tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post115429141235503661..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Responding to ChrisBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-1156806685852281252006-08-28T19:11:00.000-04:002006-08-28T19:11:00.000-04:00Welcome to the new blogroll :)Welcome to the new blogroll :)beepbeepitsmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931640447011071849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-1156729513887814002006-08-27T21:45:00.000-04:002006-08-27T21:45:00.000-04:00I am compiling a blogroll of atheists and agnostic...I am compiling a blogroll of atheists and agnostics. Do you consider yourself to be in either of these categories? And if so, would you like to be added to the blogroll?beepbeepitsmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931640447011071849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-1156254872134035632006-08-22T09:54:00.000-04:002006-08-22T09:54:00.000-04:00Wow, Aaron, that's pretty interesting. I wonder wh...Wow, Aaron, that's pretty interesting. I wonder what prompted that. Isn't PM still active over on Triablogue? It's been hard for me to keep up on things as I'm preparing for a move. We're buying a house and I'm boxing everything up in anticipation of moving day, and it's sucking up all my available time. A while back I had worked up some responses to Chris above, but I think Beast of Burden pretty much answered him, and I don't see that Chris ever came back. If I had some time right now I would like to give both Lui and John Flavin some of my thoughts in response to their interesting comments, but even just writing this comment is about all I have time for now (I got DMV and title people to deal with today... egads!). I'm hoping to be all settled in within a month or so, but I'm not sure how much time I'll be able to devote to blogging. I have lots of material in the works, but little time to edit and complete it.<BR/><BR/>As for the wave function theory, I'm not very confident that Lui will find it very satisfying. The kinds of questions that Lui is asking are not intended to be satisfied. That is why he is frustrated with them. But I'll let you and Lui work this out, as I could be wrong on this.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-1156237698621073882006-08-22T05:08:00.000-04:002006-08-22T05:08:00.000-04:00This "Wave Function"; would it be possible for som...This "Wave Function"; would it be possible for someone to translate it for me in a way that's at least a little intuitional? I'm not a phsycists at all and I have major problem even grasping what these concepts entail. If not, could someone refer me to someplace where such an explanation might be available?Luis Cayetanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-1156203409074155302006-08-21T19:36:00.000-04:002006-08-21T19:36:00.000-04:00Lui,The Hartle Hawking Wave Function of the Univer...Lui,<BR/><BR/>The Hartle Hawking Wave Function of the Universe theory has some of the answers that you are looking for. <BR/><BR/>Dawson,<BR/><BR/>My blogs "Hit List" has been updated due to recent changes in the blogosphere. Check it out when you get a chance!Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-1155995994360985672006-08-19T09:59:00.000-04:002006-08-19T09:59:00.000-04:00What I find most difficult to comprehend is: why s...What I find most difficult to comprehend is: why should there be matter instead of none-matter? (when I say "why", it's because of my lack of sophistication in being knowledgeable or imaginative enough when it comes to asking these types of deep questions. I'm trying to avoid introducing motive into the equation. Perhaps I should say "How is it that there is") This is screwing with my mind. What is matter at the most fundamental level? What is matter made of? "Why" does it exist at all instead of an empty void? "Why" should there even be a universe? Why not just an eternal "lights out", and nothing to call a universe, period? The more I think about it, the more it makes me suspect that the universe is absurd. I don't know if anyone really understands what I mean here, but it's starting to piss me off, and frankly, it's quite depressing, God or no God.Luis Cayetanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-1155337380732443532006-08-11T19:03:00.000-04:002006-08-11T19:03:00.000-04:00Oh my God Daniel that was absolutely priceless. Fu...Oh my God Daniel that was absolutely priceless. Fuck an ayyyyy!<BR/><BR/><BR/>Okay now seriously, Dawson, I made a post about your recent comment at my blog. I hope you dont mind. In fact I think youll like it. I am on a spiritual quest you obtain 20/20 vision for you!!! <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://killtheafterlife.blogspot.com/2006/08/operation-pray-dawsons-way-to-2020.html" REL="nofollow">Click here!!!!!</A><BR/><BR/>Hope you enjoy it. Lets get you some free (not to mention divinely inspired) 20/20 vision ;-)Aaron Kinneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12059982934663353474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-1155323926861546622006-08-11T15:18:00.000-04:002006-08-11T15:18:00.000-04:00Walton,You are such a goddamned twit. Incineratio...Walton,<BR/><BR/>You are such a goddamned twit. Incineration means to burn something to ashes. Eating ice would melt it, as well as vaporize some fraction of it inside your stomach. Not only could Dawson not incinerate ice, moron, no one could...but they could vaporize it.<BR/><BR/>You raise an interesting point, though, in your choice of ice over, say, wood. Perhaps what you meant was "vaporize"?<BR/><BR/>If you'd taken an introductory chemistry course, you'd've learned that the specific heat for water is quite high -- it takes quite a bit of heat energy, q (Joules), to vaporize ice, where q = C*m*dT, and C = specific heat (J/[g*K]), m = mass (g), and dT = temperature change (K).<BR/><BR/>The specific heat capacity of water is approximately ten times that of iron, for example, approximately forty times that of gold...and approximately three times that of wood. So if Dawson were completely stupid, as, say, you appear to be, he would choose to try to put his energy into vaporizing water rather than incinerating wood. If you aren't aware, Frankie, all it takes to incinerate wood is a very small amount of focused heat energy -- the energy of activation, in order to start the combustion of cellulose. Once some of the cellulose combusts, it releases a huge amount of energy (exothermic process) which in turn autocatalyzes the process (spontaneously spreads the fire).<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you should stick to hurling insults at atheists and not try so hard to be funny/thoughtful/quasi-witty. It just makes you look ever more the twit we already love you for being.<BR/><BR/>Now, hurry along and write a post on this on your blog which no one will read, and link to it as many times as possible, on as many forums and blogs and comboxes as possible, hoping you'll finally get a few hits. [maybe even your first returning visitor!]nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-1154745687562275802006-08-04T22:41:00.000-04:002006-08-04T22:41:00.000-04:00Dawson, you couldn't incinerate ice if you ate it....Dawson, you couldn't incinerate ice if you ate it.Frank Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12126023605395414714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-1154486470239153032006-08-01T22:41:00.000-04:002006-08-01T22:41:00.000-04:00The transition from Word to your blog comments has...The transition from Word to your blog comments has eliminated the italics. My apologies. <BR/><BR/>ChrisChris Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13134785155889204025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-1154486404166144092006-08-01T22:40:00.000-04:002006-08-01T22:40:00.000-04:00Dawson- I too am very busy and have little time fo...Dawson- I too am very busy and have little time for blogging or commenting, but I do sometimes enjoy the back and forth interaction with non-believers. But I did want to respond to your post. There are a few items I would like to address and then we can let the vultures devour my lifeless carcass.<BR/><BR/>You will notice all of your quotes in italics.<BR/><BR/>First off:<BR/><BR/> He does not demonstrate that he has grasped what I have presented, nor does he interact with what I have stated. Instead, he accuses me of arrogance and complains over the prospect that I might think that I “have it all figured out.” I don’t claim to “have it all figured out,” but so what if I did? I know that I don’t believe in any gods. And I know why. <BR/><BR/>Dawson, the accusation of arrogance goes directly to your “tone” and the abundance of words and sentence constructions that are meant to confuse meaning rather than convey it. Atheists are nothing if not completely infatuated with the sound of their own voice and the self professed brilliance of their arguments. It is clear from talking to many atheists of the highly educated variety that what is really at issue here is worship. Atheists want what we Christians or Theists give God; worship.<BR/><BR/>This response will have little in the way of “if A is this and B is thus, then C must be that or you have a fallacy of something or other”. I took one semester of logic in college and found it to be dreadfully boring. If it weren’t for the blonde in the pink sweater, I would have dropped it.<BR/><BR/>The whole post boils down to this: Dawson – “I don’t believe in any gods”<BR/> Chris – “ I believe in God”<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Falsehood and arbitrariness are not useful to any legitimate need that man has. <BR/><BR/>This is naïve and frankly coming from a worldly wise individual, disingenuous. <BR/><BR/>I’m interested in knowledge, not in “mysteries.” And what’s more, I’m interested in leading an honest life, not in pretending to have a knowledge from beyond that I don’t really have.<BR/><BR/>Admirable, but not realistic. You don’t fancy yourself much of a gambler I take it? How about the stock market? Or Real Estate speculation? In fact, much of life involves weighing facts, suppositions, beliefs, making decisions and then acting on those decisions. You watch a stock move over time. You think based on your analysis that its PE ratio demonstrates an undervaluation. You call your broker and you take a position based on the best information you had up to that moment. The next day the SEC announces that the company is involved in a stock manipulation scheme and indictments are imminent. You lose it all because you can’t unload the stock fast enough. The minute you picked up the phone to buy that stock you were engaged in an act of faith. Your knowledge only took you so far, then you had to act.<BR/><BR/>Take horse racing. You can know how each horse runs on each surface and for what distance. You can handicap them until the cows come home, but eventually you need to place a bet.<BR/><BR/>Jumping out of airplanes is fun. I’ve made over 500 jumps in my life. You practice, you drill, you train, you buy the best equipment, you pack your own equipment and you do everything by the book. At the end of the day, you are very nearly 100% equipment dependent and actually taking that step out of the aircraft is an act of faith. You have knowledge, but its worthless without action.<BR/><BR/>You don’t “pretend to have a knowledge” from beyond that you don’t really have. Neither do I. I have knowledge, objective truths, subjective truths and beliefs, as do you. One of my beliefs is that God created us and the Universe. It’s akin to jumping out of the airplane, or placing your bet, or executing the buy order. The knowledge I have is creation itself, a book of prophecy and fulfillment, and a happy life in service to God, who has bestowed upon me many blessings. These things I know.<BR/><BR/>One thing that I do know is that he has not refuted anything I have presented. In fact, it does not even appear that he has tried to do so. Rather, he seems to be upset that I have confidence in my verdicts. But calling me "arrogant" does not refute my verdicts.<BR/><BR/>The arrogance is just the envelope in which you deliver your message. But this is not an uncommon trait among atheists, or theists for that matter. I just find that it engenders ill will and makes communication difficult. Its not practical.<BR/><BR/>The substance of my disagreement with you is plainly elucidated. I believe that you have arbitrarily assigned a value to creation that is not in evidence. You say that it is eternal. The only knowledge that you have is that creation exists because you experience it with your sense modalities. You cannot from there state with any degree of certainty that it always existed.<BR/><BR/> I asked the question, “Why does the universe exist?”<BR/><BR/>To which you responded:<BR/><BR/><BR/>This kind of question is invalid because it commits the fallacy of the stolen concept…<BR/> <BR/>And on and on…<BR/><BR/>Also, the question “why does the universe exist?” begs the question against the position affirming the eternal universe by assuming what the advocate of the non-eternal (or "created") universe is called to prove, namely that the universe is here to satisfy or fulfill some extra-universal purpose. Where does the theist validate this assumption? Indeed, he seems unaware that this assumption is built into his question, and yet it is plainly there.<BR/><BR/>I ask what people have been asking forever and you respond with verbal mathematics. All of this is quite impressive but you’ve completely evaded my question, claiming it to be invalid. The “why” questions lie at the root of all scientific inquiries and leaps in understanding. What if Newton never pondered the “why” of gravity? Discoveries of any kind, monumental or mundane require first that questions like this be asked. I could go on and on with this. It’s such a basic question but within the context of our discussion it’s “invalid” because it commits the fallacy of x not wanting y to impart b to the second power! Please. You are not communicating to anyone here but yourself.<BR/><BR/>2. How did the universe come to exist?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I think questions like this are also clearly invalid…. <BR/><BR/>And on and on and on. <BR/><BR/>It’s another great question and the simple fact is, that you do ponder it and you can’t reconcile it so you retreat to your syllogisms and your logical fallacies instead of saying, “I don’t know and I’m unwilling to guess.”<BR/><BR/><BR/>Since the universe is everything that exists, the question ignores that the only alternative to the universe is non-existence as such, which is nothing. Such questions ignore the fact that no matter what exists, if it exists, it exists within the totality of all that exists. So, the question requires that we start with non-existence - i.e., with nothing, since it does not allow anything to already be existing. At this point we have an unsolvable problem: if nothing exists, what can happen? Action requires something that exists to do the acting, so postulating any action necessarily assumes that something exists to do the acting so postulated. Theists are always telling us that the universe could not have created itself. I agree with this, but for slightly different reasons. I don’t think that the totality of all that exists could have brought itself into existence, for an act of bringing anything about requires that something exist to do the bringing about in the first place. But since I start with existence, not with non-existence, I do not partake in the theist's unsolvable conundrum.<BR/><BR/>“I start with existence” is an arbitrary starting point as I said previously. You don’t have an unsolvable conundrum because you have not dared to put yourself in a position to have to solve it. You have placed your parachute on your back and have boarded the airplane but have refused to jump. This is weak and intellectually dishonest. Everything you see around you, the sum total of your life experiences has starting points. The natural world is comprised of things individually, each with a starting point. Astrophysicists and Geologists have dated the earth. They give a range of dates, but dating something clearly points to a beginning point. Trees grow from seedlings, birds hatch from eggs, there is a cycle of life and everything has a starting point. And I know at this point your saying “Well, now you are committing the fallacy of assumption” or some such nonsense. Whatever. Astrophysicists have also concluded that observable celestial matter is moving out from a center point at a defined rate of speed. This indicates that all of this matter started somewhere else, likely the same place and was forced out in a tremendous explosion. What we see around us now, has not always been as we see it. The conclusion that I draw from this is that given that the universe is made up of things, all with starting points, it makes sense to me that it too had a starting point.<BR/><BR/>I don’t think that the totality of all that exists could have brought itself into existence, for an act of bringing anything about requires that something exist to do the bringing about in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Precisely! What are we arguing for? I believe what you say here. It makes perfect sense. You see it’s just as much a leap for me to believe that the universe always existed as it is for you to believe that something (God) that brings about the universe always existed.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I do affirm that the universe is eternal. My reasons for supposing this are already suggested in the foregoing. But an additional point which even many atheists overlook or misunderstand is the fact that time is not metaphysical, it is epistemological. I do not accept the idea that the universe is "a space-time continuum." Time is not a thing existing out in the world that we find and pick up and hold in our hands; figurative expressions such as "I have a lot of time on my hands" notwithstanding. On the contrary, time is a measurement of motion, and requires a fixed standard, such as the earth's revolution around the sun. One revolution around the sun we call a year, and this standard is taken as a unit and broken into various subdivisions to give us the calendar and the clock. When we get to the universe as a whole, however, it's clear that there can be no relationship which can be taken as a standard. The universe is not revolving around some other object to provide a basis for temporal measurement. Time simply does not apply to the universe itself, it only applies within the universe. The universe thus exists outside of time, i.e., eternal.<BR/><BR/>I agree with your assessment of time. This is what confuses people about the Creation account in the bible. A day to God cannot mean the same thing as a day to man. A literal interpretation of these passages must be framed within the context of time that you suggest above. Where you go off the tracks is to assume that because time is reconciled differently within the context of the universe, that the universe doesn’t have a starting point. That isn’t a factual statement. You don’t have knowledge of this. I’m sure this is a fallacy of something or other, pick one.<BR/><BR/>That's my position, and Chris is free to dismiss it or make fun of it or anything else he likes. I don't really care.<BR/><BR/>I have not given as reasons against god-belief that “it is not tidy” or that “it is not mathematical.” Tidiness is not a condition that I put on claims, and I do not tend to measure claims for their mathematical accuracy unless of course they involve mathematical calculations (such as reconciling an inventory turn-over report or validating my mobile phone bill).<BR/><BR/>However, I have no choice about my reliance on sense perception, because this is part of my nature…<BR/><BR/>My awareness of the world is made possible by sense perception. Everything I know about the world finds its ultimate basis in sense perception. <BR/><BR/>How do you explain or reconcile the concepts of consciousness, self awareness, and intuition? These are not neat, quantifiable topics. They don’t fit tidily into your requirements for facts, evidence, and logic. You have a brain, but what gives rise to your mind?<BR/><BR/>Also, different people claim to know different things by means of faith, so those who claim to know things by faith quite often tend to disagree with each other,…, Since it remains completely unclear what faith's 'processes' are (supposing it has any processes to begin with), there’s no way to determine whether a mistake has been made, or whether its basis is true, or whether its conclusions (if they can be called that) in fact rest on their stated basis in a rightful manner (we can’t say “validly” here because validity is a property of rational thought, not of faith-mongering). <BR/><BR/>This is true. But put 25 atheists in front of a Shakespeare play and you will get 25 different versions of what the master himself was saying. This is not a criticism. This is humanity. There are in fact, unifying principles and beliefs in Christianity. The books of the bible are many. There are 66 books written by 41 different people over a period of 1600 years. There are bound to be some differences of opinions. There are bound to be differing subjective truths, as many as there are believers. There is however, only one objective truth and we are all searching for it. Tell me, what are the unifying principles of Atheism? What is your unified world view? Perhaps the only one I can see is that you all hate or have contempt for Christians/Theists?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Also noteworthy is the fact that Chris does not enlighten us on how we can distinguish what he calls "God" from something he is merely imagining. <BR/><BR/>Call it a gut feeling, an intuition, or a higher consciousness. Let’s just say that when I jump out of the airplane, I’m convinced my chute will open. Call it God’s spirit working for me in my life. Call it a happiness that you can’t possibly imagine.<BR/><BR/>Dawson, I suspect that nothing short of a miraculous event in your life or God revealing himself personally to you as he did Saul of Tarsus, will make you see the wisdom of God. Until then, until all the facts have been presented, and I believe that they will, keep an open mind. All good scientists keep an open mind.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>ChrisChris Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13134785155889204025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-1154400658267265102006-07-31T22:50:00.000-04:002006-07-31T22:50:00.000-04:00Hey Dawson. I have made a link back to you from my...Hey Dawson. I have made a link back to you from my new blog, Check Your Premises ( http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/ ). Keep up the good work!Francois Tremblayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760072622693359795noreply@blogger.com