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 401 – 600 of 676 Newer› Newest»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
Notice that, unlike the comments of my own that I have re-posted, the ones that M.D. Rawlings re-posts have already been answered.
Isn't that curious?
And still we have seen neither hide nor hair of the elusive "Christian epistemology."
Oh, wait, we have, John Frame gave it to us: We know without knowing how we know.
Got it!
Regards,
Dawson
As predicted, Michael re-posted his already self-refuted and self-refuting, already answered, bullshit. But do we see any Christian epistemology or Christian theory of concepts there? Nope. None. Zero. Nada.
What are Michael's priorities? As displayed: Michael's ego is first, Christian anything is last. Michael will not allow being displayed for the illiterate he is (mathematical is but one of his many illiteracies) without a fight (that only works to further show his many illiteracies), but he will happily allow for us to conclude that there's neither such thing as Christian epistemology nor Christian theory of concepts. Who cares about those! Those are just his bases for everything else. Posting his crap without showing it to have any foundations is all right!
Michael is shovelling crap back up his own ass that he did not even know to have shitted.
Photo asked: “What are Michael's priorities? As displayed: Michael's ego is first, Christian anything is last.”
Given the ample evidence that M.D. Rawlings has given in the form of his activity and behavior on my blog, the assessment photo provides here is an unavoidable and unimpeachable conclusion. Rawlings is driven by a horrendously bad, self-effacing attitude which allows for no scholarly inquiry into the matters that have come up in this discussion and for no intellectual exchange of ideas pertaining to them. Time and time again Rawlings proves that he does not listen, he does not think about what has been presented before him, and he has no intention of addressing points of interest without mangling them beyond recognition in an effort to tear down straw-men of his own creating. All of this is the primacy of consciousness on display before us. No doubt, Rawlings’ contempt for himself is something he has had to live with for much of his waking life. Now he has found a place where he can unleash it and aim it at others, as though they were somehow the cause of his contempt. We’re not. The problem is his, not ours.
Photo: “Michael will not allow being displayed for the illiterate he is (mathematical is but one of his many illiteracies) without a fight (that only works to further show his many illiteracies),”
And don’t forget that in doing carrying on as he does, he shows that his many illiteracies on the matters that come up in the discussion are self-inflicted. He clings to them to spite himself. This is his form of self-sacrifice. This is him emulating his Jesus on his own cross. The vultures picked his bones clean long ago. There’s no flesh left to hide his shame.
Photo: “but he will happily allow for us to conclude that there's neither such thing as Christian epistemology nor Christian theory of concepts.”
Of course, since there is no such thing as “Christian epistemology,” let alone a distinctively Christian theory of concepts, Rawlings can do nothing but hope that his efforts to redirect the discussion away from these inquiries will successfully distract us from the fact that his worldview indeed has nothing better to offer in the department of epistemology than John Frame’s admission “We know without knowing how we know.” But of course, his efforts in this regard will not be successful. We’re happy to hold his feet to the fire so long as he continues posting here.
Photo: “Who cares about those! Those are just his bases for everything else.”
Indeed they are. So when Rawlings goes on about math, infinities, division, subtraction, quotients, etc., we just merely need to ask: How do you know? And the answer is already given: he “knows” without knowing how he “knows.”
Hey, these aren’t my problems!
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
«No doubt, Rawlings’ contempt for himself is something he has had to live with for much of his waking life. Now he has found a place where he can unleash it and aim it at others, as though they were somehow the cause of his contempt. We’re not. The problem is his, not ours.»
You know, I often refuse to get into psycho-talking, because it looks so much like cheap shots. However, looking carefully, it becomes obvious that self-loathing is truly behind Michael's behaviour. His insults, his descriptions of other people's comments, are so amazingly spot on at describing himself and his own comments, that we can't but conclude that he looks at the mirror in anger at being the imbecile that he is, at having made it so easy for us to discover that he lies even when he affirms that he has lied, that he spouts no arguments but slogans. So he just writes, in frustration, the shit he finds in himself and in his comments back at us. It can't make sense any other way. It's Michael looking at himself in the mirror. It's all self-loathing.
It is scary thinking how much Michael would have to work to help himself out of the crap he has immersed himself into.
On this side of the planet it is night Dawson. Have a great day on that side of the planet!
(I think we are either authentic antipodes, or at the very least time-antipodes.)
Another Episode of The Objectivist’s Desperate White-Knuckled Grip on the Illusions of His Own Making: or how the Objectivist learned to love psuedo-science and -mathematics and not worry about reality
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.
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!”
[continued . . .]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!
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.
[continued] . . .
(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.
_________________________
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!
END
Psst. Robert "Science-Only-Cares-About-Extension-Not-Chemistry" Bumbalough, 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.
END
The Cherry to Top the Sweet Smell of Objectivism’s Utter Annihilation: or how Objectivism learned to love pseudo-science and -mathematics and stopped worrying about reality
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*
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!
[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*
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*
Michael, Dawson and Photo are right.
So what photo states here is entirely correct: it is Mentally-Deficient Rawlings who does not want to talk about “Christian epistemology.” He is the one who is stalling and evading. The questions have been asked and have been on the floor for over two months. Indeed, questions which I posed to Mentally-Deficient in my first response to him back in early November on this blog still remain unanswered to this day. I’ve been wanting to see this “Christian epistemology” from Day 1 of Mentally-Deficiency’s self-insertion into this discussion. And still it remains as elusive as the Loch Ness Monster.
Come on dude. You think you're pretty damn smart right? So splain'in Christian Epistemology and Theory of Concepts to us infidel heathen Randians should be no sweat off your ass, right.
Cough it up. Make with the Christian Epistemology and Theory of Concepts already.
Michael babbled yet another absurdity.
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.
So you do agree with that John Fame guy that Christian Epistemology is nothing more than magic-just-knowing-without-knowing-how-you-know, but its still ridiculous. Homo Sapiens evolved about a quarter million years ago. The oldest evidence of religious cult activity dates to about 60,000 years back. If our Cro-Magnom ancestors knew your God was real, why do we not see evidence for Abrahamic monotheism dating to the dawn of our species.
Additionally, all the arguments for your silly and foolish God belief have been refuted. You got nothing except your very rich fantasy life.
You claim that Objectivists are question begging via The Metaphysical Primacy of Existence is laughable. It's blatantly obvious the MPOE holds absolutely because metaphysical naturalism is justified by universal induction, parsimony, superior explanatory scope and harmony with Rand's Razor.
The requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological “razor”: concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity—the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity.
But you religionists have to layer bare naked ad-hoc explanations into a squirming-writhing wad of contradictions like your silly God fantasy in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
M.D. wrote: “Material things either exist—in some form or another, in some state of being or another — or they don’t.”
So when a material thing does in fact exist – say a rock – what in reality suggests that it was created by an act of consciousness?
Let’s just focus on this question for the time being.
What is your answer?
Regards,
Dawson
Michael, Dawson asked:
when a material thing does in fact exist – say a rock – what in reality suggests that it was created by an act of consciousness?
Let’s just focus on this question for the time being.
Yes I agree. Lets focus on this. I want to know how an alleged being that is defined in a manner indistinguishable from nothingness can cause and fabricate existence. How does this happen when the relationship between existence and its attributes preclude consciousness modifying, making, mutilating, terminating or manipulating actual existing entities. This is a law of existence called the Primacy of Existence and is the basis of Science. If Theism is true, then the conditions mentioned in the Primacy of Existence and Science are probabilistically irrelevant and the law is false. If the Primacy of Existence, and Science, are true then the conditions are probabilistically relevant; but in that case God as stand-alone-immaterial consciousness cannot intervene in existence to somehow cause a rock to spontaneously form from nothing because God, being Omnipotent, would render the conditions of the Primacy of Existence and Science false. But it is known that the Primacy of Existence and Science are true, therefore Theism is false, and people like Michael are simply religious kooks.
Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...
freedies_deadhead complains about theories of concepts.
Complains? Not at all. I simply asked when you were going to present the Christian Epistemology and the Christian Theory of Concepts that you told us you had right at the start of these discussions. So far, you've been completely unwilling - or, more likely, totally unable - to provide them. It should surely be a doddle for someone of such superior intellect? Odd then that we should still be waiting for them over 2 months later.
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 now it's not your fault for being unable to produce the goods you claimed to have. It's somehow our fault because, despite asking you to present what you claim to have over and over and over again, we somehow "don't want to talk about" it? You sir, are a liar and you damned well know it.
All we have from the Christians so far is Frame's "we know without knowing how we know" - which is, of course, laughable - and Michael has done nothing to change that state of affairs despite his early boasts.
Michael keeps telling us to shut up. Surely the quickest way to acheive this aim wouldn't be to just wish for it - or to keep repeatedly copy/pasting the same tired old mathematical shite - instead he could just provide what he claimed to have already and, should it be everything he kept saying that it was, then we would be silenced immediately ... if it was consistent with his professed worldview of course.
So we're talking about the malarkey of Objectivism's theory of conceptual banalities.
You're talking about something, but its relationship to what Objectivism is or what Objectivism teaches is as non-existent as your Christian Theory of Concepts. Maybe if you had bothered to learn what Objectivism says you wouldn't keep getting it so very wrong when you try to argue against it? Of course if you do as badly at learning Objectivism as you have at learning mathematics over the last month it probably won't help your "arguments" any way.
Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Bluemoon" said...
Strange.
Yes, yes you are.
My experience of reality is dramatically different than that of the Objectivist.
It certainly must be. Whilst we Objectivists have a solid understanding of how knowledge is formed and integrated, you're stuck with knowing without knowing how you know as concepts form automagically in your mind, completely bypassing anything that might possibly be called "reason".
It would seem that all kinds of fantastic things can occur in his world of “reason.”
Fantastic things like recognising you can't put your DVD's in that cabinet that you have merely imagined. We'd be happy to have you in our world of reason but, unfortunately for you, you seem to be far too confessionally invested in your world of religious delusion.
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.
The last time I divided a loaf of bread it was to make a sandwich. It was delicious ... and it very rapidly ceased to exist.
Careful Robert, now Michael will re-post a million of his previous bullshit comments to "bury your post continuations."
Will any of them be about Christian epistemology or Christian theory of concepts? Of course not. There's no such thing.
I just repeat Dawson's excellent point:
«So when a material thing does in fact exist – say a rock – what in reality suggests that it was created by an act of consciousness?
Let’s just focus on this question for the time being.»
Michael brayed,
«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.»
No kidding. What happened last time you divided your loaf into an infinite number of little crumbs?
That's a ridiculous proposition? We should not mistake an abstract exercise with reality? Yes. That's exactly the point.
Now for Dawson's question:
«So when a material thing does in fact exist – say a rock – what in reality suggests that it was created by an act of consciousness?
Let’s just focus on this question for the time being.»
Thanks Photo. I deleted the argument by Smith.
Photo's right.
Now for Dawson's question:
«So when a material thing does in fact exist – say a rock – what in reality suggests that it was created by an act of consciousness?
Let’s just focus on this question for the time being.»
First, a few subtle revisions, for the sake of greater clarity and accuracy.
"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 no 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 indeterminable 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 both the essences and the extensions of the material realm of being are 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 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 merely the sum of the immediate impressions they make on the constituents of sensory perception (as all of humanity knows, except for the mathematically and scientifically illiterate rubes of Objectivism), but also the sum of their inherent potentialities.
END
Source: Associated Press
“Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science”
01/11/2012
You-Just-Can’t-Make-This-Stuff-Up World Journal
In response to a learned missive regarding the technical application of the philosophical terms for measurement and composition to mathematics and modern science, Objectivist cult member Robert ‘Pseudo-Science’ Bumbalough yesterday averred that the composition of empirical phenomena was not relevant to the scientific concerns of identity. “It just doesn’t matter,” he said with a slur and the look of a crazed animal in his eyes. “Chemistry? Pfft. Who needs it?”
Bumbalough is a follower of the self-styled philosophy of reason known as Objectivism, so-named by its originator Ayn Rand, the controversial novelist and Russian émigré of the Twentieth Century who died of heart failure in 1982.
Rand is most notable for her rather boorishly didactic novels Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for her unapologetic defense of ethical egoism and laissez-faire capitalism.
Reports have it that Rand developed her sophomoric theory of concepts, the centerpiece of Objectivism’s mysticism, while all hopped up on amphetamines and the charm of an endless chain of nicotine delivery devices.
[continued . . .]
“After the sixth day she was downing handfuls of Dexedrine at a time every two hours with shots of Vodka like they were M&Ms,” an anonymous insider revealed.
“We had to board up all the windows on account of the fact that we almost lost her when she smashed through one. I manage to snatch her by her ankles on her way out. On top of that, by the eleventh day she dispensed with the Pall Malls altogether. When we weren’t repairing the holes in the sheetrock walls of her apartment from all the bouncing around, we were lining up eight balls of pure N.
Another source who was present at the time told this report, “The needles kept breaking off in her arms due to the eradicate and uncontrollable spasms that racked her entire body from all the juice. So enraged was she with our incompetence that she literally busted the pulsing vein in the middle of her forehead that had grown to the size of a small lemon. Blood and spittle sprayed everywhere as she screamed at the top of her lungs, ‘Look here you worthless toads, existence exists! Now go nick a roll duct of tape from the corner market and just lash me down to the chair!’.”
Bumbalough just recently came to the public’s attention for the first time. Readers might recall the infamous Heisenberg Incident in which he created a short-lived sensation in the science community when he claimed that the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy voided the seemingly inescapable principle of causality.
“There’s no friggin’ cause!” Bumbalough said in a press release. “It just happens, and I can prove it.” While the science community eagerly awaited Bumbalough’s paper it was leaked by a member of his entourage that he had been under the influence of LSD for months on end. Subsequent probes revealed that Bumbalough wasn’t even a scientist, but a fanatical follower of Ayn Rand with a history of mental illness.
“Naturally, we were all very excited by the reports of a major breakthrough, only to learn shortly thereafter that Bumbalough was just another Objectivist loon,” lamented Dr. Stenson of the Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics. “Our heartfelt condolences go out to his family.”
[continued . . .]
This reporter has learned that Bumbalough has an extensive history of making outlandish scientific claims, including the notion that science not only tells us all we need to know about empirical phenomena, but about the absolute extent of existence itself. “God doesn’t exist,” Bumbalough is fond of saying, “and science proves it.”
“You need to understand what’s going on here,” explains Professor Blouer, head of the Department of Philosophy and Comparative Sociological Studies at Berkeley. “Objectivists don’t think like normal human beings. They regurgitate formulaic phrases from Rand’s works and from those of Objectivism’s leading apologists by rote. It [Objectivism] is not a rational system of thought in the tradition of the self-evident, classic laws of logic and the operational aspects of identity’s comprehensive expression. It’s just an incoherent amalgamation of meaningless blather cobbled together around a few of the more obvious insights about existence . . . so nothing else follows.”
Lawrence Nielson of Cult Watch is more blunt: “They’re slogan spouters. Take for instance Peikoff’s asseveration that a creator would need a creator and that identity is the finite thing identified or that finiteness is identity. For normal people these statements on the very face of them are nonsensical, but not for the Objectivist true believer.” Peikoff is Ayn Rand’s formal intellectual heir. Neilson continues, “Any attempt to point this out to them is likely to be meant with more slogans, the most common of these being, ‘You’re denying the axiom of existence!’ or ‘Theory of concepts!’. It would be tragic if it weren’t so hilarious.”
After leaving several messages on Bumbalough’s voice mail for his side of the story regarding his latest meltdown, I learned that he had been admitted to Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital of New York for treatment for “issues related to substance abuse and significant emotional problems.” However, he was able to speak with me briefly from his room over the phone before he had to be straight-jacketed and dragged off for several hours of shock therapy.
[continued . . .]
Rawlings: “It’s my understanding that you hold to the position that the composition of things is not relevant to identity in science.”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
Rawlings: “Could you explain that for us?”
Bumbalough: “It’s self-evident.”
Rawlings: “How’s that?”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
Rawlings: “What’s right?”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
Rawlings: “Uh . . . okay. Aren’t extension and composition intertwined?”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
Rawlings: “But, Bumbalough, seriously. . . . Uh . . .what?”
Bumbalough: “Look, buddy, I got spiders crawlin’ up my legs here, and you’re askin’ me about composition?”
Rawlings: “Well . . .”
Bumbalough: “Look. It’s real simple. Ya got an orange. See? Ya got an apple. See? They’re both spherical in shape. See? That’s their extension, man. You can measure that. See? You can put a friggin’ number on that. See?
Rawlings: “Okay.”
Bumbalough: Okay. So one’s orange, and the other’s red . . . or maybe the other’s green. Okay? Fine. Ya like green apples? The other’s green. I don’t like green apples. See? If ya want some green apples, buy ’em yourself. I don’t want no friggin’ green apples! Got that?”
Rawlings: “That’s fine.”
Bumbalough: “You’re damn right that’s fine! No green apples. The friggin’ apple is red. Ya got that? Red!
Rawlings: “Okay. It’s red.”
[continued . . .]
Bumbalough: “You’re damn right it’s red!”
Rawlings: “Okay. So we’ve got an orange and a red apple?”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
Rawlings: “And they’re both spherical in shape?”
Bumbalough: “Did I stutter? . . . Grusunkahlahdoodoo!
Rawlings: “Uh . . . grusunkahlahdoodoo?”
Bumbalough: “Damn skippy! That’s you’re friggin’ identity right there! Orange. Red. Spherical. Identity! . . . Duhsmorkinjoo!
Rawlings: “And the chemical composition?”
Bumbalough: “Spiders!”
Rawlings: “Focus, Bumbalough.”
Bumbalough: “Okay. Ya want quality? Huh? Is that what ya want, ya ASD, Jew bastard? I’ll give ya some quality. Orange. Red. That’s you’re friggin’ quality right there!
Rawlings: “No. Bumbalough. I’m asking about their inherent chemical properties . . .”
Bumbalough: “What friggin’ difference does it make? Orange. Red. Color. That’s you’re friggin’ quality right there! Spherical. That’s you’re friggin’ quantity right there! Put a number on it!
Rawlings: “But why orange or red or spherical?”
Bumbalough: “Are ya friggin’ deaf? Who cares? Do ya eat the why? Huh? Tell me that. Do ya eat the friggin’ why?
Rawlings: “Well, actually, yes . . .
Bumbalough: “Identity!”
Rawlings: . . . I do.
Bumbalough: Finite!
Rawlings: “So the chemical properties don’t matter at . . .”
[continued . . .]
Bumbalough: “It is written by the hand of the goddess!”
Rawlings: “Uh . . . What?”
Bumbalough: “Funklestink!”
Rawlings: “Bumba . . .”
Bumbalough: “Slinkalooloo! Hahnoonahyuhkahlala!
Rawlings: “Bumba . . .”
Bumabalough: “Existence exists! Grusunkahlahdoodoo! You’re denying the axioms! A plague on you and all of your house! It’s is written! Page 82! The goddess speaks!
Rawlings: “Steve, call the hospital on the other line.”
Bumbalough: “Friggin’ scientists think they know everything! Identity! Quantity I tell you! It is written! The goddess be praised! Finite! I got blisters on my fingers! Goo goo g'joob! Theory of concepts! Spiders! Big honkin’ spiders! Those friggin’ ASD, Jew bastards! . . .
___________________________
You may reach the author at Prufrock's Lair.
«You may reach the author at Prufrock's Lair.»
The question is who would want to after that display of such author's lunacy.
Photo asked: “The question is who would want to after that display of such author's lunacy.”
Well, certainly not me. The more we see of this guy, the more whacked he gets. “Unhinged” as Observer #438 put it.
I’m reminded of a statement Rawlings himself made: “It always comes down to the personal with you, character assassination.”
When it comes to projecting one’s own psychological faults, M.D. Rawlings takes the cake. Clearly he’s emotionally disturbed and needs professional help.
Regards,
Dawson
Rawlings scrawled:
"Source: Associated Press
“Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science”
01/11/2012
You-Just-Can’t-Make-This-Stuff-Up World Journal"
I wonder if he meant to write 2013 instead of 2012. Otherwise, he's making a big deal over "old news" (never mind its fictitious character).
Regards,
Dawson
To present some very very serious math, we can start by remembering that some god, allegedly the Christian god, is "defined" as an indivisible, immutable, infinity with no beginning and no end. TAHT'S IT'S IDENTITY!! From very very very very very very serious symmetry mathematical axioms we know zero is the result of adding all the numbers on the left (no beginning), to all the numbers to the right (no end). Therefore zero is infinite. Since you cannot divide nothing among people (it would be absurd), this is an indivisible and immutable infinite. EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD KNOWS THIS!! Since zero and this god are an indivisible, immutable, infinity with no beginning and no end, therefore this god is zero, and thus nothing. Therefore this god does not exist. To say otherwise would be to deny this irreducible mathematical primary axiom, and we would have a perfectly cogent irreducible mathematical primary axiom, yet gratuitous. That would be odd, very odd.
THE WHOLE OF MATH YELLS GOD'S NONEXISTENCE!! EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT!! ARISTOTLE, MOSES, AND MANY OTHERS REACHED THIS CONCLUSION THAT HAS SURVIVED MILLENNIA!!
«When it comes to projecting one’s own psychological faults, M.D. Rawlings takes the cake. Clearly he’s emotionally disturbed and needs professional help.»
M.D. was "Modus Defecatus"? Ah! "Mentally Deficient" Well, both would work.
Photo: “THE WHOLE OF MATH YELLS GOD'S NONEXISTENCE!! EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT!! ARISTOTLE, MOSES, AND MANY OTHERS REACHED THIS CONCLUSION THAT HAS SURVIVED MILLENNIA!!”
Indeed. This truth is universally and objectively apprehended by all!
Regards,
Dawson
Ya give 'em gold. Gold I tell ya! They complain about the date.
I can't get noooo-oo-oo appre-ci-a-tion.
LOL!
Rawlings whined: “Ya give 'em gold. Gold I tell ya! They complain about the date.”
He probably worked on it all day. Perhaps two days.
And no, my point about the date was not a complaint. Just merely a correction. I know, what gall to correct you!!
Rawlings whined some more: “I can't get noooo-oo-oo appre-ci-a-tion.”
Appreciation is something you need to earn around here. So far, you’ve not earned it at all. On the contrary, you’ve dis-earned it.
Regards,
Dawson
«He probably worked on it all day. Perhaps two days.»
Only to later pretend that he knew all his life that he would come and post just that. He consults and consults, in the meantime pretending to "argue" by just re-posting his self-defeating, and already answered comments. Of course with so much consulting he can't read our answers (he couldn't read them anyway, he lacks the reading comprehension capabilities), so he just "assumes" that we must have said this or that.
«Appreciation is something you need to earn around here. So far, you’ve not earned it at all. On the contrary, you’ve dis-earned it.»
Indeed he did. Spectacularly. Never did I witness such a display of incommensurable stupidity. Guinness record for sure.
Dawson,
You're not trying to bury Michael's comments continuations, are you?
Because that would be very very bad form. No, no, no, no. Ah! These objectivists!
Dawson:
«Photo: “THE WHOLE OF MATH YELLS GOD'S NONEXISTENCE!! EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT!! ARISTOTLE, MOSES, AND MANY OTHERS REACHED THIS CONCLUSION THAT HAS SURVIVED MILLENNIA!!”
Indeed. This truth is universally and objectively apprehended by all!»
Indeed. And it's the only consistently reasonable conclusion evinced in the axiomatic problem of origin.
But we don't mistake slogans for arguments!
I wouldn't be surprised if Michael read my comment and started worshiping zero.
ZOOM! Right over Michael's head!
Dawson's question to Michael:
«So when a material thing does in fact exist – say a rock – what in reality suggests that it was created by an act of consciousness?
Let’s just focus on this question for the time being.»
Yet, all we hear is crickets chirping ...
Just keep focusing on that rock like a good Objectivist Cultist.
Zoom!
In the meantime. . . .
And speaking of semantic charades, your rhetoric that “causality presupposes material existence is cute, but trite. First, the theoretical, eternally existent substratum of the quantum vacuum of origination as you would have it can accurately be thought of as a material/empirical existence. Second, causality most certainly does not necessarily presuppose material existence. That’s your unfalsifiable presupposition of a metaphysical naturalism showing again. Best zip that up. It’s unsightly, and it doesn’t help your case.
In fact, your assertion is unscientific. Science can only address material causation; it cannot legitimately affirm or deny non-material causation. You’re getting your science all tangled up with the metaphysics of Objectivism.
It doesn’t help your case, Robert Goal-Posts Bumbalough.
One may credibly assert that scientific causality presupposes material existence or that causality presupposes existence, but one cannot legitimately assert that causality presupposes material existence beyond the constraints of a metaphysical naturalism.
(Behold the destructive, pseudo-scientific irrationalism of atheistic scientism.)
photosynthesis said...
I wouldn't be surprised if Michael read my comment and started worshiping zero.
ZOOM! Right over Michael's head!
Is nothing sacred?
Photosynthesis said...
Dawson's question to Michael:
«So when a material thing does in fact exist – say a rock – what in reality suggests that it was created by an act of consciousness?
Let’s just focus on this question for the time being.»
Yet, all we hear is crickets chirping ...
Michael clumsily evaded by typing yet another unjustifiable smear: Just keep focusing on that rock like a good Objectivist Cultist
I had asked Michael: “So when a material thing does in fact exist – say a rock – what in reality suggests that it was created by an act of consciousness?”
And Michael’s response?
He writes: “Just keep focusing on that rock like a good Objectivist Cultist.”
Clearly all Michael David Rawlings is interested in at this point is smearing anyone who dares not believe in his invisible magic being. He’s clearly not interested in a discussion. He originally came here announcing that he wasn’t here to “teach” or “prove” his god’s existence, but to “learn” and “make friends.” This pretense of his quickly evaporated and his true psychotic self has been on display ever since.
In his pretend news story involving a mock dialogue between himself and Robert, Michael makes it clear that he thinks Objectivism is similar to his own Jesus-worship cult.
For instance, he puts the following words into Robert’s mouth:
<< “It is written by the hand of the goddess!”” >>
<< “Existence exists! Grusunkahlahdoodoo! You’re denying the axioms! A plague on you and all of your house! It’s is written! Page 82! The goddess speaks!” >>
The language Michael uses here to denigrate Objectivists and Objectivism, is clearly borrowed from the religious worldview which Michael himself champions. Objectivism has no “goddess” any more than it has a “god.” Also, it does not point to anyone’s writings as though they were true merely because the person who wrote them is considered some infallible authority. That’s the stuff of Christianity, not Objectivism. The reference to a “plague” on a person and his “house” is clearly inspired by stuff we read in the Old Testament (see here). The clumsily written “It’s is written” is a verbatim borrowing from Christianity; the phrase “it is written” is found 63 times in the NT (see here).
In all of this, Michael ends up merely lampooning his own religion, for these are clearly motifs and tropes originating in his worldview which he’s erroneously projecting onto Objectivism.
What’s important to note overall is the fact that, in order to spread a falsehood, Michael shows that he needs to draw from his own Christian worldview. Meanwhile, in order to affirm anything as truthful, he needs to borrow from Objectivism (cf. the primacy of existence). And throughout all of this, it is needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway, simply because it’s fun to rub it in), Michael makes himself look utterly foolish in the eyes of onlookers. (I know, I have received dozens of private messages from blog observers who are stymied by Michael’s self-effacing behavior).
All of this points to deep psychological problems which Michael has likely been suffering for much of his life. His schoolmates probably teased him and he consequently suffered from an inferiority complex which he’s never outgrown. Self-esteem has to be earned just as appreciation from others does. But he seems to expect appreciation from others after baselessly calling them “liars,” “whores,” “snakes,” “imbeciles,” “idiots,” etc. It’s bizarre that he would actually expect people to appreciate him after treating others in this manner. When Michael writes “I can't get noooo-oo-oo appre-ci-a-tion,” he’s really saying what the original Stones lyric says, namely that he “can’t get no satisfaction.” The guy is extremely unsatisfied with something of central importance in his life. He apparently thinks that by unleashing his contempt on my blog, he’s going to somehow get over whatever it is that’s gnawing at his conscience. Perhaps he’s suffered great personal loss which he’ll never regain, such as a condemned criminal loses years of his life in a prison. Perhaps Michael is a paroled ex-con.
Regards,
Dawson
Michael wrote: “And speaking of semantic charades, your rhetoric that “causality presupposes material existence is cute, but trite.”
Okay, yes, let’s revisit this. Here’s what Michael said and what I said in response to it. This was back on 10 Dec. in this blog:
Michael wrote: “Can we apply the term ‘god’ to your eternally existent universe? If not, why not? And if your ill-defined existence has not always existed than how did it come to be? Would the original first cause be ‘god’, whatever that might be, or does the chain of cause-and-effect go back without end, you know, into the realm of infinity that according to the Objectivist cannot have identity and, therefore, cannot existence? But wait a minute. If there is no original, uncaused cause or no impossible chain of infinite cause-and-effect, how did you and I come to be? We do exist don’t we, you and I, along with everything else around us?”
I responded: “Michael’s line of inquiry here simply shows that he’s unfamiliar with the basics of Objectivist 101. Objectivism does not hold to the view of causality assumed in all this. Objectivism rejects the event-based view of causation, and rather goes with the entity-based view of causation. Very simply, causality presupposes existence, not the other way around.”
Back at the time, Michael didn’t know how to react to this. Coming face to face with a basic principle which he sensed he could not counter, he expressed agreement with my point, writing on 10 Dec. “Of course it does,” not recognizing the total destruction it represents to the line of thinking he had previously expressed (in his above paragraph). We know he didn’t recognize how damaging this principle was for his line of reasoning, for right after saying “Of course it does,” he then wrote (in the very same message): “Given that that observation is self-evident, universally understood by all . . . long before Rand came along, what's your point?” Clearly he didn’t see the point! Indeed, he then wrote: “Zoom! Right over your head.” If ever there were an autobiographically boomeranging headshot in a discussion forum, this must take the top prize. He even repeated the very same thing in his next comment to photo! A double boomeranging headshot, all for the price of one! And if that weren’t enough, make it a triple boomeranging headshot, for he reposted his comment to photo again right after the first one, making it a total of three! Wow! Just wow!!! Go check the record if you don’t believe me.
[continued...]
Then oddly, the next day, on 11 Dec., “Kyle Jamison” chimed in on the matter. After quoting my statement that “causality presupposes existence,” “Kyle” wrote:
<< Just when I thought I’d been imagining cause and effect all these years that chestnut rolls by. Good thing too, I was about to slit my wrists.
Please tell me Dawson was pulling on our legs.
Michael's got more patience than me. >>
Why would anyone think I was pulling on anyone’s legs here? It’s just bizarre!
Now, mind you, don’t forget that the previous day (10 Dec.), Michael David Rawlings had forgotten to sign out of one of his “alter ego” online personalities and posted a comment under the name “Toby Jacobs.” Big oops!!!!
[continued…]
Still puzzled as to how to react to my statement, Michael no doubt sensed that it yanked him back to reality, but this only resulted in compounding his resentment. So he railed against it with ridicule and made statements to the effect that all his anonymous friends (probably 0-2 in number) were laughing their heads off at my statement. For instance, on 11 Dec., he wrote:
<< P.S. Shot Dawson’s “causality presupposes existence” to my circle of friends. We all got a laugh out of that one.
Zoom! Right over freddies’ and photo’s head. >>
Why would something he earlier agreed to (“Of course it does”) cause anyone to laugh? Michael never explained this, nor did he ever divulge what he actually said to his friends. I’m guessing there was no communication with his “friends” on this at all, for it would be super-embarrassing for him, especially given the triple boomeranging headshot he gave himself in response to it. He just wanted to intimidate. Sadly for him, it didn’t work. Here I am a month later, and I’m still holding consistently to my worldview, and Michael still hasn’t made one point on behalf of his theistic worldview which has survived scrutiny. Man, that must hurt!
Again, the suspicion that “Kyle” is just another of Michael’s alter-ego sock-puppets is impossible to shake. The signs are simply way too telling, and Michael’s clumsiness is way too clumsy.
Michael writes: “First, the theoretical, eternally existent substratum of the quantum vacuum of origination as you would have it can accurately be thought of as a material/empirical existence.”
It’s not clear why Michael thinks this is how I “would have it.” I have never made any statements here regarding a “substratum of the quantum vacuum of origination.” My view is very simple: existence is eternal. That should be easy enough for even Michael to digest, but I’m sure he’ll rail against it for some manufactured (i.e., arbitrary) reason which simply undercuts itself (i.e., which chokes on its own stolen concepts).
[continued…]
Michael writes: “Second, causality most certainly does not necessarily presuppose material existence. That’s your unfalsifiable presupposition of a metaphysical naturalism showing again. Best zip that up. It’s unsightly, and it doesn’t help your case.”
The point that causality presupposes existence and not the other way around is simply a general reminder that we do not need to worry about finding some cause of existence. There can be no causality without existence. This is simply a general truth. When it gets to any specific instance of causality, the nature of any specific action depends on the nature of the entity performing it. This too is a general truth pertaining to the relationship between an entity and the actions it performs. When struck on a horizontal surface, a billiard ball rolls (an action) instead of transforming into a donut, collapsing into a pool of jelly or passing wind, because of the nature of the billiard ball itself.
This general point about causality blows out of the water the silly, stupid asinine line of reasoning Michael David Rawlings tried to foist on us in the paragraph by him quoted above. For one thing, it’s clear that he is assuming the event-based understanding of causality which Objectivism rejects (he asks “does the chain of cause-and-effect go back without end”), which completely ignores the dependence of causality on existence, especially given the context in which he speaks of “cause-and-effect.” Also, since he thinks that one of the consequences in response to “the problem of origin” is “go[ing] back without end… into the realm of infinity,” he is clearly assuming that causality precedes existence; there’s no way to make sense of this notion on the basis that causality presupposes existence without trying to have one’s cake, and eat it, too. He asks “if there is no original, uncaused cause” (which is supposed to be his “infinite consciousness” god) and “no impossible chain of infinite cause-and-effect, how did you and I come to be?” again assuming the event-based understanding of causation. If causation is the relationship between an entity and its own actions, then there’s no concern about an “infinite chain of cause-and-effect,” and there’s no need to posit an “original, uncaused cause” that created existence in the first place. Indeed, as I have asked: when I pick up a rock in my backyard, what in reality suggests that it was created by an act of consciousness in the first place? Notice how Michael is avoiding this question?????? Should we be surprised that he’s avoiding it? Of course not.
The objection that “causality does not necessarily presuppose ‘material’ existence” is nonsensical; it has no objective reference and it misses the point of the general principle it’s attempting to hijack into the service of some mystical viewpoint. It doesn’t matter what the nature of the entity performing the action is; if it is an entity and it performs an action, the action it performs depends on the nature of the entity performing it. If it is a billiard ball rolling, the rolling depends on the billiard ball; if the billiard ball is composed of matter, the action it performs depends on the nature of something that is material in nature.
Mind you, as I’ve pointed out before, we don’t learn any of this from the bible. Its authors are too preoccupied with who’s getting a circumcision, who begat whom, who will slay whom, who has obeyed whom, who has committed fornication and who has lied to his father, etc., to be concerned with general philosophical principles which we can use to help us understand how we can reason and learn about the world in which we live.
[continued…]
Michael then says: “In fact, your assertion is unscientific. Science can only address material causation; it cannot legitimately affirm or deny non-material causation.”
I have not denied “material causation” in the first place, so it’s hard to see how my “assertion is unscientific.” Michael is the one who wants to make room for something that science cannot legitimately investigate. Science requires certain fundamentals in place supplied by rational philosophy. Among those is a rational understanding of causality. The event-based view of causality, which Christians typically assume as a matter of habit, can only lead where it led David Hume – to the view that there is no necessary relationship involved between cause and effect and that any “impression” of necessity must be supplied by the imagination. That’s hardly scientific!!! The entity-based view of causality is what science needs, and Objectivism supplies this explicitly.
Michael: “You’re getting your science all tangled up with the metaphysics of Objectivism.”
No, not at all. You’re just not grasping the relationships between fundamental principles and their application in specialized areas of study. The problem is yours, Michael, and it’s choking throughout your whole stupid Christian worldview.
Go worry about circumcised penises and who’s failing to wash their hands before eating. That’s what your cult is all about. It offers no rational principles and in fact depends expressly on denying them and suffocating them out of existence.
Regards,
Dawson
@Dawson
Concerning your latest posts. I honestly cant find much of anything there to disagree with save one point. It is not so much a disagreement but a question. I concur that causality presupposes existence. Does not matter what kind of existence but something. If ghosts exist then they act in accordance with the identity (nature) of ghosts regardless as to what they are physically composed of. However if the objection about infinite regress I think is valid. The objectivist is claiming the universe has always been and that means that we have an actual infinite past behind all of us. Is that not a contradiction? Is that not an actuality without exact identity? Please bare in mind the Hartle Hawking model Robert and I were discussing would solve this and is by and large compatible with objectivism.
DuhsonConfused stupidity writes: "I have not denied 'material causation' in the first place. . . ."
And no one said you have, and neither have I, ya worthless toad.
" . . . so it’s hard to see how my 'assertion is unscientific.' "
If you’re attempting to assert that science can affirm of falsify the existence of the transcendent than, yes, you’re making pseudo-scientific baby talk. Pretending not to understand again, eh? Goal-posting again, eh? Lying again, eh?
Seriously, DuzhsonZero, if you have to lie to cover the deficiencies of your Objectivist claptrap, why are you still believing it, defending it? Like I said, it would be tragic if it weren’t so hilarious.
“Michael is the one who wants to make room for something that science cannot legitimately investigate."
No. Liar. Michael knows science can’t affirm or deny the existence of the transcendent. And Michael shows that the empirical evidence of science does not falsify the existence of the transcendent. And Michael also shows that it does not hurt the case for transcendence at all. That’s all Michael shows, and that’s all Michael argues.
You’re imagining things.
And shut up about Hume. You idiots don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve been reading Hume for years and have written several articles on him. I can tell your reading is nothing more than a smattering here and there tangled up with Objectivist lore. I’m not the one relying on a metaphysical naturalism. You are! What Hume shows is a problem for you! What Hume shows is that pure empiricism succumbs to relativism. I hold to a rational-empirical construct of epistemology. Ya dingbats, you’re the only one’s trying to assert teleological arguments. Teleological arguments are empirical by nature. The biblical arguments for God existence are ontological.
The fact that you think the rock matters demonstrates that you’re looking for a teleological argument. Zoom! Right over! You don’t really understand Hume at all, and you don’t understand what’s going on at all. The biblical arguments for God existence are ontological. I don’t care about you’re friggin’ rock, but it is infinitely divisible, which doesn‘t help your case.
Duh.
Psst. Justin, has the QV always existed? If not, you're right back to the absurdity of asserting that something can arise from nothing.
*shakes head*
The more you guys try to deny the undeniable, i.e, the inescapable, the more irrational you get.
Semantics. Metaphysical hijinks nancing about as science.
Justin, seriously, what’s wrong with you? Hawking knows he’s not talking about a metaphysical/existential nothingness.
He says “nothing” and you go, “Yup!”
Justin writes: "Concerning your latest posts. I honestly cant find much of anything there to disagree with save one point."
That's all you have to disagree with?!
Causality presupposes existence. Fact.
Science presupposes material causation. Fact.
Science cannot falsify non-material causation. Fact.
DuhsonZero cannot rationally argue with these statements. Fact.
DuhsonZero is trying to. Fact.
He thinks to do so by misstating them, by lying. Fact.
___________________________
"Please bare in mind the Hartle Hawking model Robert and I were discussing would solve this and is by and large compatible with objectivism."
You left me out. I've discussed it too. And I’m not seeing any counters that can refute the fact that Hawking et al. are playing games with words and essences. Nonsense. The Hartle-Hawking model does not avoid/resolve infinite material regression.
Get off it. The QV is not an immaterial thing. Matter has nothing to do with it. The term "material" does not necessarily entail literal "matter." Space has mass. Space has gravity. Space has magnitude. It is not a metaphysical nothingness. Fact.
The QV would be the cause, and what caused the QV?
A semantic charade does not change the reality. It does not resolve Objectivism’s problem at all. Poor Robert just wants to tag the word "nothing" onto his cause, as if that changes the reality. And plenty of physicists don't buy into Hawking’s crap either.
And, by the way, the QV or the existence of other universes isn’t a problem for the Bible, like Robert foolishly thought, is it?
BTW, were you talking about infinity in some metaphysical sense with regard to your mathematical question?
Michael,
«A semantic charade does not change the reality.»
Exactly. Which leads me to ask why the hell do you insist on semantic (and pseudo-mathematical) charades?
«It does not resolve Objectivism’s problem at all.»
Which problem? You have to be very specific, because you seem to be suggesting that unless objectivism could explain everything, it has a problem. Be careful, because it has been said to you many times that objectivism provides the foundation for knowledge, and that further knowledge should be gained by other means. It's one thing to give you a foundation. Quite another to give you the answers to everything that science might be investigating. All that crap about Hawking, QVs, and others is completely irrelevant. (I know Robert started that discussion, but that's Robert's problem to discuss, not a problem for objectivism, there's a huge difference. Maybe you need to understand the difference between what somebody knows about science, and the philosophical foundation that they hold to.)
« ... And plenty of physicists don't buy into Hawking’s crap either.»
That might be so, but I I had no option but to choose between your "scientific" opinion (specially after your repetitive display of pseudo-mathematical-semantic charade about zeroes possessing infinities or mistaking a function with the parts of a function), and that of Hawking, I would side with Hawking blindly.
As per causation, you need to read what Dawson told you much more carefully. But much more carefully. That would solve 99% of your misunderstanding, and help you expose much more clearly what you are trying to tell him.
To end this comment: Yes, you are a complete and incompetent ass-hole.
Some exemplary bullshit from Michael,
«Causality presupposes existence. Fact.»
I did not see Dawson disagree with this. That you would include this in your list comes only to show that you lack reading comprehension skills. That you are too much of an ass-hole. As I have insisted, you simple can't read.
«Science presupposes material causation. Fact.»
False. Science assumes that things do what they do. That's it. I rarely see people in science talking about "causation" and that it has to be "material." Apologists and pseudo-philosophers are the ones obsessed with a misinformed, pre-dark-ages, concept of causation. Most scientists have moved on and understand that there's relationships and actions, and that they can't be explained that stupidly (in purely terms of cause/effect crap, let alone in the pre-dark-ages concept of that crap).
«Science cannot falsify non-material causation. Fact.»
Again. Remember that materialism moved on into physicalism. When you say "non-material" you are assuming that you are saying something, but you are saying nothing. Energy is not "material" but physical, for example. So you would have to be much more specific. Still, Dawson has not talked about science being able or not to do any of this. Therefore you are reading into Dawson's comment, something Dawson has not discussed here. Not even once. You are showing yet again that you can't read.
«DuhsonZero cannot rationally argue with these statements. Fact.»
You do not know if Dawson can or cannot talk about these things rationally. Not only you do not know, you lack the necessary rational background to be able to make such a statement.
«DuhsonZero is trying to. Fact.»
False. You already provided enough evidence here that you did not read what Dawson wrote. Otherwise you would know whether he agrees or disagrees with one or more of your statements, the reasons why he would agree or disagree with others, and which ones he did not even touch because he is not the one talking about those things.
Don't fucking mix and match people Michael. Just like I did not care about Peikoff (after our discussion I read it better, and I see his point and how it related to our discussion, but I still don't care discussing Peikoff, I care about what I told you, not about what you read or misread in Peikoff), I do not care about QV or Hawking. Peikoff was Dawson;s to talk about, and he gave you answers that you did not read. QVs and Hawking, were Robert's and Justin's (I think). I am not an objectivist.
See all that? So, mixing and mistaking us does not help you one bit. Mixing the particulars of some scientific knowledge / understanding / misunderstanding / whatever, with the philosophy of objectivism is beyond stupid even by Christian standards.
Your very first task should be to learn to read properly. That alone would make your performance so much better. So, yes, you are a complete and incompetent ass-hole.
Robert,
This one was great:
«Is nothing sacred?»
Justin,
I am no objectivist. But I think that before talking about "infinite regression," you should be clear what you are talking about. Because, commonly, Christians and pseudo-philosophers refer to causality, or movement, or some such shit which presume too much. With or without Hawking, with or without quantum vacuums, with or without anything, all the shit about prime movers and prime causes, would never lead to the supernatural, would never lead to gods, would never lead to infinite consciousness. I do not see the need to know everything there is to know about whether time expends forever to the past and will extend forever to the future, before we can judge if such shit (prime mover/uncaused cause outside of physical reality) has any merit. We should understand that such shit has no value whatsoever other than being pseudo-phylosophical traps for the unwary. Traps that rely astoundingly much on equivocation and unwarranted jumps into the utterly imaginary. Astoundingly because people (theologians, apologists, and such bullshitters) have gotten away with obvious fallacies since times immemorial. In other words, the gods have much more basic problems. I think that Dawson does good at concentrating on the most basic problems first.
Also, Michael is in too much trouble scientifically speaking. So, trying to explain to him about the latest in cosmology goes nowhere (even if it was useful, Michael would never understand any of it). Take a look at his blog and you will find a mix and match of things he accepts, things he rejects, and also note how incompatible his whole shit is with his own professed beliefs. Christianity is plagued with contradictions already. Michael's version only makes them worse.
Hi again, Michael,
I saw a pause in the proceedings, so I thought I'd jump in here with a little update on how I'm progressing with the whole matter of "univocal/analogical" truth, etc.
Back on November 13, 2012 (time stamp 4:11 PM) you stated that: "True knowledge is analogical. The believer's reasoning is analogical, the non-believer's, univocal."
But in my research, I came across a link which cited Christian apologist Gordon Clark as saying in "The Bible as Truth" that: “If the human mind were limited to analogical truths, it could never know univocal truth that it was limited to analogies.”
Given your statement and Gordon Clarks', I'm a little confused as to where Judeo-Christianity stands on this matter.
Anyway, that's my update. But I plan to keep exploring.
Ydemoc
Source: Associated Press
"Update: Rawlings interviews former Objectivist Cult member"
01/12/2013
You-Just-Can't-Make-This Stuff-Up-Or-Maybe-You-Can World Journal
Former cult member Kevin Saunders, deprogrammed by Cult Watch, explains:
“You’re programmed to believe that certain ideas about realty, which are obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of a rash, are profound and unique to Objectivism. That’s the hook. You’re encouraged to repeat the rest of Objectivism’s tripe over and over again until it all melds together into one, big, fat, sugar-coated cookie in your brain, so much so that the thoroughly brainwashed acolyte perceives that the actual universals themselves are being denied by Objectivism’s detractors.”
“It’s what we call a self-defense mechanism downed without the milk,” Lawrence Nielson of Cult Watch interjects.
Kevin takes a deep breath. A shimmer of tears threatens to spill over. “I can’t believe I fell for it,” he sniffs. “I mean . . . I’m not a stupid man.” I wave off the camera. “I was in a bad place, ya know? My wife had left me, and the kids hated me, especially the eldest. Even my dog turned on me. There was so much stress in my life . . . and Objectivism promised a way out. Next thing I know, I’m smoking’ five packs of nail coffins a day and my shelves are lined with hundreds of dollars of books and pamphlets filled with rank stupidity. . . .”
Nielson concludes: Our motto around here is Don’t read Objectivism; read real philosophy.”
Clark's just saying that not all truths are analogical. In fact, most are univocal, i.e., literal. No mystery there.
PhotoDelirious makes baby talk again. Makes a boom-boom in his pants.
Michael David Bawlings, a.k.a. "Self-Blown-Up-Ass",
Since you can't understand any word I write, you can't but make one of your nonsensical comments. Thanks for being such a sport and letting everybody know, yet again, that your reading capabilities are nonexistent. Just one among your many illiteracies.
See ya Mr Incompetent Ass-Hole.
And we have yet another meltdown from M.D. Rawlings…
As is typical for Rawlings, he issues another tirade of assertions laced with unsupported accusations. Let’s take a look:
I wrote: "I have not denied 'material causation' in the first place. . . ."
Michael responded: “And no one said you have”
Good, then you agree with me. Nice.
I wrote: " . . . so it’s hard to see how my 'assertion is unscientific.'"
Recall that MDR accused my “assertion” of being “unscientific.” Notice that he cannot make good on this accusation.
MDR wrote: “If you’re attempting to assert that science can affirm of falsify the existence of the transcendent than, yes, you’re making pseudo-scientific baby talk.”
I don’t think I’m trying to “assert that science can affirm of falsify the existence of the transcendent.” I’m not even sure what that is supposed to mean, so why would I assert this?
One thing’s for sure, and MDR is completely oblivious of this fact, is that science has no obligation to refute the arbitrary. MDR has already been challenged to explain what in reality would suggest that a rock we pick up from the ground was created by an act of consciousness. If it were a fact that rocks were created by an act of consciousness, I don’t see why this would be beyond the ability of scientific inquiry to discover. And if religion were true, it would be a fact that rocks were created by an act of consciousness. To compartmentalize the scope of science such that “the transcendent” is simply off-limits to science’s legitimate range of inquiry, is simply an attempt to immunize one’s religious beliefs from rational scrutiny. Needless to say, this does not speak well for their credibility.
[continued…]
MDR wrote: “Pretending not to understand again, eh? Goal-posting again, eh? Lying again, eh?”
Like my atheism: none of the above. I’m not at all “pretending not to understand.” Nor am I “goal-posting.” Nor am I “lying again.” I haven’t lied at all here. If you make a botched-up statement like “science can affirm of falsify the existence of the transcendent” and I honestly don’t understand what you’re trying to say, I’m not pretending when I say I don’t understand it. Besides, it’s better simply to point out the fact that claims about a “transcendent” realm are simply arbitrary and need only be dismissed with a chuckle, as consistently rational people do. I know, that pours hot coals over your already-inflamed head. But that’s your problem, not mine.
MDR wrote: “Seriously, DuzhsonZero, if you have to lie to cover the deficiencies of your Objectivist claptrap, why are you still believing it, defending it? Like I said, it would be tragic if it weren’t so hilarious.”
Well, I’m not lying, and I’m not trying to cover any “deficiencies.” Again, MDR seems to be projecting here.
Notice that MDR continually fails to address the issues that come up in the discussion, and constantly focuses his efforts on character assassination. He can’t deal with the issues, so he instead pours all his effort into making this a personal matter. He’s offended that we don’t bow to his authority and simply accept his say so on his unidentified “credentials.” So he becomes sorely vindictive. Meanwhile, my position remains intact. So what does it gain him? Blank out.
I wrote: “Michael is the one who wants to make room for something that science cannot legitimately investigate."
MDR wrote: “No. Liar. Michael knows science can’t affirm or deny the existence of the transcendent.”
See, I was right. MDR wants to immunize “the transcendent” from both confirmation and refutation by means of science; he wants to say it’s beyond the scope of scientific investigation. That’s the only way I can understand the claim that “science can’t affirm or deny the existence of the transcendent.” And yet MDR calls me a liar. Again, he seems not to know whether he’s coming or going.
[continued…]
MDR wrote: “And Michael shows that the empirical evidence of science does not falsify the existence of the transcendent.”
To the extent that MDR is correct here, it is only because he has shown that his claims about “the transcendent” are completely arbitrary. They have no basis in reality, they have no connection to fact, they are entirely imaginative in nature, and they depend on a worldview whose fundamentals blur the fundamental distinction between reality and imagination. Science deals with facts. Science cannot “confirm or deny” the invisible dragon I imagine living in my garage. So we can give this one to MDR, only it’s not at all attractive for his position.
Again, if MDR wants to explain what in reality would suggest that a rock we find on the ground was created by an act of consciousness, he is free to do this. But so far he’s not taking up this challenge. This can only mean that he completely forfeits all his efforts here, for this is where his talk of “the transcendent” would necessarily and unmistakably connect with reality – via the “problem of origin” coupled with his affirmation of the primacy of consciousness.
And again, notice that MDR still does not cite the bible to provide any philosophical support for his position. But how could he? It offers none in the first place. If he wanted to challenge us on who should be circumcised and who should not eat shellfish, I’m sure he’d find the bible very useful here. But in matters of philosophy, it’s the furthest from MDR’s mind. His bible is of no use when it comes to philosophy. That’s why he continually ignores it.
[continued…]
MDR writes: “And Michael also shows that it does not hurt the case for transcendence at all.”
Well, I guess so. After all, you can’t hurt what doesn’t exist in the first place.
MDR commanded: “And shut up about Hume.”
No, I don’t think I will. It’s not as though Hume were your exclusive property or something.
Seriously, this “shut up” stuff is just hilarious. Observe what else MDR wrote:
MDR: “You idiots don’t know what you’re talking about.”
But MDR keeps coming back to us. If we’re all “idiots” who “don’t know what [we’re] talking about,” what keeps MDR coming back here? Does it help his inferiority complex? Does it feed his delusions of grandeur? If MDR is still deluded that he’s some big, formidable intellect, he really is oblivious to the things going on around him. I’m thankful that we have all this on record.
MDR: “I’ve been reading Hume for years and have written several articles on him.”
Great, MDR. You’re so unique in that respect, aren’t you? You’re the only one out there who knows anything about what Hume wrote. You’re just incredible.
MDR: “I can tell your reading is nothing more than a smattering here and there tangled up with Objectivist lore.”
Yes, you can make such statements, there’s no doubt about that. MDR can say anything. His tongue is as unbridled as his emotions and attitude. Since he’s accepted the primacy of consciousness at the very foundations of your worldview, it’s clear that he thinks something is true simply because he says it. Like so many other Christians who have come here to defend their primitive worldview, MDR confuses himself with the god he enshrines in his imagination.
[continued…]
MDR: “I’m not the one relying on a metaphysical naturalism.”
Whatever MDR wants to call it, he’s essentially relying on his imagination. That is his guide to “knowledge.”
MDR: “You are!”
I have seen various definitions of ‘metaphysical naturalism’, and this is not a term I use to describe my position. So I’ll make it very easy for MDR: I’m relying on reason. It is a conceptual process. But MDR doesn’t know anything about concepts; his worldview has no theory of concepts. Indeed, his worldview’s epistemology amounts to nothing more than “we know without knowing how we know.” This is the big secret that he didn’t want us to discover. But we’ve known about it all along. It just fuels his contempt like nothing else.
MDR: “What Hume shows is a problem for you!”
It’s not, but MDR will probably never figure this out.
MDR: “What Hume shows is that pure empiricism succumbs to relativism.”
So how is that a problem for Objectivism? Objectivist epistemology is not “pure empiricism.” We have the conceptual level of consciousness, and we understand how it works and how it ties to the perceptual level of cognition. Where’s the problem???? Blank out.
MDR: “I hold to a rational-empirical construct of epistemology.”
Show us where this “rational-empirical construct of epistemology” is laid out in the bible. We’ve asked this before, but MDR never makes an effort to qualify his rantings about epistemology as legitimately biblical. MDR’s epistemology is that of every Christian: he knows without knowing how he knows. That’s “epistemology,” Christian style. We have a Christian theologian who came out of the closet on this. MDR is still hiding in his closet on this one. He’s embarrassed by it, so he tries to hide it by cloaking it with wholly extra-biblical garb – e.g., “rational-empirical construct of epistemology” – an “epistemology,” mind you, which has nothing to say about the nature of concepts and the process by which the human mind forms them other than to say that they’re “automatic.” Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!! Some “epistemology” that one!
[continued…]
MDR: “Ya dingbats, you’re the only one’s trying to assert teleological arguments. Teleological arguments are empirical by nature.”
What “teleological arguments” have I been “trying to assert”? I simply asked you to explain what in reality suggests that a rock we find on the ground was created by an act of consciousness. The Christian worldview holds that everything in the universe was created by an act of consciousness. So when I pick up a rock, according to Christianity, that rock was allegedly created by an act of consciousness. I’m just wondering what in reality suggests this? I don’t think anything in reality does suggest this. I’ve already pointed out before that this is something mystics imagine. You seem to be agreeing, without coming out and stating so, that there is nothing in reality which suggests that a rock we find on the ground was created by an act of consciousness. Can you make your position on this plain once and for all? Any stalling on your part will only confirm that you haven’t got a case to present.
MDR: “The biblical arguments for God existence are ontological.”
Okay, show us where the bible presents an ontological argument for “God’s existence.” Book, chapter and verse please.
Huh, what’s that? Cat got your keyboard? No biblical references? Huh????
[continued…]
MDR: “The fact that you think the rock matters demonstrates that you’re looking for a teleological argument.”
How so? It’s up to you what kind of argument you can generate for your position, whether teleological, cosmological, etc. The point of my inquiry is not that I’m “looking for a teleological argument.” If that’s what you think, you’ve missed the point completely; indeed, I’ve never specified what kind of argument you need to present. It’s your position we’re examining and diagnosing. The point of my inquiry is to determine what kind – if any – of connection your position has to reality. That’s all. You call your “epistemology” a “rational-empirical construct.” So, on your position, you must claim to “know” that the rock I picked up in my backyard was created by an act of consciousness. So let’s see how this “rational-empirical construct” of yours works. A “rational-empirical construct” should at minimum, I would think, be capable of generating knowledge from facts. So what “facts” tell us that the rock I picked up in my backyard yesterday was created by an act of consciousness? Ontological arguments are entirely rationalistic in nature; they try to derive a conclusion entirely from the meaning of a concept. Ontological arguments are not about gathering facts as part of a “rational-empirical” process by which to generate a conclusion. So when you say above that “biblical arguments for God existence are ontological,” you’re essentially telling us that your “rational-empirical construct of epistemology” is in fact not biblical.
Hey, this isn’t my problem.
MDR wrote: “Zoom! Right over!”
Indeed, zoom, right over MDR’s shriveled head.
I swear, this guy must be some former inmate of an institution.
MDR: “You don’t really understand Hume at all, and you don’t understand what’s going on at all.”
I know, don’t tell me: we’re all just so stupid and ignorant, and you have all the answers. Brilliant one, MDR!
Gee, I almost fell for that one! Must have been another of MDR’s “traps.”
MDR: “The biblical arguments for God existence are ontological.”
Okay, MDR, believe what you want. Care to cite any biblical passages to support this?
MDR: “I don’t care about you’re friggin’ rock,”
In other words, you can’t identify anything in reality which suggests that the rock was created by an act of consciousness. Good. I’m happy with that.
MDR: “but it is infinitely divisible, which doesn‘t help your case.”
My “case” for what precisely? All we need to know is whether or not there’s something in reality which tells us that the rock was created by an act of consciousness. This challenge has been put to you and you’ve taken a powder on it. So we have our answer. I’m satisfied with that. It’s you, MDR, who “can’t get no s-a-a-a-a-tis-fa-a-a-ac-tion”.
Regards,
Dawson
More boom-boom from photoSmell.
Dawson Brute,
Your conscience tells you God created those rocks.
So, how is it that it isn't?
I have asked: “when I pick up a rock in my backyard, what in reality suggests that it was created by an act of consciousness in the first place?”
Nidiot now addresses the question (sort of): “Your conscience tells you God created those rocks.”
Okay, now we’re getting somewhere. Here Nidiot is confirming that the Christian view is that the rock I picked up in my backyard was, according to Christianity, created by an act of consciousness. Very good. So my question is valid with respect to what Christianity holds.
But Nidiot’s answer? He says that “[my] conscience tells [me] God created those rocks.” If this were the Christian view all along, one wonders why MDR didn’t tell us this in any of his recent comments. In response to my question, MDR stated “I don’t care about you’re friggin’ rock.” It’s quite curious that Nidiot has to come rescue MDR now.
But the content of Nidiot’s answer to my question can only concede that there is nothing independent of consciousness that we can discover in reality which suggests that any rock we pick up from the ground was created by an act of consciousness. Nidiot’s answer can only mean that any would-be “evidence” for the claim that the rock was created by an act of consciousness is internal to our conscious experience, that we must look inward, into our subjective mental states, to find whatever it is which suggests this. Nidiot says I can find this in my conscience. But when I examine my conscience, I find nothing which suggests that the rock I picked up in my yard was created by an act of consciousness. Obviously my conscience is not one which departs from reality like that of the religionist’s conscience. There’s no breach between my explicitly held philosophical views and my subconscious experience. So, contrary to what Nidiot asserts (without argument, mind you), I must look elsewhere.
[continued…]
Now, of course, as I have pointed out before, I can imagine that the rock was created by an act of consciousness. But I have enough good sense to acknowledge the fact that what I imagine about something is not necessarily true, that what I imagine is not the same thing as what actually exists in reality. But I can nevertheless imagine, right along with the Christian, that the rock was created by an act of consciousness. Nidiot is confusing his imagination with his conscience, apparently not understanding what the difference is. Nor does Nidiot consider the possibility that one’s interpretation of one’s own conscience could be wrong and thus needs to be secured by factual input in order to safeguard the integrity of one’s understanding of his conscience. But alas, this is way too deep for our young friend to grasp.
MDR has affirmed that “Christian epistemology” is a “rational-empirical construct.” Does this “epistemology” work in the manner that Nidiot’s response to my question suggests? Does it work by turning the focus of one’s awareness inward, into the subjective states of one’s own consciousness, an action performed under the pretext that one does not know the difference between his conscience and his imagination, in order to discover and validate truths about reality? If so, then clearly his “epistemology” needs to be abandoned, for it has no means of filtering out subjective notions. In fact, it is explicitly formulated only to yield subjective notions. For example, Nidiot’s “conscience” might tell him that the rock was created by an act of consciousness while another person’s “conscience” my tell him that the rock is a byproduct of celestial puffing by primordial microorganisms. Since the epistemological process is the same in each case, how is one supposed to sort out such conflicts? Neither Nidiot’s confused appeal to “conscience” or MDR’s “rational-empirical construct” which results in “we know without knowing how we know” offers very little promise to a solution here.
Nidiot asked: “So, how is it that it isn't?”
For one thing, you have no idea what my conscience tells me or doesn’t tell me. You sacrificed your conscience long ago, just as MDR has. For another thing, see above.
Got any more religious wisdom to share with us? Please, don’t hold back. We’re really enjoying the entertainment you provide.
Regards,
Dawson
Dawson,
Just as I expected.
I've known you all my life, pal.
See ya wouldn't wanna be ya.
Michael David Bawlings, a.k.a. "Self-Blown-Up-Ass",
I previously said that your first step should be learning to read properly. I was wrong. Your first step should be to gain some self-respect. No, no, I did not say my respect, I said your own respect. Maybe you should start easy. Maybe by doing something well. For example, try and do the dishes carefully. Make sure you concentrate. Do it well. Then, after you have some respect for your approach to cleaning the dishes, maybe you can start trying to actually learn to read properly. If it's too difficult to you do something else until you gain enough self-respect that you can take something this challenging and fail a few times without losing your self-respect. Knowing that failing is part of the process of learning, and that your self-image does not depend on making others feel inferior, but on building a better you.
There, there, don't cry. I will not take back that cookie for learning the word "quotient," after all, it took you almost two full weeks of effort. Not to worry. OK, OK, you can keep the one I gave you for learning the words "algebra" and "trigonometry" even though you still don't know what the words mean. Now go. The dishes Michael. The dishes. What? You do not know what a dish is? Shit. OK, just start by learning how to put on your shoes ...
Richard/Hezek/Nidiot said to Dawson,
«Just as I expected.»
Translation: Richard is saying that he knew he would get something he is too intellectually lazy and incompetent to read.
Michael brayed,
«I’ve been reading Hume for years and have written several articles on him.»
I doubt it. Michael can't read and understand single paragraphs here. How could he possibly do anything more complex?
Source: Associated Press
“Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science”
01/11/2013
You-Just-Can’t-Make-This-Stuff-Up World Journal
In response to a learned missive regarding the technical application of the philosophical terms for measurement and composition to mathematics and modern science, Objectivist cult member Robert ‘Pseudo-Science’ Bumbalough yesterday averred that the composition of empirical phenomena was not relevant to the scientific concerns of identity. “It just doesn’t matter,” he said with a slur and the look of a crazed animal in his eyes. “Chemistry? Pfft. Who needs it?”
Bumbalough is a follower of the self-styled philosophy of reason known as Objectivism, so-named by its originator Ayn Rand, the controversial novelist and Russian émigré of the Twentieth Century who died of heart failure in 1982.
Rand is most notable for her rather boorishly didactic novels Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for her unapologetic defense of ethical egoism and laissez-faire capitalism.
Reports have it that Rand developed her sophomoric theory of concepts, the centerpiece of Objectivism’s mysticism, while all hopped up on amphetamines and the charm of an endless chain of nicotine delivery devices.
“After the sixth day she was downing handfuls of Dexedrine at a time every two hours with shots of Vodka like they were M&Ms,” an anonymous insider revealed.
“We had to board up all the windows on account of the fact that we almost lost her when she smashed through one. I just managed to snatch her by her ankles on her way out. We’re talkin’ forty stories. On top of that, by the eleventh day she dispensed with the Pall Malls altogether. When we weren’t repairing the holes in the sheetrock walls of her apartment from all the bouncing around, we were lining up eight balls of pure N.”
Another source who was present at the time told this report, “The needles kept breaking off in her arms due to the eradicate and uncontrollable spasms that racked her entire body from all the juice. So enraged was she with our incompetence that she literally busted the pulsing vein in the middle of her forehead that had grown to the size of a small lemon. Blood and spittle sprayed everywhere as she screamed at the top of her lungs, ‘Look here you worthless toads, existence exists! Now go nick a roll of duct tape from the corner market and just lash me down to the chair!’.”
Bumbalough just recently came to the public’s attention for the first time. Readers might recall the infamous Heisenberg Incident in which he created a short-lived sensation in the science community when he claimed that the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy voided the seemingly inescapable principle of causality.
[continued . . .]
“There’s no friggin’ cause!” Bumbalough said in a press release. “It just happens, and I can prove it.” While the science community eagerly awaited Bumbalough’s paper it was leaked by a member of his entourage that he had been under the influence of LSD for months on end. Subsequent probes revealed that Bumbalough wasn’t even a scientist, but a fanatical follower of Ayn Rand with a history of mental illness.
“Naturally, we were all very excited by the reports of a major breakthrough, only to learn shortly thereafter that Bumbalough was just another Objectivist loon,” lamented Dr. Stenson of the Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics. “Our heartfelt condolences go out to his family.”
This reporter has learned that Bumbalough has an extensive history of making outlandish scientific claims, including the claim that science not only tells us all we need to know about empirical phenomena, but about the absolute extent of existence itself. “God doesn’t exist,” Bumbalough is fond of saying, “and science proves it.”
“You need to understand what’s going on here,” explains Professor Blouer, head of the Department of Philosophy and Comparative Sociological Studies at Berkeley. “Objectivists don’t think like normal human beings. They regurgitate formulaic phrases from Rand’s works and from those of Objectivism’s leading apologists by rote. It [Objectivism] is not a rational system of thought in the tradition of the self-evident, classic laws of logic and the operational aspects of identity’s comprehensive expression. It’s just an incoherent amalgamation of meaningless blather cobbled together around a few of the more obvious insights about existence . . . so nothing else really follows.”
Lawrence Nielson of Cult Watch is more blunt: “They’re slogan spouters. Take for instance Peikoff’s asseveration that a creator would need a creator and that identity is the finite thing identified or some such rubbish. For normal people these statements are on the very face of them nonsensical, but not for the Objectivist true believer.” Peikoff is Ayn Rand’s formal “intellectual” heir. Neilson continues, “Any attempt to point out the problems . . . [of their reasoning] to them is likely to be meant with more slogans, the most common of these being, ‘You’re denying the axiom of existence!’ or ‘Theory of concepts!’. It would be tragic if it weren’t so hilarious.”
Former cult member Kevin Saunders, deprogrammed by Cult Watch, explains:
“You’re programmed to believe that certain ideas about realty, which are obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of a rash, are profound and unique to Objectivism. That’s the hook. After that, you’re encouraged to repeat the rest of Objectivism’s tripe over and over again until it all melds together into one, big, fat, sugar-coated cookie in your brain, so much so that the thoroughly brainwashed acolyte perceives that the actual universals themselves are being denied by Objectivism’s detractors.”
[continued . . .]
“It’s what we call a self-defense mechanism downed without the milk,” Nielson interjects.
Kevin takes a deep breath. A shimmer of tears threatens to spill over. “I can’t believe I fell for it,” he sniffs. “I mean . . . I’m not a stupid man.” I wave off the camera. “I was in a bad place, ya know? My wife had left me, and the kids hated me, especially the eldest. Even my dog turned on me. There was so much stress in my life . . . and Objectivism promised a way out. Next thing I know, I’m smoking’ five packs of nail coffins a day and my shelves are lined with hundreds of dollars of books and pamphlets filled with rank stupidity. . . .”
Nielson concludes: “Our motto around here is Don’t read Objectivism; read real philosophy.”
After leaving several messages on Bumbalough’s voice mail for his side of things over this latest meltdown, I learned that he had been admitted to Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital of New York for treatment. “Mr. Bumbalough is being treated for substance abuse and significant emotional problems,” a hospital spokesman informed me. However, he was able to speak with me briefly from his room over the phone before he had to be straight-jacketed and dragged off for several hours of shock therapy.
Rawlings: “It’s my understanding that you hold to the position that the composition of things is not relevant to identity in science.”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
Rawlings: “Could you explain that for us?”
Bumbalough: “It’s self-evident.”
Rawlings: “How’s that?”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
Rawlings: “What’s right?”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
Rawlings: “Uh . . . okay. Aren’t extension and composition intertwined?”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
[continued . . .]
Rawlings: “But, Bumbalough, seriously. . . . Uh . . .what?”
Bumbalough: “Look, buddy, I got spiders crawlin’ up my legs here, and you’re askin’ me about composition?”
Rawlings: “Well . . .”
Bumbalough: “Look. It’s real simple. Ya got an orange. See? Ya got an apple. See? They’re both spherical in shape. See? That’s their extension, man. You can measure that. See? You can put a friggin’ number on that. See?
Rawlings: “Okay.”
Bumbalough: Okay. So one’s orange, and the other’s red . . . or maybe the other’s green. Okay? Fine. Ya like green apples? The other’s green. I don’t like green apples. See? If ya want green apples, buy ’em yourself. I don’t want no friggin’ green apples! Got that?”
Rawlings: “That’s fine.”
Bumbalough: “You’re damn right that’s fine! No green apples. The friggin’ apple is red. Ya got that? Red!
Rawlings: “Okay. It’s red.”
Bumbalough: “You’re damn right it’s red!”
Rawlings: “Okay. So we’ve got an orange and a red apple?”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
Rawlings: “And they’re both spherical in shape?”
Bumbalough: “Did I stutter? . . . Grusunkahlahdoodoo!
Rawlings: “Uh . . . grusunkahlahdoodoo?”
Bumbalough: “Damn skippy! That’s you’re friggin’ identity right there! Orange. Red. Spherical. Identity! . . . Duhsmorkinjoo!
Rawlings: “And the chemical composition?”
Bumbalough: “Spiders!”
Rawlings: “Focus, Bumbalough.”
Bumbalough: “Okay. Ya want quality? Huh? Is that what ya want, ya ASD, Jew bastard? I’ll give ya some quality. Orange. Red. That’s you’re friggin’ quality right there!
[continued . . .]
Rawlings: “No. Bumbalough. I’m asking about their inherent chemical properties . . .”
Bumbalough: “What friggin’ difference does it make? Orange. Red. Color. That’s you’re friggin’ quality right there! Spherical. That’s you’re friggin’ quantity right there! Put a number on it!
Rawlings: “But why orange or red or spherical?”
Bumbalough: “Are ya friggin’ deaf? Who cares? Do ya eat the why? Huh? Tell me that. Do ya eat the friggin’ why?
Rawlings: “Well, actually, yes . . .
Bumbalough: “Identity!”
Rawlings: . . . I do.
Bumbalough: Finite!
Rawlings: “So the chemical properties don’t matter at . . .”
Bumbalough: “It is written by the hand of the goddess!”
Rawlings: “Uh . . . What?”
Bumbalough: “Funklestink!”
Rawlings: “Bumba . . .”
Bumbalough: “Slinkalooloo! Hahnoonahyuhkahlala!
Rawlings: “Bumba . . .”
Bumabalough: “Existence exists! Grusunkahlahdoodoo! You’re denying the axioms! A plague on you and all of your house! It is written! Page 82! The goddess speaks!
Rawlings: “Steve, call the hospital on the other line.”
Bumbalough: “Friggin’ scientists think they know everything! Identity! Quantity I tell you! It is written! The goddess be praised! Finite! I got blisters on my fingers! Goo goo g'joob! Theory of concepts! Spiders! Big honkin’ spiders! Those friggin’ ASD, Jew bastards! . . .
END
At least this time, MDR finally got the date correct.
Did he correct any of his other mistakes?
It doesn' look like it.
Regards,
Dawson
Now that's funnier than photoZero's functions are variables!
In his pretend news story involving a mock dialogue between himself and Robert, Michael makes it clear that he thinks Objectivism is similar to his own Jesus-worship cult.
For instance, he puts the following words into Robert’s mouth:
<< “It is written by the hand of the goddess!”” >>
<< “Existence exists! Grusunkahlahdoodoo! You’re denying the axioms! A plague on you and all of your house! It’s is written! Page 82! The goddess speaks!” >>
The language Michael uses here to denigrate Objectivists and Objectivism, is clearly borrowed from the religious worldview which Michael himself champions. Objectivism has no “goddess” any more than it has a “god.” Also, it does not point to anyone’s writings as though they were true merely because the person who wrote them is considered some infallible authority. That’s the stuff of Christianity, not Objectivism. The reference to a “plague” on a person and his “house” is clearly inspired by stuff we read in the Old Testament (see here). The clumsily written “It’s is written” is a verbatim borrowing from Christianity; the phrase “it is written” is found 63 times in the NT (see here).
In all of this, Michael ends up merely lampooning his own religion, for these are clearly motifs and tropes originating in his worldview which he’s erroneously projecting onto Objectivism.
What’s important to note overall is the fact that, in order to spread a falsehood, Michael shows that he needs to draw from his own Christian worldview. Meanwhile, in order to affirm anything as truthful, he needs to borrow from Objectivism (cf. the primacy of existence). And throughout all of this, it is needless to say (but I’ll say it anyway, simply because it’s fun to rub it in), Michael makes himself look utterly foolish in the eyes of onlookers. (I know, I have received dozens of private messages from blog observers who are stymied by Michael’s self-effacing behavior).
All of this points to deep psychological problems which Michael has likely been suffering for much of his life. His schoolmates probably teased him and he consequently suffered from an inferiority complex which he’s never outgrown. Self-esteem has to be earned just as appreciation from others does. But he seems to expect appreciation from others after baselessly calling them “liars,” “whores,” “snakes,” “imbeciles,” “idiots,” etc. It’s bizarre that he would actually expect people to appreciate him after treating others in this manner. When Michael writes “I can't get noooo-oo-oo appre-ci-a-tion,” he’s really saying what the original Stones lyric says, namely that he “can’t get no satisfaction.” The guy is extremely unsatisfied with something of central importance in his life. He apparently thinks that by unleashing his contempt on my blog, he’s going to somehow get over whatever it is that’s gnawing at his conscience. Perhaps he’s suffered great personal loss which he’ll never regain, such as a condemned criminal loses years of his life in a prison. Perhaps Michael is a paroled ex-con.
Regards,
Dawson
I don't care who you are. That's rollin'-on-the-floor funny!
Oh, sorry. I was talking about your psychobabble.
And what is the quantity of DuhsonZero's sense of humor. Let's see, that would be zero!
LOL!
Zero.
Get it?
Michael brayed,
«Now that's funnier than photoZero's functions are variables!»
I never said that ass-hole. "You told that to yourself." Mistaking elements of functions with the functions themselves was always your problem, not mine.
Here that piece of the exchange for you to check your own stupidity:
[Michael] «The functions themselves are constants, photozero, with variables, photozero, in which you plug values, photozero»
Here's what I answered: «Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them. More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!»
See ass-hole? There is no way anybody could mistake what I said for what you interpreted it to say. There's no tricks. I was direct and clear. Your mathematical illiteracy is what "played you like a violin." Yes, ass-hole, you shovelled all that crap back up your ass all by yourself.
Dawson observed something I also noticed:
«The language Michael uses here to denigrate Objectivists and Objectivism, is clearly borrowed from the religious worldview which Michael himself champions.»
Exactly. Michael's "humor" shovels his own crap back up his own ass. I'm astounded at how much Michael's ass can handle.
I wrote: “The language Michael uses here to denigrate Objectivists and Objectivism, is clearly borrowed from the religious worldview which Michael himself champions.”
Photo replied: “Exactly. Michael's ‘humor’ shovels his own crap back up his own ass. I'm astounded at how much Michael's ass can handle.”
I am too. He only ends up lampooning his own religion by using the kind of language he uses. Indeed, referring to Objectivism as a cult can only boomerang back on him and his fellow cultists. Cults involve worship of someone who claims to be infallible, who is treated by their members as some kind of unquestionable authority. They congregate together and worship their leader with praises, hymns and rituals. They have initiation rites for new members, such as “baptism,” and checks along the way to make sure everyone’s still obedient, such as “communion.” The cult is essentially a community of surveillance, everyone keeping an eye on everyone else to make sure no one steps out of line, to make sure no one dares to use their own mind. But that’s Christianity, not Objectivism. There’s nothing in the Objectivist literature which implores its practitioners to “separate” themselves from “the world” and congregate among other adherents, to worship some personality with praising and hymn-singing, to treat anyone as infallible authorities whose say so cannot be questioned, etc.
When MDR characterizes Objectivism as a cult, he not only mischaracterizes what Objectivism is all about, he also ends up condemning his own religion.
Good going, M.D. Rawlings! Keep on keepin’ on!
Regards,
Dawson
The Insanity of PhotoZero's and DuhsonZero's Mathematical Illiteracy
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.
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.
[continued . . .]
(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.)
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.”
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.
[continued . . .]
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
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.
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. . . .
_________________________________
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
PhotoLies again. . . .
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?
Now That's Entertainment!
What's the problem, photoZero?
You all kept reading back to me things I never said, never argued.
All of you are still pretending not to rightly understand Christianity's finite consciousness-infinite consciousness dichotomy so that we might move forward regarding Christianity's epistemology in an orderly, adult-like fashion.
(Are you paying attention, Robert Goal-Posts Bumbalough? This goes back to what was going on before you showed up.)
So I set a trap for you all. But I didn't move the goal posts. (What an apt metaphor. Thanks, Robert Goal-Posts Bumbalough.) Nope. Never lied. Never changed nothin', photoNothin', a.k.a., photoZero. You moved 'em for me, imagined things, told yourself things, and DuhsonZero stupidly went right along with ya.
That’s right, photoZero, when talking strictly about the endless process of division by infinity I did write that God, unlike finite consciousness, could bring the matter to its conclusion. And as I said, the matter was accurately expressed in the other instances.
But what’s the “conclusion” of any divisible entity divided by infinity, photoZero? Is it zero, photoZero?
No. It’s not zero, photoZero. There’s no friggin’ zero in the set, photoZero. Division is the process of partitioning a whole, not reducing it. The latter process is subtraction.
PhotoSilly, the conclusion of infinite division is an infinite number of pieces of a whole, not a zero number of pieces of a whole lot of nothing’, photoNothin’. God can divide forever.
Why are you calling me a liar? Why are you blaming me for your stupidity? You imagined that which was never there. You plugged in the wrong quotient, photoZero, not I. You stupidly mistook the zero in the common expression of infinite division to mean “equals zero” instead of “the limit is zero,” not I. I never even mentioned zero, photoZero. You did, photoZero. You imagined things, photoZero. Told yourself things that aren‘t true, photoZero. And now you’re blaming me, due to one poorly written expression that goes against the flow and the logic of everything else I wrote above and below it in which I still did not say anything about zero, photoZero. Recall, you were trying to make me out to be the dufus, dufus, insisting that the quotient was zero, photoZero, that the process of division was not endless as I claimed it to be, photoZero. Of course, you also nonsensically claimed that while the quotient was zero, photoZero, the dividend went on being divided without end.
You told yourself this silly thing, photoSilly. You asserted this silly thing, photoSilly. All I did was put suggestions, “encodings of embodied material particles,” in your brain, photoPlayed-Like-A-Violin. You did the rest to yourself, photoLike-Taking-Candy-From-A-Baby. And I knew you would! Hook. Line. Sinker. Ya made an ass of yourself, didn’t ya, photoCry-Baby? And DuhsonZero stupidly went right along with ya. LOL!
All I kept saying was that the process of dividing any divisible entity by infinity was an endless process, one that could not be brought to its conclusion by finite consciousness. At the same time, here and there, when making the distinction, I emphatically asserted that the process of dividing any divisible entity by infinity was an endless process, and that God could divisionally reduce any divisible entity to nothing.
Psst. All entities from which some amount of them may be subtracted are divisible. Are you saying that’s not true? Did I lie? Indeed, all entities to which some amount may be added to them are divisible. All entities that may be multiplied are divisible.
I didn’t tell you anything that wasn’t true. The DuhsonZero crew of ObjectivismZero, including you, photoZero, imagined the rest, things that aren’t true, things that aren’t there, all by yourselves as you unwittingly exposed precisely why PeikoffDingbat’s argument is utter malarkey.
[continued . . .]
Of course, you probably still haven’t made that connection yet, photoClueless. I’ll help you with that momentarily, photoDingbat.
How ya likin’ me now? How ya like it when someone screws with your head? Only I didn’t lie, photoLiar. You did. I didn’t imagine things that aren’t true. You did. I didn’t make things up about basic math. You did. I didn’t go on and on about zero being the quotient of infinite division. You did. And I didn’t go on to lie about the fundamentals of functions, trying to save face. You did. I didn’t say that the variables of functions are variables. You did. I stated the matter correctly. I didn’t conflate limit theorems with proofs. You did. I didn’t say that it was a contradiction to note that the limits of functions are defined, yet operationally limitless by definition. You did.
Your entertainment? LOL! No. You have been my entertainment all the while. Played like a violin. The sweet sounds of irony.
END
A Little Subliminal Suggestion For Ya! Look, Ma, No Hands!
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.
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.
[continued . . .]
But wait. There's more!
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 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? 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
Michael,
I'm not trying to be flip (okay, maybe slightly), but since we're on the topic of humor...
I would be curious to know if you can cite any examples of humor in the New Testament. Specifically, where would a Christian such as yourself tell us to look for instances of Jesus being funny in either word or in deed?
Also, I asked Richard the following question a long time ago, but from what I recall, he didn't supply a coherent response, so maybe you can supply one.
Christians tell us that "God cannot lie," but can the same be said for such a supernatural being employing the use of sarcasm? Or playing practical jokes on "his creation"?
If the answer is yes to either of these questions, how would one know it was happening?
Ydemoc
Michael,
That's a hilarious piece. It should shut Bumbdummy up for a while.
Don't read Ayn Rand, aka cigarettes don't cause cancer, read real philosophy.
That line is stuff of legends. I have officially immortalized my professor. He's a legend.
Dawson how bad does it hurt?
The Fun Goes on and on and on and on. . . .
DuhsonZero claims that photo-The-Quotient-Of-Infinite-Division-Is-Zero-Confusing-Division-With-Subtraction "isn't mathematically illiterate".
LOL!
But not just that: In an attempt to make me out to be the dufus, photoConfusion claimed that the variables of functions are the functions.
But he's not mathematically illiterate, eh?
Trying to make me out to be the dufus, photoConfusion conflated limit theorems with proofs.
But he's not mathematically illiterate, eh?
Trying to make me out to be the dufus, photoConfusion claimed that its a contradiction to hold that limits are defined, yet operationally limitless by definition.
But he's not mathematically illiterate, eh?
But of course the real truth in all this is that photoConfusion is not only mathematically illiterate, he's a liar who makes things up as he goes along about things he really knows next to nothing about, just like he made things up about the operational aspects of identity’s comprehensive expression as he mangles the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
Shut up, DuhsonZero. You have no case, DuhsonZero. You stupidly went along with every bit of that malarkey.
But most embarrassingly, you stupidly went along with photoZero about the supposed quotient of infinite division, DuhsonZero. And what was the whole point behind that bit of dufusness. Why, it was an attempt to make me out to be the dufus, you gaggle of mathematically illiterate dufuses!
END
Ydummy,
God laughs at the wicked because he sees his day coming.
Psalm 37:13
Hahaaaaa!
Michael David Bawlings, a.k.a. "Self-Blown-Up-Ass" was so embarrassed by being :played like a violin" by his own mathematical illiteracy that he had to "bury my comment continuations" afraid that somebody else would notice!
Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Michael you're such as ass-hole! Oh shit, so fucking funny!
You are so stupidly and entertainingly desperate Michael. It shows! You have no idea how evident it is that you re-post all that crap just to "bury" our answers, something you made evident when you accused Dawson of trying to do just that! So stupid of you to reveal both your computational illiteracy and the purpose of your constant repetition of comments after comments. No doubt that you see your incompetence, idiocy, stupidity, illiteracies, imbecility, in the mirror and project them all onto others. It's amazing. You are there just thinking, "shit, they've got me! They have shown how much of an ass-hole Michael David Rawlings is! OK, I will re-post all this crap again! This way nobody will see!"
Sorry Michael, besides others are not as computationally useless as yourself, those comments you keep repeating keep being exactly as imbecilic and self-ass-blowing as they were the first time you posted them.
So much of your own crap shovelled back up your own ass. So fucking much ...
It was funny, wasn't it, Richard?
Here's an Oldie, but Goodie
Well, let's see. I scanned over DuhsonZero's 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 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: Easily manipulated mental midget who thinks what he’s told or thinks he’s been told, i.e., also known as Brainwashedtus Dimwiticus Maximus.
Of course, it helps if the candidate is a pathological liar.
Like Dancin' in the rain. . . .
Where's the Appreciation?
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!
Hahaaaaa!
Michael David Bawlings, a.k.a. "Self-Blown-Up-Ass" was so embarrassed by being "played like a violin" by his own mathematical illiteracy that he had to "bury my comment continuations" afraid that somebody else would notice!
Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Michael you're such as ass-hole! Oh shit, so fucking funny!
You are so stupidly and entertainingly desperate Michael. It shows! You have no idea how evident it is that you re-post all that crap just to "bury" our answers, something you made evident when you accused Dawson of trying to do just that! So stupid of you to reveal both your computational illiteracy and the purpose of your constant repetition of comments after comments. No doubt that you see your incompetence, idiocy, stupidity, illiteracies, imbecility, in the mirror and project them all onto others. It's amazing. You are there just thinking, "shit, they've got me! They have shown how much of an ass-hole Michael David Rawlings is! OK, I will re-post all this crap again! This way nobody will see!"
Sorry Michael, besides others are not as computationally useless as yourself, those comments you keep repeating keep being exactly as imbecilic and self-ass-blowing as they were the first time you posted them.
So much of your own crap shovelled back up your own ass. So fucking much ...
The Quotient is Zero! LOL!
Another Episode of The Objectivist’s Desperate White-Knuckled Grip on the Illusions of His Own Making: or how the Objectivist learned to love pseudo-science and -mathematics and stop worrying about reality
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 that of DuhsonZero’s “Divine Lonesomeness,” only there he begs the question on the basis of the material realm of being relative to the subject-object dichotomy. God doesn’t exist because everything that exists is material. That’s all these arguments come down to. Zoom! Right over! Stupid. Fallacious.)
[continued . . .]
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.
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 inherently latent attributes of extant material existents. They are the material existents contained within that are categorically distinct from and contingently subordinate to the extant state of any given material thing 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 no 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 indeterminable 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 both the essences and the extensions of the material realm of being are 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 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 merely the sum of the immediate impressions they make on the constituents of sensory perception (as all of humanity knows, except for the mathematically and scientifically illiterate rubes of Objectivism), but also the sum of their inherent potentialities.
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.
[continued . . .]
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!
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.
Hahaaaaa!
Michael David Bawlings, a.k.a. "Self-Blown-Up-Ass" was so embarrassed by being "played like a violin" by his own mathematical illiteracy that he had to "bury my comment continuations" afraid that somebody else would notice!
Muahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Michael you're such as ass-hole! Oh shit, so fucking funny!
You are so stupidly and entertainingly desperate Michael. It shows! You have no idea how evident it is that you re-post all that crap just to "bury" our answers, something you made evident when you accused Dawson of trying to do just that! So stupid of you to reveal both your computational illiteracy and the purpose of your constant repetition of comments after comments. No doubt that you see your incompetence, idiocy, stupidity, illiteracies, imbecility, in the mirror and project them all onto others. It's amazing. You are there just thinking, "shit, they've got me! They have shown how much of an ass-hole Michael David Rawlings is! OK, I will re-post all this crap again! This way nobody will see!"
Sorry Michael, besides others are not as computationally useless as yourself, those comments you keep repeating keep being exactly as imbecilic and self-ass-blowing as they were the first time you posted them.
So much of your own crap shovelled back up your own ass. So fucking much ...
[continued. . .]
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.
_________________________
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!
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: or how Objectivism learned to love pseudo-science and -mathematics and stopped worrying about reality
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.
And with all the hot air he repeats over and over again (I'm guessing only Nidiot is desperate enough to be impressed by such juvenile behavior), MDR is still not one millimeter closer to validating anything having to do with his god-beliefs.
How about that rock, MDR? Can you point to anything in reality (i.e., not something you're merely imagining) that suggests that it was created by an act of consciousness?
Clearly you cannot. Otherwise we would have seen something from you on this by now.
Indeed, you're simply reposting your previous comments, comments which have already been completely answered, in order to hide the fact that you don't have an answer to these fundamental challenges to your primitive sheep-herder worldview.
So keep on keepin' on. Everyone watching knows what's happening here. You can't hide it. You've exposed yourself too much, Michael David Rawlings, a.k.a. "Baremoon".
Regards,
Dawson
[continued. . .]
Zoom! Right over! Objectivists don’t think; they spout slogans.
(Does it burn?)
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!
[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.
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*
Michael,
Wadda you think photoBonkers is talking about?
[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!)
MDR a.k.a. "Baremoon" wrote: "Quality goes to essence; quantity goes to extension."
How do you know?
Oh, that's right: "Christian epistemology" - "We know without knowing how we know."
The epistemology of ignorance is quite effective in sanctioning your evasions.
Regards,
Dawson
[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
Michael brayed,
«Now that's funnier than photoZero's functions are variables!»
I never said that ass-hole. "You told that to yourself." Mistaking elements of functions with the functions themselves was always your problem, not mine.
Here that piece of the exchange for you to check your own stupidity:
[Michael] «The functions themselves are constants, photozero, with variables, photozero, in which you plug values, photozero»
Here's what I answered: «Shit Michael, if the functions were "constants," you would not be able to input variables into them. More of that shit back up your ass all by yourself!»
See ass-hole? There is no way anybody could mistake what I said for what you interpreted it to say. There's no tricks. I was direct and clear. Your mathematical illiteracy is what "played you like a violin." Yes, ass-hole, you shovelled all that crap back up your ass all by yourself.
That's right, photoZero-Fell-Right-Into-The-Trap. Other than the rhetorical error, your black rose in the field of reds, the distinction was also expressed using the phrase "to it's conclusion".
But what’s the "conclusion" of mere division (the partitioning of something) without end?
Zero, photoZERO? Nothing, photoZero?
Every time I turned around you were changing what I said, pretending not to understand. . . . Fine. So after just about enough of that, I started putting vaguely connected phrases in your heads, like "to its conclusion" or "division without end" or "divisionally reduced to nothing". But, alternately, which operation was I talking about? What were the antecedents? What does it all mean? LOL!
You filled in the blanks for yourself. Imagined things. Things that aren’t true. Things that don’t exist.
Being the nick-picking magpies that you are, always looking for an argument, never discussing or exchanging real ideas, I was certain you’d extrapolate a contradiction that wasn’t there, imagine it, unwittingly confound division with subtraction and expose Peikoff’s stupidity for me.
But then! Dude! After saying endless division wasn’t possible you used the common expression of division by infinity, no doubt informed by some stupid thing said on Yahoo Answers! or Ask Jeeves or whatever.
It ends at zero! The quotient is zero. The quotient is nothing, yet the dividend is divided without end.
Bonus!
You used this as an argument against my staunch position that it went on without end. Now ya got me saying something different relative to God. Goal posts. Psst. The extrapolation is yours. It doesn’t actually follow. You’re connecting the dots whichever way gives you something to argue about, ya dingbat.
Hook. Line. Sinker.
How ya likin’ me now? How ya like it when people screw with your head.
And now to save face you’re trying to change the topic, babbling things about functions that are all wrong, once again trying to make me out to be the dufus, dufus. Another argument based on made up crap, imagined tripe. You’re goanna pay for that too, photoVariables-Are-Functions-Limit-Theorems-And-Limit-Proofs-Same-Thing-Limits-Aren’t-Operationally-Limitless-Dingbat.
Remember the DVD cabinet? LOL! I threw that in the mix after Robert blathered about how “all of humanity knows . . . encodings embodied in material particles” and “all of humanity knows . . . mathematical ideas and numbers”. Oops! Slogan spouters. Right now, Robert’s trying to move the goal posts away from that problem. LOL! And Plato? Christianity utterly eschews Plato’s epistemology. More ignorance, more made up crap. More imagined things. Things that aren’t true. Things that don’t exist. The stupidities of a little knowledge. No doubt he thinks that’s true based on Aquinas’ over-reliance on Plato. What does that have to do with the Bible? Nothing! Aristotle was wrong about a myriad of things too. So what?
Psst. Robert, you contradicted DuhsonZero over Hume and consciousness. LOL!
Objectivism: what a crock.
Ya gotta love the line. It's a classic.
Don't read Objectivism; read real philosophy.
MDR wrote: "Objectivism: what a crock."
If Objectivism is such a "crock," why is Michael David Rawlings so threatened by it?
He's been out trying to denigrate and discredit Objectivism for over two months now (on my blog anyway), and hasn't made one dent in it yet. But clearly he wants to convince someone that Objectivism is a "crock," and he's so anxious to do so that he doesn't care how foolish and irrational he needs to be in order to somehow achieve this end (which only backfires with every attempt).
So again, why is MDR so threatened by Objectivism?
I submit that it's because he senses that it poses lethal danger to his theism. To the extent that this is the case, he's right: it does. And with every attempt he makes to attack Objectivism, he confirms exactly this.
Man, I'm glad these aren't my problems!
Regards,
Dawson
Hook. Line. Sinker.
Like strollin' along.
Like dancin' in the rain.
Like takin' candy from a baby.
Like white on rice.
Played like a violin.
Isn't it funny? All you have to do is post one refutation and Michael will desperately try to bury it with his nonsense as if his nonsense became less nonsensical just by repeating it! Who can be that stupid but Michael? Who can be that desperate but Michael?
Dawson aka Rand's fool,
And accusing people of believing in invisible magic beings isn't Juvenile?
All your blog posts are filled with denigrations and mockeries. You know, stuff of juveniles.
Looks like you had too many Randnuts. What a shame.
MDR wrote: “Don't read Objectivism”
Well, it’s clear that both you and Nidiot have obeyed this commandment, since neither of you understand anything about Objectivism. This has been confirmed repeatedly, over and over. You won’t understand Objectivism if you don’t read its literature. And clearly you prefer a policy of ignorance. Not only does your worldview affirm an epistemology which holds “we know without knowing how we know,” you also endorse commandments which explicitly call for self-inflicted ignorance.
MDR: Apologist for the Know-Nothin’ Worldview.
Again, good going, Michael!!
Regards,
Dawson
Hi again, Michael,
I wrote: "I'm not trying to be flip (okay, maybe slightly), but since we're on the topic of humor...
I would be curious to know if you can cite any examples of humor in the New Testament. Specifically, where would a Christian such as yourself tell us to look for instances of Jesus being funny in either word or in deed?
Also, I asked Richard the following question a long time ago, but from what I recall, he didn't supply a coherent response, so maybe you can supply one.
Christians tell us that "God cannot lie," but can the same be said for such a supernatural being employing the use of sarcasm? Or playing practical jokes on "his creation"?
If the answer is yes to either of these questions, how would one know it was happening?"
Richard replied: "Ydummy,God laughs at the wicked because he sees his day coming. Psalm 37:13"
As you can see, Michael, this reply from Richard is non-responsive, since I asked for citations in the New Testament of examples of Jesus' humor in word or deed.
But even in the passage he cites, this really isn't an example of humor in the sense of god being funny. This passage seems to describe an emotional outburst from an Old Testament god who has, in other other passages, made it clear that he really doesn't find wickedness funny at all.
Richard's answer (once again) doesn't address the topic of god being sarcastic and/or playing practical jokes.
So, are you able to cite any examples in accordance with what I wrote above?
Ydemoc
Source: Associated Press
“Objectivist Cult Member Says Composition Not Relevant to Science”
01/11/2013
You-Just-Can’t-Make-This-Stuff-Up World Journal
In response to a learned missive regarding the technical application of the philosophical terms for measurement and composition to mathematics and modern science, Objectivist cult member Robert ‘Pseudo-Science’ Bumbalough yesterday averred that the composition of empirical phenomena was not relevant to the scientific concerns of identity. “It just doesn’t matter,” he said with a slur and the look of a crazed animal in his eyes. “Chemistry? Pfft. Who needs it?”
Bumbalough is a follower of the self-styled philosophy of reason known as Objectivism, so-named by its originator Ayn Rand, the controversial novelist and Russian émigré of the Twentieth Century who died of heart failure in 1982.
Rand is most notable for her rather boorishly didactic novels Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for her unapologetic defense of ethical egoism and laissez-faire capitalism.
Reports have it that Rand developed her sophomoric theory of concepts, the centerpiece of Objectivism’s mysticism, while all hopped up on amphetamines and the charm of an endless chain of nicotine delivery devices.
“After the sixth day she was downing handfuls of Dexedrine at a time every two hours with shots of Vodka like they were M&Ms,” an anonymous insider revealed.
“We had to board up all the windows on account of the fact that we almost lost her when she smashed through one. I just managed to snatch her by her ankles on her way out. We’re talkin’ forty stories. On top of that, by the eleventh day she dispensed with the Pall Malls altogether. When we weren’t repairing the holes in the sheetrock walls of her apartment from all the bouncing around, we were lining up eight balls of pure N.”
Another source who was present at the time told this report, “The needles kept breaking off in her arms due to the eradicate and uncontrollable spasms that racked her entire body from all the juice. So enraged was she with our incompetence that she literally busted the pulsing vein in the middle of her forehead that had grown to the size of a small lemon. Blood and spittle sprayed everywhere as she screamed at the top of her lungs, ‘Look here you worthless toads, existence exists! Now go nick a roll of duct tape from the corner market and just lash me down to the chair!’.”
Bumbalough just recently came to the public’s attention for the first time. Readers might recall the infamous Heisenberg Incident in which he created a short-lived sensation in the science community when he claimed that the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy voided the seemingly inescapable principle of causality.
«If Objectivism is such a "crock," why is Michael David Rawlings so threatened by it?»
So threatened that all he can manage is to try and bury any answers to his nonsense by repeating the nonsense.
[continued. . .]
“There’s no friggin’ cause!” Bumbalough said in a press release. “It just happens, and I can prove it.” While the science community eagerly awaited Bumbalough’s paper it was leaked by a member of his entourage that he had been under the influence of LSD for months on end. Subsequent probes revealed that Bumbalough wasn’t even a scientist, but a fanatical follower of Ayn Rand with a history of mental illness.
“Naturally, we were all very excited by the reports of a major breakthrough, only to learn shortly thereafter that Bumbalough was just another Objectivist loon,” lamented Dr. Stenson of the Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics. “Our heartfelt condolences go out to his family.”
This reporter has learned that Bumbalough has an extensive history of making outlandish scientific claims, including the claim that science not only tells us all we need to know about empirical phenomena, but about the absolute extent of existence itself. “God doesn’t exist,” Bumbalough is fond of saying, “and science proves it.”
“You need to understand what’s going on here,” explains Professor Blouer, head of the Department of Philosophy and Comparative Sociological Studies at Berkeley. “Objectivists don’t think like normal human beings. They regurgitate formulaic phrases from Rand’s works and from those of Objectivism’s leading apologists by rote. It [Objectivism] is not a rational system of thought in the tradition of the self-evident, classic laws of logic and the operational aspects of identity’s comprehensive expression. It’s just an incoherent amalgamation of meaningless blather cobbled together around a few of the more obvious insights about existence . . . so nothing else really follows.”
Lawrence Nielson of Cult Watch is more blunt: “They’re slogan spouters. Take for instance Peikoff’s asseveration that a creator would need a creator and that identity is the finite thing identified or some such rubbish. For normal people these statements are on the very face of them nonsensical, but not for the Objectivist true believer.” Peikoff is Ayn Rand’s formal “intellectual” heir. Neilson continues, “Any attempt to point out the problems . . . [of their reasoning] to them is likely to be meant with more slogans, the most common of these being, ‘You’re denying the axiom of existence!’ or ‘Theory of concepts!’. It would be tragic if it weren’t so hilarious.”
Former cult member Kevin Saunders, deprogrammed by Cult Watch, explains:
“You’re programmed to believe that certain ideas about realty, which are obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of a rash, are profound and unique to Objectivism. That’s the hook. After that, you’re encouraged to repeat the rest of Objectivism’s tripe over and over again until it all melds together into one, big, fat, sugar-coated cookie in your brain, so much so that the thoroughly brainwashed acolyte perceives that the actual universals themselves are being denied by Objectivism’s detractors.”
“It’s what we call a self-defense mechanism downed without the milk,” Nielson interjects.
[continued. . .]
Kevin takes a deep breath. A shimmer of tears threatens to spill over. “I can’t believe I fell for it,” he sniffs. “I mean . . . I’m not a stupid man.” I wave off the camera. “I was in a bad place, ya know? My wife had left me, and the kids hated me, especially the eldest. Even my dog turned on me. There was so much stress in my life . . . and Objectivism promised a way out. Next thing I know, I’m smoking’ five packs of nail coffins a day and my shelves are lined with hundreds of dollars of books and pamphlets filled with rank stupidity. . . .”
Nielson concludes: “Our motto around here is Don’t read Objectivism; read real philosophy.”
After leaving several messages on Bumbalough’s voice mail for his side of things over this latest meltdown, I learned that he had been admitted to Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital of New York for treatment. “Mr. Bumbalough is being treated for substance abuse and significant emotional problems,” a hospital spokesman informed me. However, he was able to speak with me briefly from his room over the phone before he had to be straight-jacketed and dragged off for several hours of shock therapy.
Rawlings: “It’s my understanding that you hold to the position that the composition of things is not relevant to identity in science.”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
Rawlings: “Could you explain that for us?”
Bumbalough: “It’s self-evident.”
Rawlings: “How’s that?”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
Rawlings: “What’s right?”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
Rawlings: “Uh . . . okay. Aren’t extension and composition intertwined?”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
Rawlings: “But, Bumbalough, seriously. . . . Uh . . .what?”
Bumbalough: “Look, buddy, I got spiders crawlin’ up my legs here, and you’re askin’ me about composition?”
Rawlings: “Well . . .”
[continued. . .]
Bumbalough: “Look. It’s real simple. Ya got an orange. See? Ya got an apple. See? They’re both spherical in shape. See? That’s their extension, man. You can measure that. See? You can put a friggin’ number on that. See?
Rawlings: “Okay.”
Bumbalough: Okay. So one’s orange, and the other’s red . . . or maybe the other’s green. Okay? Fine. Ya like green apples? The other’s green. I don’t like green apples. See? If ya want green apples, buy ’em yourself. I don’t want no friggin’ green apples! Got that?”
Rawlings: “That’s fine.”
Bumbalough: “You’re damn right that’s fine! No green apples. The friggin’ apple is red. Ya got that? Red!
Rawlings: “Okay. It’s red.”
Bumbalough: “You’re damn right it’s red!”
Rawlings: “Okay. So we’ve got an orange and a red apple?”
Bumbalough: “That’s right.”
Rawlings: “And they’re both spherical in shape?”
Bumbalough: “Did I stutter? . . . Grusunkahlahdoodoo!
Rawlings: “Uh . . . grusunkahlahdoodoo?”
Bumbalough: “Damn skippy! That’s you’re friggin’ identity right there! Orange. Red. Spherical. Identity! . . . Duhsmorkinjoo!
Rawlings: “And the chemical composition?”
Bumbalough: “Spiders!”
Rawlings: “Focus, Bumbalough.”
Bumbalough: “Okay. Ya want quality? Huh? Is that what ya want, ya ASD, Jew bastard? I’ll give ya some quality. Orange. Red. That’s you’re friggin’ quality right there!
Rawlings: “No. Bumbalough. I’m asking about their inherent chemical properties . . .”
Bumbalough: “What friggin’ difference does it make? Orange. Red. Color. That’s you’re friggin’ quality right there! Spherical. That’s you’re friggin’ quantity right there! Put a number on it!
Photo wrote: “Isn't it funny? All you have to do is post one refutation and Michael will desperately try to bury it with his nonsense as if his nonsense became less nonsensical just by repeating it!”
It’s completely bizarre. It’s the behavior of a 13-year-old who shuts his eyes tight, stops up his ears and yells at the top of his voice “I’m right! You’re wrong! I’m right! You’re wrong.” He does not interact with the refutations that have been posted in response to his stupidity. Instead, he just re-posts the same stupidity over and over again. This is not the behavior of an adult. It makes me glad I don’t live in the States. The guy is clearly psychotic.
Regards,
Dawson
[continued. . .]
Rawlings: “But why orange or red or spherical?”
Bumbalough: “Are ya friggin’ deaf? Who cares? Do ya eat the why? Huh? Tell me that. Do ya eat the friggin’ why?
Rawlings: “Well, actually, yes . . .
Bumbalough: “Identity!”
Rawlings: . . . I do.
Bumbalough: Finite!
Rawlings: “So the chemical properties don’t matter at . . .”
Bumbalough: “It is written by the hand of the goddess!”
Rawlings: “Uh . . . What?”
Bumbalough: “Funklestink!”
Rawlings: “Bumba . . .”
Bumbalough: “Slinkalooloo! Hahnoonahyuhkahlala!
Rawlings: “Bumba . . .”
Bumabalough: “Existence exists! Grusunkahlahdoodoo! You’re denying the axioms! A plague on you and all of your house! It is written! Page 82! The goddess speaks!
Rawlings: “Steve, call the hospital on the other line.”
Bumbalough: “Friggin’ scientists think they know everything! Identity! Quantity I tell you! It is written! The goddess be praised! Finite! I got blisters on my fingers! Goo goo g'joob! Theory of concepts! Spiders! Big honkin’ spiders! Those friggin’ ASD, Jew bastards! . . .
END
Richard/Hezek/Nidiot,
«And accusing people of believing in invisible magic beings isn't Juvenile?»
That you, and Michael, believe in invisible magic beings is a fact, not an accusation.
Nidiot wrote: “All your blog posts are filled with denigrations and mockeries. You know, stuff of juveniles.”
How would you know this, Nidiot? Are you admitting that you have disobeyed the commandment, “Don’t read Objectivism”? Don’t you need to repent and ask for forgiveness from Almighty Baremoon?
This is just too easy!
Regards,
Dawson
Nielson concludes: “Our motto around here is Don’t read Objectivism; read real philosophy.”
Nielson concludes: “Our motto around here is Don’t read Objectivism; read real philosophy.”
Nielson concludes: “Our motto around here is Don’t read Objectivism; read real philosophy.”
Nielson concludes: “Our motto around here is Don’t read Objectivism; read real philosophy.”
Ydemoc wrote: “As you can see, Michael, this reply from Richard is non-responsive, since I asked for citations in the New Testament of examples of Jesus' humor in word or deed.”
Clearly Nidiot isn’t bright enough to tell the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Wow! Just wow!!
Regards,
Dawson
. . . “You need to understand what’s going on here,” explains Professor Blouer, head of the Department of Philosophy and Comparative Sociological Studies at Berkeley. “Objectivists don’t think like normal human beings. They regurgitate formulaic phrases from Rand’s works and from those of Objectivism’s leading apologists by rote. It [Objectivism] is not a rational system of thought in the tradition of the self-evident, classic laws of logic and the operational aspects of identity’s comprehensive expression. It’s just an incoherent amalgamation of meaningless blather cobbled together around a few of the more obvious insights about existence . . . so nothing else really follows.”
Lawrence Nielson of Cult Watch is more blunt: “They’re slogan spouters. Take for instance Peikoff’s asseveration that a creator would need a creator and that identity is the finite thing identified or some such rubbish. For normal people these statements are on the very face of them nonsensical, but not for the Objectivist true believer.” Peikoff is Ayn Rand’s formal “intellectual” heir. Neilson continues, “Any attempt to point out the problems . . . [of their reasoning] to them is likely to be meant with more slogans, the most common of these being, ‘You’re denying the axiom of existence!’ or ‘Theory of concepts!’. It would be tragic if it weren’t so hilarious.” . . .
. . . Reports have it that Rand developed her sophomoric theory of concepts, the centerpiece of Objectivism’s mysticism, while all hopped up on amphetamines and the charm of an endless chain of nicotine delivery devices.
“After the sixth day she was downing handfuls of Dexedrine at a time every two hours with shots of Vodka like they were M&Ms,” an anonymous insider revealed.
“We had to board up all the windows on account of the fact that we almost lost her when she smashed through one. I just managed to snatch her by her ankles on her way out. We’re talkin’ forty stories. On top of that, by the eleventh day she dispensed with the Pall Malls altogether. When we weren’t repairing the holes in the sheetrock walls of her apartment from all the bouncing around, we were lining up eight balls of pure N.”
Another source who was present at the time told this report, “The needles kept breaking off in her arms due to the eradicate and uncontrollable spasms that racked her entire body from all the juice. So enraged was she with our incompetence that she literally busted the pulsing vein in the middle of her forehead that had grown to the size of a small lemon. Blood and spittle sprayed everywhere as she screamed at the top of her lungs, ‘Look here you worthless toads, existence exists! Now go nick a roll of duct tape from the corner market and just lash me down to the chair!’.” . . .
Michael,
I thought I'd post it again, just in case you missed it during your flurry of copying and pasting.
I wrote: "I'm not trying to be flip (okay, maybe slightly), but since we're on the topic of humor...
I would be curious to know if you can cite any examples of humor in the New Testament. Specifically, where would a Christian such as yourself tell us to look for instances of Jesus being funny in either word or in deed?
Also, I asked Richard the following question a long time ago, but from what I recall, he didn't supply a coherent response, so maybe you can supply one.
Christians tell us that "God cannot lie," but can the same be said for such a supernatural being employing the use of sarcasm? Or playing practical jokes on "his creation"?
If the answer is yes to either of these questions, how would one know it was happening?"
Richard replied: "Ydummy,God laughs at the wicked because he sees his day coming. Psalm 37:13"
As you can see, Michael, this reply from Richard is non-responsive, since I asked for citations in the New Testament of examples of Jesus' humor in word or deed.
But even in the passage he cites, this really isn't an example of humor in the sense of god being funny. This passage seems to describe an emotional outburst from an Old Testament god who has, in other other passages, made it clear that he really doesn't find wickedness funny at all.
Richard's answer (once again) doesn't address the topic of god being sarcastic and/or playing practical jokes.
So, are you able to cite any examples in accordance with what I wrote above?
Ydemoc
Photo,
Did Rand's fool aka Dawson give you some Randnuts?
I see, you two fools like deceiving each other. How bizarre.
Oh, no, Michael has buried my post continuations! Oh no! That way his stupidity will become less stupid! Michael's repetition of his nonsense will make his nonsense less nonsensical! Shit!
photo: "Oh, no, Michael has buried my post continuations! Oh no!"
No, not that! Burying your post continuations? That's the lowest of the low! Who would dare do such a thing?
Regards,
Dawson
Besides the stupidity of trying to hide his stupidity by repeating it so as to bury the answers to his stupidity, Michael seems to think that mere repetition will make the stupidity less stupid. Which reminds me of Dawson's observation:
«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.»
Face it, Michael: you've been refuted in spades.
Run home to mommy and cuddle in her arms. She'll dry your tears and help you forget about all the humiliation you've caused for yourself here.
Regards,
Dawson
Yeah, that was a good one - well worth repeating.
Thanks, photo!
Regards,
Dawson
Rand's fool,
Don't read Ayn Rand. Read real philosophy.
Legendary.
Here's a question for you, Ydemoc: if I have an analogy, a univocal statement and an equivocal statement, what do I have?
Answer: I’ve got something that’s like a bad habit, a faux philosophy and a mountain lies.
What do all these things have in common?
Answer: Objectivism.
Richard/Hezek/Nidiot,
«I see, you two fools like deceiving each other. How bizarre.»
There's no deceptions, you have declared yourself to be a Christian, Michael has declared himself to be a Christian. Therefore you both believe in invisible magic beings. It's tautological. It's true by definition.
Face it, DuhsonZero, you're out snided.
Reports have it that Rand developed her sophomoric theory of concepts, the centerpiece of Objectivism’s mysticism, while all hopped up on amphetamines and the charm of an endless chain of nicotine delivery devices.
“After the sixth day she was downing handfuls of Dexedrine at a time every two hours with shots of Vodka like they were M&Ms,” an anonymous insider revealed.
PhotoBonkers,
Are you a magician?
“We had to board up all the windows on account of the fact that we almost lost her when she smashed through one. I just managed to snatch her by her ankles on her way out. We’re talkin’ forty stories. On top of that, by the eleventh day she dispensed with the Pall Malls altogether. When we weren’t repairing the holes in the sheetrock walls of her apartment from all the bouncing around, we were lining up eight balls of pure N.”
Another source who was present at the time told this report, “The needles kept breaking off in her arms due to the eradicate and uncontrollable spasms that racked her entire body from all the juice. So enraged was she with our incompetence that she literally busted the pulsing vein in the middle of her forehead that had grown to the size of a small lemon. Blood and spittle sprayed everywhere as she screamed at the top of her lungs, ‘Look here you worthless toads, existence exists! Now go nick a roll of duct tape from the corner market and just lash me down to the chair!’.”
Isn't it funny? All you have to do is post one refutation and Michael will desperately try to bury it with his nonsense as if his nonsense became less nonsensical just by repeating it! Who can be that stupid but Michael? Who can be that desperate but Michael?
Bumbalough just recently came to the public’s attention for the first time. Readers might recall the infamous Heisenberg Incident in which he created a short-lived sensation in the science community when he claimed that the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy voided the seemingly inescapable principle of causality.
“There’s no friggin’ cause!” Bumbalough said in a press release. “It just happens, and I can prove it.” While the science community eagerly awaited Bumbalough’s paper it was leaked by a member of his entourage that he had been under the influence of LSD for months on end. Subsequent probes revealed that Bumbalough wasn’t even a scientist, but a fanatical follower of Ayn Rand with a history of mental illness.
“Naturally, we were all very excited by the reports of a major breakthrough, only to learn shortly thereafter that Bumbalough was just another Objectivist loon,” lamented Dr. Stenson of the Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics. “Our heartfelt condolences go out to his family.”
The infamous Heisenberg Incident
“You need to understand what’s going on here,” explains Professor Blouer, head of the Department of Philosophy and Comparative Sociological Studies at Berkeley. “Objectivists don’t think like normal human beings. They regurgitate formulaic phrases from Rand’s works and from those of Objectivism’s leading apologists by rote. It [Objectivism] is not a rational system of thought in the tradition of the self-evident, classic laws of logic and the operational aspects of identity’s comprehensive expression. It’s just an incoherent amalgamation of meaningless blather cobbled together around a few of the more obvious insights about existence . . . so nothing else really follows.”
Lawrence Nielson of Cult Watch is more blunt: “They’re slogan spouters. Take for instance Peikoff’s asseveration that a creator would need a creator and that identity is the finite thing identified or some such rubbish. For normal people these statements are on the very face of them nonsensical, but not for the Objectivist true believer.” Peikoff is Ayn Rand’s formal “intellectual” heir. Neilson continues, “Any attempt to point out the problems . . . [of their reasoning] to them is likely to be meant with more slogans, the most common of these being, ‘You’re denying the axiom of existence!’ or ‘Theory of concepts!’. It would be tragic if it weren’t so hilarious.”
In response to a learned missive regarding the technical application of the philosophical terms for measurement and composition to mathematics and modern science, Objectivist cult member Robert ‘Pseudo-Science’ Bumbalough yesterday averred that the composition of empirical phenomena was not relevant to the scientific concerns of identity. “It just doesn’t matter,” he said with a slur and the look of a crazed animal in his eyes. “Chemistry? Pfft. Who needs it?”
Michael,
it was the nicotine talking.
Randnuts was Problably stoned out her mind when she wrote her books.
Robert ‘Pseudo-Science’ Bumbalough
“Chemistry? Pfft. Who needs it?”
Bumbalough just recently came to the public’s attention for the first time. Readers might recall the infamous Heisenberg Incident in which he created a short-lived sensation in the science community when he claimed that the paradoxical position-momentum dichotomy voided the seemingly inescapable principle of causality.
“There’s no friggin’ cause!” Bumbalough said in a press release. “It just happens, and I can prove it.” While the science community eagerly awaited Bumbalough’s paper it was leaked by a member of his entourage that he had been under the influence of LSD for months on end. Subsequent probes revealed that Bumbalough wasn’t even a scientist, but a fanatical follower of Ayn Rand with a history of mental illness.
“Naturally, we were all very excited by the reports of a major breakthrough, only to learn shortly thereafter that Bumbalough was just another Objectivist loon,” lamented Dr. Stenson of the Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics. “Our heartfelt condolences go out to his family.”
This reporter has learned that Bumbalough has an extensive history of making outlandish scientific claims, including the claim that science not only tells us all we need to know about empirical phenomena, but about the absolute extent of existence itself. “God doesn’t exist,” Bumbalough is fond of saying, “and science proves it.”
Bumbalough: “Look. It’s real simple. Ya got an orange. See? Ya got an apple. See? They’re both spherical in shape. See? That’s their extension, man. You can measure that. See? You can put a friggin’ number on that. See?
Rawlings: “Okay.”
Bumbalough: Okay. So one’s orange, and the other’s red . . . or maybe the other’s green. Okay? Fine. Ya like green apples? The other’s green. I don’t like green apples. See? If ya want green apples, buy ’em yourself. I don’t want no friggin’ green apples! Got that?”
Rawlings: “That’s fine.”
Bumbalough: “You’re damn right that’s fine! No green apples. The friggin’ apple is red. Ya got that? Red!
Rawlings: “Okay. It’s red.”
Bumbalough: “You’re damn right it’s red!”
Rawlings: “Okay. So we’ve got an orange and a red apple?”
As predicted, Michael re-posted his already self-refuted and self-refuting, already answered, bullshit. But do we see any Christian epistemology or Christian theory of concepts there? Nope. None. Zero. Nada.
What are Michael's priorities? As displayed: Michael's putrid ego is first, Christian anything is last. Michael will not allow being displayed for the illiterate he is (mathematical is but one of his many illiteracies) without a fight (that only works to further show his many illiteracies), but he will happily allow for us to conclude that there's neither such thing as Christian epistemology nor Christian theory of concepts. Who cares about those! Those are just his bases for everything else. Posting his crap without showing it to have any foundations is all right!
Michael is shovelling crap back up his own ass that he did not even know he had shitted.
Congratulations, Michael! You've finally overstayed your welcome.
Run along now, dear. Go back to mommy and cry your eyes out. Bye bye.
Let's see how much more of his shit Michael can cram back into his ass now.
How do you like me now?
Regards,
Dawson
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
Michael wrote: “Absolutely, I give Rand her due with regard to liberty in and of itself. I have no argument with her on that point. I am a staunch defender of individual liberty, having nothing but utter contempt for the tyranny of collectivism.”
If you’re opposed to collectivism, then you’ve embraced the wrong worldview by becoming a Christian and defending Christianity. Christianity is not individualistic by any means. Far, far from it.
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.
Michael: “It goes to her historical ignorance, her lack of scholarship regarding the source of the theory of natural law of the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition: the Bible, namely, the socio-political theory extrapolated from Judeo-Christianity’s ethical system of thought.”
You mean the socio-political theory extrapolated from biblical writings which endorses enslavement of human beings in the service of others?
Michael wrote: “Historical fact.”
Exactly: Historical fact.
Michael: “As for Richard, I would guess he’s probably alluding to the hypocrisy of her personal life, wherein she treated her followers like cattle, literally requiring her inner circle to smoke, excommunicating those who did not toe her ideological line to the letter.”
Actually, Nide was condemning Rand for allegedly accepting social security payments. Whether she did or not is really of no concern to me. She was forced to pay into the system, so she had a right to every penny she got back, and probably then some. Rand was a very successful business-woman, and governments the world over penalize success. (Just ask someone today if they want to work overtime on the weekend, and often you’ll hear them complain about how much additional taxes are withheld from their overtime earnings.) Nide apparently thinks Rand was wrong for accepting social security payments. But can he show that Rand was in any way violating her philosophy’s principles by doing so?
Ydemoc has already corrected this delusion of Nide’s. And Nide has been corrected on this in the past. But Nide has already shown, time and time again, the willingness to repeat an error long after he’s already been corrected on it. So Ydemoc’s efforts to educate young Nide will likely have little consequence. That’s not Ydemoc’s fault.
It’s clear that, with Christians, facts really don’t matter. If the believer cannot destroy Objectivism philosophically, attack Rand personally. That is precisely what’s going on here. It only shows that Christians cannot raise any sustaining philosophical criticisms against Objectivism.
Michael wrote: “though she did try to use lawsuits quite a bit against those who criticized her works.”
Can you produce any evidence for this accusation? Or is it simply more gratuitous slander?
Regards,
Dawson
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
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
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
M.D. wrote: “Material things either exist—in some form or another, in some state of being or another—
or they don’t.”
So when a material thing does in fact exist – say a rock – what in reality suggests that it was created by an act of consciousness?
Let’s just focus on this question for the time being.
What is your answer?
Regards,
Dawson
Post a Comment