets chirping*
Indeed, what if from this side of the big bang, from this side of the limits of sensory perception and scientific falsification, we can never resolve the matter . . . does that undermine or affirm the reasonableness of concluding that God must be relative to the inescapable necessity of causality, Robert Goal-Posts-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence Bumbalough? How do you figure your trash talk obtains, let alone proves, anything whatsoever either way, Robert Goal-Posts-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence Bumbalough?
Answer: it doesn’t, Robert Goal-Posts-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence Bumbalough. You’re just making irrational baby talk about things you really don’t understand or haven’t thought through, Robert Goal-Posts-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence Bumbalough
*crickets chirping*
Further, there is no creator required for the divinitus perfectus of universal apprehension, a pure spirit of consciousness, immutable, indivisible and having no beginning or end. That’s why the ad absurdum of infinite regression cannot be rationally applied to the idea of God. To say that there is a greater thing than the greatest conceivable thing, or that the greatest conceivable thing requires a cause is to acknowledge that the idea of God is not subject to infinite regression. Such assertions are inherently contradictory and self-negating, proving the fact the idea of God is the greatest conceivable thing contingent to nothing, let alone a previous cause. That’s an axiomatic, self-evident tautology of necessity. There’s nothing circular about that.
Peikoff’s argument is stupid.
*crickets chirping*
[continued . . .]
And DuhsonZero-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence’s claim regarding the necessity of wading through a hierarchical layer of concepts before we arrive at the problem of origin is utter claptrap. Talk about denying the immediate axioms of being!
Something exists doesn’t tell us what exists beyond consciousness and the inanimate. Oops! Identity! Hence, the immediate and irreducible primary of being: that which is conscious and that which is not. Of course, the Objectivist thinks to get around this by claiming that consciousness and the inanimate are inseparable, never mind his unjustified leap over the cognitive apriority that he is merely presupposing a metaphysical naturalism out of turn. Talk about violating “the due process” of concept formation.
(Theory of concepts!)
The apprehension that something exists and the apprehension that human consciousness exists yields nothing more than the apprehension that human consciousness doesn’t have primacy, and the assertion that human consciousness does not have primacy doesn’t not yield the assertion that existence has primacy over consciousness.
1. Existence has primacy over our consciousness.
2. Existence, therefore, has primacy over consciousness.
Foul! These are two distinctly different assertions, and the latter clearly does not follow from the former. In fact, the latter is meaningless in the absence of any definitive determination regarding the nature and extent of what exists beyond our consciousness and the inanimate entities of apprehension.
We need go no farther. There is no hierarchy of cognition or concepts standing in our way whatsoever: either consciousness or the inanimate have existed forever, with the third alternative being a combination of the two.
The idea of God imposes itself on our minds without the latter willing that it do so. The idea objectively exists in and of itself. It is not a derivative of human culture, but an axiomatic cognition. And the atheists acknowledges the truth of this every time he opens his yap to deny there be any substance behind the idea. The possibility cannot be rationally denied. The flat-out denial of God’s existence is nothing more than the irrational fanaticism of sheer faith, not reason, predicated on nothing more substantial than an unjustified presupposition of a metaphysical naturalism.
On the other hand, we know the material realm is a chain of cause and effect, its latest expression or state of being always contingently arising from a previous expression or state of being. To reckon the matter any other way: once again, absurdity! That’s why Hawking et al. are so desperately and irrationally trying to tell us that the unfalsifiable substratum of their theoretical origination is a a metaphysical nothing, even though it clearly is a metaphysical something of cause. Actually, I believe, from all indications, that a substratum of gravitational energy in a quantum vacuum does lie beyond our cosmological domain. Moreover, the idea that our domain is but one of many, many others is quite possible and perhaps even probable.
Again, that is not a problem for the Bible at all.
Poor Robert Pseudo-Science Bumbalough, he thought it was. How disappointing.
*crickets chirping*
Oh, OK, Michael is making a display of his stupidity with another series of posts, none containing anything about Christian epistemology. Noted Mike. Carry on showing that you don't want to talk about it. You will blame us for it by the end, right? Yeah, we knew. Since there's no such thing as Christian epistemology you have to create distractions from your failures. We've got it. Not to worry, we've got it.
[continued . . .]
______________________________
As for symmetry mathematics, relative to the issue of creation ex nihilo and, consequently, the temporal nature of the material realm of being, the systematic eradication of the latter can be mathematically conceptualized by finite consciousness via a dimensionally top-down or bottom-up process of elimination. The math is staggeringly complex. The abstract on it is pages long. Mastering a bit of it at a time and then the reconfigured whole: it took me weeks to grasp it. However, it may be analogously understood in terms of the real number line by observing that the infinite string of integers on either side of zero in a direct, one-to-one, corresponding succession of cancellation ultimately yields zero: {. . .-4, -3, -2, -1} + {1, 2, 3, 4 . . .} = 0. Zero acquires the value of infinity.
After that, with a shift in perspective, one can now proceed with the understanding that 0 actually contains all the numbers of the infinite string, and the closer one gets to zero on either side of it, the greater the value of the number. From there, one can devise any equation or perform any mathematical calculation one pleases. The placement of the integers along the line and the rules governing the various operations applied to them are the same as those of standard mathematics, but because the relationships and, consequently, the values of the integers are correspondingly inversed, the outcomes of their calculi are dramatically different. There’s also a spatially dimensional aspect to this shift in perspective in terms of the reckoning that 0 not only encompasses all numbers, but all that exists, wherein nothing is mathematically impossible. In symmetry mathematics, nothing is an absurdity just like it is in the practical realities of conceptual reason.
END
And, as predicted, no Christian epistemology to be found in Michael's latest set of bullshit. Only his misinformed and misunderstood math, and straw-men of objectivism.
Michael: don't look now, but your delusion is showing. You typed:
, it may be analogously understood in terms of the real number line by observing that the infinite string of integers on either side of zero in a direct, one-to-one, corresponding succession of cancellation ultimately yields zero
Numbers cannot be observed. They are abstract concepts derived from abstractions that only occur in context of biological cognition. You're claim here is yet another floating abstraction.
Richard, you asked about photoLooney’s behavior yesterday.
He’s just desperately embarrassed. He's trying to save face. While the others don't care that he lies, he's butt hurt over getting burned down by us over zero.
He actually believed that we were that stupid and wouldn’t bust him. Atheists just can't stand it when theists wipe the floor with them or prove to be more intelligent and knowledgeable. They think that's their domain. You know, because theists are so stuuuuupid. LOL!
Robert started out shooting science talk at me. He really thought he would have dance on me. Note, that it only took of few shots from me back at him to make him back off. LOL! Truth is, I can tell just from the things he’s written that I’m miles down the road from him on that score. ‘Course if he wasn’t so arrogantly stupid about things, he would have had enough wisdom to check out my blog first. There he would have found my article on abiogenesis. That alone would have told him that he wasn’t dealing with just any ol’ average joe, one who, by the way, clearly does have a handle on higher mathematics in his own right . . . long before he showed up on this blog.
(Psst. PhotoZero, what a fool you are.)
Not that I go much into the mathematics as such in the article, as I was trying to keep things within the range of the average reader. So the math was related in English, so to speak. But anyone who actually has my level of knowledge on the matter would know that in order to competently write about it some pretty complex calculations of higher mathematics were being conducted by me off screen with regard to the chemistry. Like leftists in general, atheists think they're smarter than everybody else, even though the most incredibly stupid stream of crap flows from their pie holes day and night.
But that’s just my egotism talking. How dare I assert my credentials in the face of their sense of superiority! LOL!
Robert-Connotation-Challenged writes: "Numbers cannot be observed."
What an idiot.
Michael continues embarrassing himself mistaking mathematical terms. Inventing mathematical sophistry, denying his own constructs for "divine perfection," "arguing" by inventing "credentials," but has he shown any Christian epistemology? Nope. Of course we know why, because there's no such thing. Yet, he will take any opportunity to blame us for his failure at presenting his non-existent Christian epistemology under the irony that it is him who does not want to talk about it. Lest it gets to be known in no equivocal terms, that there is no such thing.
«one who, by the way, clearly does have a handle on higher mathematics in his own right . . . long before he showed up on this blog»
Sure Michael. This is why it took you a few weeks to grasp the concept of quotient, which you came so proud to display:
«Daddy, daddy, the quotient is the result of division, not the mathematical operation of division!»
And a month to read about limits, only to mistake the limits with the operations to figuring out the limits.
Then a few more days to mistake equations, constants and variables, to later buy into some of that mumbo-jumbo sophistry called numerology, to then call all that bullshit "mastery of higher mathematics."
Sure that's why besides taking you that long just to grasp the basics of arithmetics, and gain enough vocabulary to pretend to understand limits and equations, which you showed not to understand at all, you started listing mathematical fields as a mode of intimidation thinking that nobody here ever heard of "algebra," or "trigonometry," just because you had just learned those terms.
What next Michael? Will you try to intimidate us by writing such terms as "algorithm," "differential equations," "linear algebra," and more math specialized fields, while you continue to mistake one for the other and the proper terms to refer to mathematical parts of equations with the equations themselves? or while you mistake procedures for results?
What about instead of embarrassing yourself that way you presented in no equivocal terms that Christian epistemology? No such thing? Ah! We suspected as much. Thanks for confirming!
Michael brayed,
«But that’s just my egotism talking»
Naaaaaaah! Really? We would have never guessed!
Michael just continues braying never to present any such thing as Christian epistemology:
«How dare I assert my credentials in the face of their sense of superiority! LOL!»
Sure, because it is us who constantly talk about our credentials, Michael would never do that ... Hey! He does! Have I ever insisted on my credentials? Let me see ... nope. Not once.
As I said, if Michael has any expertise, it's undeniably in shovelling his own shit back up his own ass, and blowing up his ass in the process.
What about that Christian epistemology, Michael? No such thing? Ah! We suspected as much. Thanks for confirming!
What an idiot you are, photoZero. By all means, let's discuss Christianity's epistemology. We begin with the first principles of apprehensible being. That is the starting point of any legitimate conceptual theory, an understanding you stupidly think is unique to Objectivism. All of humanity knows that's where epistemology begins. And I just destroyed the foundation of atheism’s: a mangled jumble of irrational claptrap. Identity is quantity. Finiteness is Identity. Morons. Pseudo-scientific claptrap about quantity wherein apparently chemistry is tossed from the mix. Idiots. Mathematically and scientifically illiterate jackasses. Hence, we have the justification for concluding that God must be. You were given the epistemology a long time ago along with scripture, and you’re not really interested in accurately understanding it. Ydemoc is the only one who has made any real attempt in good faith to give it a try. So you get nothing more from me on that score. What you’re wanting is a more detailed scriptural exegesis, but not so that you might understand. No. You just want something to mock and trivialize.
Now, with the cherry, you have the foundation. I kept my word. That completes it. If you want a more detailed biblical exegesis beyond the biblical outline that was given, you’ll have to come to my blog and behave yourself. And of course you’re not going to do that. You’re a liar. So go on stupidly telling yourself I never gave to you. That’s all you ever wanted to claim all along.
SOCIOPATHS.
I gave my word. I kept my word. It’s done.
Hi Justin,
I saw your messages - thanks for sending those. I haven't looked at them yet. I must have had a hundred new messages in my inbox this morning when I got up - including all this wonderful activity on my blog! How delicious! Having my coffee now and working on some responses to the latest rash of idiocy from the Jesus cult reps.
Regards,
Dawson
Robert wrote:
<< When Nidiot first started commenting, I thought him to be a fraud seeking to bait others, then I realized that his lack of intelligence was genuine. Then I felt sympathy for him as I would for a wounded animal. That changed when I learned of his stalking activity on this blog. Then I tried to dissuade him by posting angry rebuttals. Then his foolishness became rather amusing in discussions that ended when Nidiot decided to take Chris Bolt's advice to cease interaction due to Nidiot's very poor apologetics performance seriously. I'm surprised he is still about. Most people would find some other activity with which to occupy themselves. >>
That was a beautiful summary, Robert. It elegantly captures all the essentials in a succinct little snippet. It also brought back some fond memories and gave me additional things to smile about in life.
Regards,
Dawson
Michael bawled: “freedies_deadhead complains about theories of concepts. No, jackass, you dingbats don't want to talk about Judeo-Christianity's epistemology because you don't want to face the true first principles of apprehension. So we're talking about the malarkey of Objectivism's theory of conceptual banalities.”
Again, Michael, the question which you still have yet to address is:
What can we learn about the nature of concepts and the process by which the human mind forms them from the bible?
Naturally, you’ll need to cite direct references to the biblical text, either the Old or the New Testament, or both, to meet this challenge.
Since some time ago you insisted that Christianity does have its own theory of concepts (it’s been a while since you affirmed this, so perhaps you’ve reconsidered), I would suggest by starting out with a definition: what is the Christian definition of ‘concept’, and what biblical passage, if any, informs this definition?
I have searched the bible for knowledge to be gained about concepts and the process by which the human mind forms them, and have found nothing. Perhaps I missed something. I’m asking for your help. If there’s something there I’ve missed, please bring it out into the open.
Again, we’re not interested in extra-biblical authors eisegetically massaging biblical passages to make them seem like they somehow say something that is plainly not in the original passage.
So you have your work cut out for you. I frankly think you’re wasting your time. But if you still want to insist that Christianity has its own theory of concepts, let’s see it.
Regards,
Dawson
It seems that Michael has applied at least a portion of Nidiot’s bumper-sticker advice, namely “don’t read Objectivism.” For when Michael tries to argue against Objectivism, it’s clear he is unfamiliar with what Objectivism teaches, even after all the effort folks on this board have made to educate his mentally-deficient intellect about Objectivism. Perhaps the M.D. in M.D. Rawlings really does stand for mentally-deficient, for this is the name Michael is making for himself with his antics. If Michael doesn’t read Objectivism, how can he profess to know what it teaches? Blank out.
The other statement in Michael’s bumper-sticker worldview is: “Read real philosophy.” But Michael is a Christian, at least he has professed to be one (it’s actually very difficult to tell this from his behavior and conversation other than his self-identification as a Christian). So for a Christian, what would constitute “real philosophy”? Ah, yes, I’m supposing that would be the collection of fantasy literature known as the Old and New Testaments. In that literature we read about invisible magic beings, a universe analogous to a cartoon, a bunch of bungling primitives championed as “heroes” who obsess over whether or not to circumcise their cult members and who worry about arbitrary dietary ordinances, who squabble about the proper way to be initiated into the cult, whether it is through obedience to rules, ritualistically dunking themselves in water, simple incantations of confession, etc. This is “real philosophy” for the Christian.
So the Christian’s bumper-sticker worldview amounts to an injunction insisting on keeping its cult members ignorant of what secular worldviews teach (“Don’t read Objectivism”) and to treat the primitive fantasy literature of the bible as though it had pertinent intellectual value (“Read real philosophy”).
[continued…]
Mentally-Deficient writes: “And DuhsonZero-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence’s claim regarding the necessity of wading through a hierarchical layer of concepts before we arrive at the problem of origin is utter claptrap. Talk about denying the immediate axioms of being!”
Hmmm… let’s see here. Objectivism affirms the axioms of existence, identity and consciousness, and explicitly recognizes the primacy of existence over consciousness – i.e., the basic fact that wishing doesn’t make it so. Well, there’s no “denying the immediate axioms of being” here. But I can see why someone who wants to pretend that the fantasy literature of the bible is “real philosophy” would find Objectivism personally offensive. And Mentally-Deficient’s own reactions are the reactions of someone who is personally offended. Indeed, he reacts like someone who just got a new tattoo covering his face and neck and his peers tell him it was a stupid thing to do. He’s already made the investment and has to live with it, but instead of admitting that it was a stupid thing to do, he gets angry at his peers and unleashes his contempt, which he’s been harboring for himself for who knows how long, at them.
As for Mentally-Deficient’s rash (and irrational) dismissal of the hierarchy of concepts, this is to be expected. Just as mystics resent being reminded of the primacy of existence, they also resent being reminded that what they have accepted as “knowledge” has no mooring in reality. Again, Mentally-Deficient’s worldview fails to provide him with any understanding of what concepts are and how the human mind forms them (if you recall, he thinks it’s “automatic”). So it stands to reason that he would not understand the hierarchical nature of knowledge, even when it is pointed out to him. Again, he’s personally offended by views which challenge his confessional investment in the fantasy literature of his cult’s primitive forebears.
But there is an easy way to check this. Mentally-Deficient affirms something called “the problem of origin” and he seems to think this problem of his is an “axiom of being.” So let us ask some questions:
1. To what object of immediate awareness does the concept ‘problem’ refer?
2. To what object of immediate awareness does the concept ‘origin’ refer?
3. What is the definition of ‘problem’?
4. What is the definition of ‘origin’?
5. Where did Mentally-Deficient get the concept ‘problem’?
6. Where did Mentally-Deficient get the concept ‘origin’?
Addressing these questions will help Mentally-Deficient find the proper position of these concepts in the conceptual hierarchy. I’m guessing he won’t allow himself to tackle these questions, and given his worldview’s ignorance of concepts, he really has nothing to reliably guide him in answering them. But I’m sure even his faltering attempts to consider them would help reveal the fact that “the problem of origin” is nothing close to axiomatic.
Now we should remember that in the previous blog’s comments, Ydemoc challenged Mentally-Deficient to identify the criteria by which his (Mentally-Deficient’s) worldview qualifies an item of knowledge as axiomatic. Also, we should remember that Mentally-Deficient never identified those criteria. And lastly, we should remember that such nonsense should not surprise us, especially given what Mentally-Deficient presumably takes as “real philosophy” grounded in the faux bedrock of “We know without knowing how we know.”
Regards,
Dawson
«you’ll have to come to my blog and behave yourself»
Oh right, because Michael has "behaved himself" in this blog. What a fucking hypocrite.
«So go on stupidly telling yourself I never gave to you»
You never did. You gave us a loadshit of bald assertions, which, by your own standards, would constitute pure nonsense. You called those bald assertions "axioms." You gave some biblical citations that far from stating what your bald assertions stated, were unrelated (which Dawson documented quite well).
So that was it. One little attempt, perhaps a couple more if we count some other lists of bald assertions that you wanted to sell again as axioms yet again. That is easily dwarfed into almost nothing by your many misguided attempts at presenting yourself as a giant of mathematics. You had promised Christian epistemology and Christian theory of concepts, and instead you gave us all that bullshit about math-infinity-to-divine-perfection. You took care to learn a bit of math-related vocabulary, and some math-ish sophistry, and got obsessed in presenting that shit. But you could not take care to try and present that claimed Christian epistemology and that claimed Christian theory of concepts in no equivocal terms and directly backed up by the Bible. That tells a lot about both your promises and your priorities: you have no integrity and your ego is first. See?
So, yes, you gave your word, but you did not keep it.
Am I going to your blog? Nope. You came here with a promise. Instead you showed not to have the slightest integrity. If that's all you have then fine. Not that we are surprised. There's no Christian epistemology, and there's no Christian theory of concepts. Your refusal to present any of them tells us that much. So, if you want to call that "keeping your word," then fine. No need for further discussion. You could have saved a lot of time and embarrassment by just admitting so from the very beginning.
Photo wrote: “Come to think of it, if you were able, Michael, to repost so many times the same crap, all those distractions, what has stopped you from showing us ‘the true principles of apprehension™’? What has stopped you from presenting ‘authentic’ Christian epistemology™? It's been at your fingertips all this time. But you rather keep wasting it on trying to save your ego (to no avail, since you only make it much worse).”
Indeed, indeed, indeed!!! Where is this “Christian epistemology”????
These questions have been on the floor since Mentally-Deficient first started posting on my blog. Here I re-post my very first response to M.D. Rawlings from 4 Nov., on this blog:
[continued…]
[QUOTE]
You wrote: “Rand never properly understood Christian epistemology.”
Several questions:
1. Just what exactly *is* “Christian epistemology”? Where can it be found? What does it teach? What does it say knowledge is? What does it say about concepts? What is the process which “Christian epistemology” endorses, and how does it work?
2. Who “properly” understands what you call “Christian epistemology”? There are hundreds if not thousands of different (and often opposing) versions of Christianity as such. For a Christian to say that he understands “Christian epistemology” (as though there were such a thing) means that he is saying that other professing Christians do not understand it.
3. Where precisely does Rand speak on “Christian epistemology,” and how exactly does she get it wrong?
You wrote: “Christianity does not hold that finite consciousness has primacy over reality.”
Again, several questions:
1. Where does “Christianity” state this? Is it in the bible?
2. What about faith? What about prayer? What about belief unto salvation? What about soothsayers and workers of evil wonders? Should we just chuck out everything the bible says?
3. Arbitrary hair-splitting aside, it makes no difference when Christians affirm an imaginary distinction between “finite consciousness” and “infinite consciousness.” If Christianity presumes *any* consciousness holding metaphysical primacy over its objects, then Christianity assumes the truth of the primacy of consciousness metaphysics. There’s no getting out of this for the Christian.
You wrote: “And like Objectivism, Christianity rejects the rationalist-empiricist dichotomy as a false alternative.”
1. Where exactly does “Christianity” reject the rationalist-empiricist dichotomy?
2. If such a rejection as such is not to be found in the bible, who or what can speak on behalf of what Christianity does or does not reject?
3. It may be possible that the bible does not explicitly affirm either horn of the rationalist-empiricist dichotomy, while various defenses of the Christian worldview may in fact affirm one or the other. Instances of philosophical inconsistency within Christendom are not a surprising feature.
4. Christianity certainly does not affirm the objective alternative to the rationalist-empiricist dichotomy, for to do so would require a full understanding of the objective theory of concepts, and Christianity has *no* theory of concepts to begin with (let alone an *objective* theory of concepts).
[continued…]
You wrote: “It emphatically rejects an unqualified Cartesian rationalism and is particularly unimpressed with Kantian subjectivism.”
Where does classical Christianity show any awareness of Cartesian and/or Kantian metaphysics? I’m curious.
You wrote: “Equating revealed religion to ‘imagination’ merely begs the question, i.e., presupposes an ontological materialism which cannot be empirically demonstrated in any sense whatsoever.”
Again, numerous problems here:
1. It is not clear that (nor do you explain how) “equating revealed religion to ‘imagination’… presupposes an ontological materialism.” I am aware of no overt inconsistency if a non-materialist equates revealed religion to imagination.
2. Objectivism would be right to reject such a charge as committing the fallacy of the stolen concept, for materialism is fundamentally distinguished by a rejection (de facto or de jure) of the axiom of consciousness while the concept of imagination presupposes the reality of consciousness. Someone “equating” revealed religion with imagination could not report an internally consistent materialist metaphysics.
3. As an objection against Objectivism, this point fails, for Objectivism does not “equate” religion (revealed or otherwise) with imagination. Rather, Objectivism recognizes that religion subsists fundamentally on ignoring the fundamental distinction between reality and imagination. I’ve highlighted this fact in numerous entries on my blog.
You wrote: “The ‘reality’ on which the Objectivist stakes all being is strictly a matter of faith.”
Statements like this indicate that you have no firsthand understanding of what Objectivism teaches, or at worst are simply not being honest to what Objectivism does in fact teach. Objectivism couldn’t be any clearer in its recognition of reality as explicitly *mind-independent*. It is not something that is “strictly a matter of faith,” nor does Objectivism in any way “stake… all being” on a reality which is “strictly a matter of faith.” Faith has nothing to do with what reality is or our means of perceiving and identifying it.
You wrote: “The Objectivist just thinks he can escape the metaphysical imperative of the human condition with an arbitrary contrivance . . . nothing more than a rhetorical slight of hand, really.”
What is “the metaphysical imperative of the human condition,” and what specifically do you think Objectivists are doing which suggests that they are trying to “escape” it “with an arbitrary contrivance”? What exactly do you mean by “arbitrary” and where did you get this concept? What specifically would a “Christian epistemology” have against anything that is arbitrary?
If your comments are at all an indication of your level of understanding of Objectivism, then I see no reason to bother exploring the link you provided.
Regards,
Dawson
[UNQUOTE]
M.D. Rawlings Bawled: “How dare I assert my credentials in the face of their sense of superiority! LOL!”
Photo responded: “Sure, because it is us who constantly talk about our credentials, Michael would never do that ... Hey! He does! Have I ever insisted on my credentials? Let me see ... nope. Not once.”
This made me laugh so hard that my coffee almost went shooting out my nose!
Good grief, this guy M.D. Rawlings is a real basket case. Perhaps it’s shell-shock from his army days. I thought Nidiot took the cake as the looniest of loonies. But clearly Nidiot has stiff competition!
Photo asked: “What about that Christian epistemology, Michael? No such thing? Ah! We suspected as much. Thanks for confirming!”
This seems to be the case. I’ve been watching for anything that tells us how the human mind acquires and validates knowledge from M.D. Rawlings. Clearly he’s a dry well. That’s because his worldview is utterly vacuous on the topic. Why else would John Frame make the statement “We know without knowing how we know”? Why?????
Regards,
Dawson
The Cherry to Top the Sweet Smell of Objectivism’s Utter Annihilation
The mathematical operation of dividing any divisible entity an infinite number of times, an operation that has no end, is the preeminent mathematical revelation of God. There’s no friggin’ zero in the set, photoZero. There’s no friggin’ nothing’ at the end of the rainbow, photoConfusion. That’s the whole point! Aristotle understood that. The inspired authors of the Bible understood that. And by definition, guess what else has no end? God, of course. Indeed, by definition, He has no beginning. That’s the whole point! There is no end to this rainbow, photo-I-Confused-Division-With-Subtraction-And-It-Flew-Right-Over-My-Head. You too, DuhsonZeroDingbat.
Now, as I’ve shown, and as you have all now finally acknowledge for the first time after being caught out for dufuses, confounding subtraction with division, we readily apprehend that any divisible entity may be divided without end, but not by us. Hence, there must be Someone Who can. Otherwise, what we have here is an indispensable axiom that is cogent, yet gratuitously paradoxical.
Why conclude the paradoxical? Why render the logic of existence irrational?
Answer: Because you dingbats are not holding to the principle that existence has primacy over finite consciousness at all. Instead, you’re asserting the primacy of finite consciousness, namely, yours, over existence: there is no infinite consciousness because finite consciousness is the only consciousness that exists. Really? Begging the question? Irrationally violating the standard rules of logic and calling it reason, unjustifiably turning mathematical axioms into paradoxes?
The other thing that’s blowing your minds is how God would continue to divide the material realm of being down to the nothing it was apart from Him before He created it. Well, first of all, He wouldn’t, that is to say, division is not the process of divisionally reducing something down to nothing. It never was, was it photoZero and DuhsonZero? The process of division is not the eradication of something; it‘s the partitioning of something.
As I wrote in the above, the conceptualization of infinite division in the cosmological terms of theology is an analogical cognition of a material something as opposed to a material nothing. Hence, what we’re talking about here is the divisional reduction of the material realm of being from something to nothing; which is to say, we’re not talking about division at all, but subtraction. And now you clowns are finally on record conceding that you had the two mathematical operations confused all this time in your heads, imagining things. First you dufuses tried to make me out to be the dufus over the actualities of division by infinity. Oops. Busted! Now you dufuses are trying to make me out to be the dufus over the actualities of subtraction. Oops. You’re imagining things again, things never written, as a result of not following the actual logic and the meaning of the various expressions relative to ultimate actualities.
Zoom! Right over! Objectivists don’t think; they spout slogans.
(Does it burn?)
[continued . . .]
Strange. My experience of reality is dramatically different than that of the Objectivist. It would seem that all kinds of fantastic things can occur in his world of “reason.” The last time I divided a loaf of bread, for example, I still had two halves of a whole. I don’t recall one of them ceasing to exist.
(There’s no friggin’ zero in the set!)
And given the immutability, indivisibility and eternally self-subsistence of divinitus perfectus: This spirit of pure consciousness that has no beginning or end could quite easily wile away eternity dividing that which is contingently divisible for as along as He pleased. No sweat. It’s elementary, Dear Dufuses.
The duration of the process of mere division is endless; the duration of divisionally reducing (or eliminating) something to nothing is arbitrary; therefore, the latter could be concluded at any moment after the first instance of division. Any further acts of division would have no bearing on the matter whatsoever. I knew if I stated the distinction to you cultist in those terms, given your inclination to let the likes of Peikoff do your thinking for you, it would fly right over your heads.
*crickets chirping*
All this time, all of you with your bigoted, closed-minded, univocally stunted thought processes have been utterly incognizant of a very simple and obvious distinction: the difference between division and subtraction. When dealing with fools who care nothing about truth and decency, you give them reams of rope before you tie the noose and toss it over the tree branch. I’ve been miles and miles ahead of every swinging one of ya from the beginning. The spectacle of Robert Goal-Posts Bumbalough’s depravity was especially helpful.
I told you before, DuhsonZero, that I had been observing your site for sometime. Well, I can’t close your blog or Objectivism down, but I can exponentially expose them for the banality that they are to thousands with just over a dozen friendly observers in this age of virtually instantaneous communication.
What a laughingstock!
“Divine Lonesomeness.” Existence exists! Causality presupposes existence! (Duh! The obvious nancing about as profundity. . . .) Infinite consciousness doesn’t exist because the only consciousness that exists is finite consciousness, begging the question, a tautological non sequitur. The quotient is zero, yet n is divided without end. The QV is a metaphysical nothingness. Appeal to authority. Unpredictability negates causality. Science negates the transcendent. The objects of sensory perception are the cognitive limits of actuality and reason. A creator needs a creator. Functions are variables, and their limits are not operationally limitless in essence. Limit theorems are proofs. Division is subtraction, subtraction is division. Goal Posts. The operational aspects of identity are not universal. Nothing exists beyond the material, yet the Objectivist’s concept of consciousness is not that of materialism/physicalism: “encodings of embodied material particles”, concrete biochemical data. Hume. The Objectivist is forever spouting unlearned and irrational nonsense akin to two plus two is five, or two plus three is four.
*crickets chirping*
[continued . . .]
But let’s talk about subtraction. In metaphysical/existential terms, relative to finite consciousness, one does not actually subtract something from something and make it nothing . . . unless one is an Objectivist, apparently. That is to say, beyond the math of the standard numeric value system, one does not actually have two apples and subtract these two apples from themselves and make them nothing. One does not take the energy and matter of two apples and cause them to become nothing in violation of the law of conservation. Finite consciousness cannot do this. That’s why when subtraction is related to the world of things beyond the encoded zero (or the nothing) of the standard mathematics “embodied in material particles” (concrete biochemical data) in our brains, we talk about “taking some portion away from a whole.” Where does the portion taken away go?
When photoZero or DuhsonZero have two apples and eat them, they “take the apples away.” The act of eating the apples does not cause their material substance to become nothing, but something else. The matter and energy of the apples undergo a change. Later, photoZero and DuhsonZero have a bowel movement and excrete a portion of this matter and energy in the form of an odoriferous pile of idiocy, like how division and subtraction are the same mathematical process or how cogent mathematical axioms are gratuitous paradoxes.
(In the meantime, back in the real world of sound reasoning, all of the mathematical operations and the geometric forms scream God’s existence. The infinite number line, no beginning or end. Indeed, the numeric distance between any two integers on the number line is undeterminably infinite, uncountable.)
But seriously, what we have here is a world of material things that are finite and mutable, contingently subject to be one thing or another at any given moment in time. Given the temporal nature and state of the material realm of things, what might that suggest about its duration or origin? What does that pesky, though logically indispensable, zero in the numeric value system of standard mathematics, that we just can’t get out of our heads and some can’t rightly understand, suggest about origin?
[continued . . . ]
Oh, we can reckon five minus five equals nothing or that five minus ten equals less than nothing, but we can’t effectuate that reckoning in the material realm of things in any tangible sense. However, we can reckon that beyond this cosmos there is no material realm of being, a nothingness or a something less than nothingness. But wait! Nothingness or more nothingness? A something that is nothing or a something that is more than nothing?
Absurdity!
Are there more cosmic domains beyond this one or is there just the gravitational energy of the quantum vacuum? Is that a something suspended in nothing or a nothing proceeded by something?
Absurdity!
Nope, regardless of what may or may not reside beyond our universe, the only sensible thing we can say—for here we are!—is that something has always existed and that nothing is apparently impossible. Do we avoid the irrational by asserting that? Apparently, for it poses no immediate contradictions, and here we are! But do we escape the paradoxical in terms of assigning a location or a boundary to this something? Well, perhaps not from the perspective of finite consciousness. But then again, here we are!
Further, the being of divinitus perfectus could continuously create whatever He pleases, including an infinite chain of successive cosmological domains out of a quantum vacuum or not. That’s why an infinitely regressive conceptualization of the material realm of being can’t lay a glove on the construct of divinity, and there’s certainly nothing in the Bible that precludes that cosmological possibility. The only challenge to the existence of God that can stick entails indemonstrable absurdities that are no less absurd, as I have shown, when applied to the problem of accounting for the material realm of being.
Here we are!
Only fools make baby talk about how a something is actually a metaphysical nothing or does not constitute a metaphysical cause. Talk about imposing the primacy of finite consciousness against existence! Indeed, only fools or scientifically illiterate buffoons conflate unpredictability (or uncertainty) with the eradication of the inescapable necessity of causality as if they were categorically synonymous things. Indeed, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle at the subatomic level of being where general relativity breaks down does not and cannot assert any such thing. Robert Goal-Posts-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence Bumbalough knows very well that I busted him asserting a scientifically false and incredibly stupid thing. That’s why he ran away from my post.
*crickets chirping*
Indeed, conflating the limitations of sensory perception and, therefore, the boundaries of legitimate scientific inquiry with the nonexistence of the transcendent as if they were categorically synonymous things is a most unscientific and incredibly stupid thing to do as well. Robert Goal-Posts-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence Bumbalough knows he was busted for that too and ran away.
*crickets chirping*
Hmmmm... four more posts from Mentally-Deficient Rawlings, each of them appearing to be pastings from earlier-submitted comments, and still no hide nor hair of that elusive "Christian epistemology."
In all M.D. Rawlings' blathering about numbers, math, infinity, subtraction, division, etc., we need only ask:
How do you know?
And all Christianity can tell us on this is:
We know without knowing how we know.
That's "Christian epistemology" for you.
Sorta blows everything M.D. Rawlings says out of the water.
Man, I'm glad these aren't my problems!
Regards,
Dawson
Ah, make that five new posts from M.D. Rawlings!
I see that he's "trying to bury my post continuations"!
Regards,
Dawson
[continued . . .]
How ya likin’ me now, Robert Goal-Posts-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence Bumbalough?
*crickets chirping*
Indeed, what if from this side of the big bang, from this side of the limits of sensory perception and scientific falsification, we can never resolve the matter . . . does that undermine or affirm the reasonableness of concluding that God must be relative to the inescapable necessity of causality, Robert Goal-Posts-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence Bumbalough? How do you figure your trash talk obtains, let alone proves, anything whatsoever either way, Robert Goal-Posts-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence Bumbalough?
Answer: it doesn’t, Robert Goal-Posts-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence Bumbalough. You’re just making irrational baby talk about things you really don’t understand or haven’t thought through, Robert Goal-Posts-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence Bumbalough
*crickets chirping*
Further, there is no creator required for the divinitus perfectus of universal apprehension, a pure spirit of consciousness, immutable, indivisible and having no beginning or end. That’s why the ad absurdum of infinite regression cannot be rationally applied to the idea of God. To say that there is a greater thing than the greatest conceivable thing, or that the greatest conceivable thing requires a cause is to acknowledge that the idea of God is not subject to infinite regression. Such assertions are inherently contradictory and self-negating, proving the fact the idea of God is the greatest conceivable thing contingent to nothing, let alone a previous cause. That’s an axiomatic, self-evident tautology of necessity. There’s nothing circular about that.
Peikoff’s argument is stupid.
*crickets chirping*
And DuhsonZero-Finite-Consciousness-Has-Primacy-Over-Existence’s claim regarding the necessity of wading through a hierarchical layer of concepts before we arrive at the problem of origin is utter claptrap. Talk about denying the immediate axioms of being!
Something exists doesn’t tell us what exists beyond consciousness and the inanimate. Oops! Identity! Hence, the immediate and irreducible primary of being: that which is conscious and that which is not. Of course, the Objectivist thinks to get around this by claiming that consciousness and the inanimate are inseparable, never mind his unjustified leap over the cognitive apriority that he is merely presupposing a metaphysical naturalism out of turn. Talk about violating “the due process” of concept formation.
(Theory of concepts!)
[continued . . .]
The apprehension that something exists and the apprehension that human consciousness exists yields nothing more than the apprehension that human consciousness doesn’t have primacy, and the assertion that human consciousness does not have primacy doesn’t not yield the assertion that existence has primacy over consciousness.
1. Existence has primacy over our consciousness.
2. Existence, therefore, has primacy over consciousness.
Foul! These are two distinctly different assertions, and the latter clearly does not follow from the former. In fact, the latter is meaningless in the absence of any definitive determination regarding the nature and extent of what exists beyond our consciousness and the inanimate entities of apprehension.
We need go no farther. There is no hierarchy of cognition or concepts standing in our way whatsoever: either consciousness or the inanimate have existed forever, with the third alternative being a combination of the two.
The idea of God imposes itself on our minds without the latter willing that it do so. The idea objectively exists in and of itself. It is not a derivative of human culture, but an axiomatic cognition. And the atheists acknowledges the truth of this every time he opens his yap to deny there be any substance behind the idea. The possibility cannot be rationally denied. The flat-out denial of God’s existence is nothing more than the irrational fanaticism of sheer faith, not reason, predicated on nothing more substantial than an unjustified presupposition of a metaphysical naturalism.
On the other hand, we know the material realm is a chain of cause and effect, its latest expression or state of being always contingently arising from a previous expression or state of being. To reckon the matter any other way: once again, absurdity! That’s why Hawking et al. are so desperately and irrationally trying to tell us that the unfalsifiable substratum of their theoretical origination is a a metaphysical nothing, even though it clearly is a metaphysical something of cause. Actually, I believe, from all indications, that a substratum of gravitational energy in a quantum vacuum does lie beyond our cosmological domain. Moreover, the idea that our domain is but one of many, many others is quite possible and perhaps even probable.
Again, that is not a problem for the Bible at all.
Poor Robert Pseudo-Science Bumbalough, he thought it was. How disappointing.
*crickets chirping*
______________________________
END
We still have no explanation from M.D. Rawlings on the suspicious clues pertaining to his relationship with "Kyle Jamison."
Since Rawlings is in the mood for copy-pasting, let's revisit the outstanding points:
__________
Michael wrote: “At the time I wrote that statement, we had begun what I assumed would be an in-depth discussion. But like I said, he hasn't gotten back to me, so I don't know what else he had in mind. Sorry. I have no power over what others do. I was disappointed too. I hope everything is well with him. Maybe some urgent business came up.”
This is most curious. It was on 17 Dec. that Michael wrote “[Kyle] and I are discussing Judeo-Christianity's epistemology on my blog now." “Now” suggests that the discussion mentioned was current and ongoing. But the last comment left by “Kyle” on Michael’s blog that has surfaced was posted on 15 Dec., two days prior to Michael’s comment about his discussion with “Kyle” on my blog. In blog-dom, two days is a long time, especially if the entirety of a discussion is confined only to one day, as in the case of Michael’s exchange with “Kyle” on his (Michael’s) blog.
If one reads through the “discussion” between Michael and “Kyle” on the blog Ydemoc has referenced (located here), one gets the impression that the entire exchange is rather staged. On my blog, “Kyle” stated that he was an “agnostic” (11 Dec., in the comments of this blog). But in the back-and-forth between Michael and “Kyle,” the relationship between the two seems conspicuously cozy. The tone in the comments authored by “Kyle” are suspiciously agreeable by my estimate; “Kyle” is soaking up everything Michael says without question. Then suddenly, without explanation, the discussion stops. And there’s nothing there about epistemology!
[continued…]
Also curious is how Michael has acted in a manner protective of “Kyle” on my blog. See for instance Michael’s comment on this blog time-stamped December 17, 2012 10:56 AM:
<< In conclusion. . . .
Photosynthesis wrote: “What's a historical observation of theology and philosophy? That there's a mathematical concept of infinity, therefore divine perfection?”
“Kyle Jamison” responded: “Specifically, as it applies to divinity, I know it from the Book of Job, Aristotle’s Metaphysics and my own reflections on the mathematical maxim of division.”
Yes. The antecedent of “it” in Kyle’s response per photo’s question logically goes to “a mathematical concept of infinity”. I think that’s precisely what Kyle intended, and I don’t see a problem. Where are you getting a problem out of this?
photo’s first question goes to the historicity of the construct in theology and philosophy (Or does it? as he seems to be confusing this academic observation with a logical fallacy.). Hence, clearly, Kyle is talking about the mathematical axiom of infinity as it applies to divine perfection in the corpus of theological and philosophical thought, utterly unaware of photo‘s apparent confusion over the nature of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.
What’s the problem?!
Where does Kyle state that this construct is analogously expressed in the Aristotelian fashion in Job . . . or anywhere else in the historical corpus of this construct for that matter?
Are you seeing something I’m not, Dawson? Hmm?
So, photo is either claiming (1) that Kyle is saying that the matter is expressed in the Aristotelian fashion in Job, or (2) photo himself is claiming that the matter is expressed in the Aristotelian fashion in Job. Hence, the supposed inconsistency.
1. Clearly, Kyle made no such claim. Hence, if this is what photo has in mind, he’s obviously reading something into Kyle’s statement that is not there!
2. If photo is claiming that the matter is expressed in the Aristotelian fashion in Job, the charge of deceit goes to me, as I’m the only one who went on to explain in no uncertain terms that it is not expressed that way in Job.
Therefore, it is photo’s responsibility to explain himself to us. It is his responsibility to explain how he extrapolated the non-existent claim attributed to Kyle or to provide scriptural citation(s) showing that I’m wrong about the fashion in which the matter is expressed in Job. >>
[continued…]
Post a Comment