tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post2765334239573854825..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: A Case in Point, Part IIBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-68795509652068777362013-03-26T17:24:16.384-04:002013-03-26T17:24:16.384-04:00Justin,
Thanks for the heads up on your blog entr...Justin,<br /><br />Thanks for the heads up on your blog entry! I started reading it earlier this morning, but because I was pressed for time, I found myself rushing, not giving it the attention it deserves, so I quickly abandoned the effort. But I do plan to go back and give it a read.<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-15191829255062167182013-03-26T08:37:13.922-04:002013-03-26T08:37:13.922-04:00Hi Justin,
Thanks for sharing!
In your blog, you...Hi Justin,<br /><br />Thanks for sharing!<br /><br />In <a href="http://court-of-reality.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-rudeness-of-christians.html" rel="nofollow">your blog</a>, you wrote: “the creation of the universe was a rush job.” <br /><br />I love it! <br /><br />By contrast, human builders are often very careful, taking sometimes years to build large-scale projects (such as a subway or highway system). They need to be careful, since their values can be endangered if they aren't. Human beings have a stake in their vocations. An immortal, indestructible and eternal god could be entirely indifferent to all results of its choices and actions.<br /><br />On the other hand, since the Christian god is imagined to be able to simply <i>wish</i> the universe into creation, why would it take more than one microsecond to create the universe? What's this "six days" crap? That's not omnipotence!<br /><br />Clearly the creation story as we find it in the Christian bible is based on entirely human analogues. After all, the ancient Israelites needed some way to explain why people should rest on “the Sabbath.” <br /><br />Of course, I will happily decide for myself when I shall work and when I shall rest. And as long as I am not yet in my grave, I shall not rest! There’s way too much that I want to do and enjoy in my life. Living is too much fun to sit and do nothing. Of course, a deity which has no body, no need, no pleasure receptors, no hands, no requirement to work with reality on its own terms, no challenges, no objective way to measure accomplishments against failures, no ability to fail in the first place, could never know the pleasures that I am capable of achieving and have achieved. What can I say? Sucks to be it!!! And what a joy to be entirely human and “merely” human!<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-71157408294254433112013-03-26T08:18:03.642-04:002013-03-26T08:18:03.642-04:00Hello Nal and Photo,
Both of you are correct. An ...Hello Nal and Photo,<br /><br />Both of you are correct. An organism’s awareness of its environment gives it a significant advantage in terms of survival potential. So does being able to move! An organism that is fixed in place, such as a blade of grass, a shrub, a tree, cannot move itself out of danger’s way. But an organism that is not fixed in place, has a means of movement and can also sense threats to its life, can in many cases escape danger. I’m thinking particularly right now of a certain rodent that has taken residence in the walls of my kitchen (crafty little bugger!), but even more primitive organisms have the ability to outrun some dangers.<br /><br />As to Photo’s point, the spectacular success of the insect kingdom is far more than sufficient proof that even primitive forms of awareness provide for survival advantage. The strata of sophistication evident across the spectrum of organisms in existence today is a mirror of sorts for the evolutionary development of organisms possessing consciousness as well as other mechanisms that provide survival advantage. Snails, for instance, have very primitive eyes located at the end of eye stalks which can be retracted in response to some forms of stimulation. No doubt snails do not perceive objects in forms analogous to how we perceive objects. But I’m guessing their eyes allow the snail to sense varying intensities of light, thus enabling it to avoid moving in some directions as opposed to others. Naturally a snail moving directly into sunlight could make it vulnerable to dehydration. The snail doesn’t “know” this in the sense that we know things (i.e., conceptually). But given that it has light receptors of some sophistication, it can move to avoid this threat to some degree. In my experience, most snails that I have found have been in cool, dark and damp areas of a garden. Those that are unlucky enough to move outside of such retreats often dry up and die.<br /><br />So an organism does not have to have the sophistication that we possess in order to have a survival advantage. And some organisms, such as bats and certain birds of prey, possess far more sophisticated sensory abilities than we do (bats’ hearing, for example, and an eagle’s eyesight, etc.).<br /><br />By the way, everyone, my latest post, <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2013/03/incinerating-presuppositionalism-year.html" rel="nofollow">Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Year Eight</a> is now up. Join me in celebrating another year of punching Christianity in the nose!<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-81629458190346731752013-03-26T02:37:00.913-04:002013-03-26T02:37:00.913-04:00@Ydemoc, Robert and gang
Something for your comic...@Ydemoc, Robert and gang<br /><br />Something for your comic amusement. Just something I thought up out of boredom.<br /><br />http://court-of-reality.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-rudeness-of-christians.htmlJustin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-36303003570744006522013-03-25T20:53:36.839-04:002013-03-25T20:53:36.839-04:00Hi NAL,
Besides consciousness did not have to be ...Hi NAL,<br /><br />Besides consciousness did not have to be human-like in order to be useful, which might push it's origins way farther back/deeper than in animals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-17769418086277372732013-03-25T16:36:00.701-04:002013-03-25T16:36:00.701-04:00An organism that is aware of it surrounding, that ...An organism that is aware of it surrounding, that is conscious, would have a significant evolutionary advantage. NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-62569393716622374852013-03-23T23:23:28.834-04:002013-03-23T23:23:28.834-04:00You asked: “2. You say consciousness has its origi...You asked: “2. You say consciousness has its origin in existence as opposed to non-existence. I would agree. But, how did consciousness arise in history? Was there time when there was no consciousness? If so, do you have an opinion on how/where consciousness arose?”<br /><br />These seem to be scientific questions rather than philosophical issues per se. I do not know how consciousness “arose,” but if it did, I’d suppose that its development was pre-historical. Was there a time when there was no consciousness? I don’t know, but I don’t see anything wrong per se with supposing consciousness has not always existed. Consciousness is a biological in nature and belongs to a specific class of biological organism, namely animals, organisms which are not fixed in place and need some means of being aware of surroundings in order to move around and obtain food successfully. Thus if there was a time when no animals existed, then no consciousness existed. And yet, existence still exists. Since we have the primacy of existence, we know that reality does not depend on consciousness and that reality is not a creation of consciousness. Thus if consciousness did arise, as I suspect it did (all biological indicators are that it did), it arose with the development of those animals which first evolved the rudiments of sensory awareness. There were no journalists around documenting what happened, so scientists have no alternative but to explore this development long after the fact. That seems like a daunting task to me, but certainly full of promise of fascinating discoveries.<br /><br />Hope that helps!<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-50097755709528162862013-03-23T23:23:12.229-04:002013-03-23T23:23:12.229-04:00Hello John,
Thanks again for your questions.
You...Hello John,<br /><br />Thanks again for your questions.<br /><br />You asked: “1. What makes those criteria for axioms necessary? I see problems in the listed criteria. Specifically, ‘perceptually self-evident’ depends on the general reliability of perception and ‘undeniably true’ would seem to require omniscience to determine. That is, unless you mean practically undeniably true as opposed to objectively undeniably true.”<br /><br />Is that the only one you object to? It is entirely compatible with the others that I listed. I don’t know about you, but I rely on my perception every waking second of my life. I couldn’t do this if perception were not reliable. If you perceive at all, then you perceive something. In other words, you have perceptual awareness of something. Thus if you perceive anything, then your perception is working qua perception. Thus it is “reliable” in this very sense, and that is essentially all that is needed here.<br /><br />We have to be careful not to confuse the perception of an object with the subsequent <i>identification</i> of that object. I can perceive an object but still err when it comes to identifying it properly. Identification is a conceptual task which requires the mind to be able to form concepts, an ability we learn to do in a rather rote and sometimes faulty way early in our childhood. I remember when my daughter verbalized her first concept around her first birthday. She used the verbal symbol ‘bob’, but it was in reference to the dogs that she encountered. She took the name of the first dog whose name she learned, “Bob,” and used it to refer to all dogs rather than as a proper name for just one animal. This was the first time that I observed her forming and applying a concept. A real milestone. A cause for celebration. Nothing to be taken for granted, but most people do take it completely for granted. That’s too bad, they’re missing something wonderful.<br /><br />Perhaps what you might be objecting to here is the implication that knowledge begins with perception. Many thinkers have tried to argue against this over the centuries, but all such arguments amount to stolen concepts. Ultimately such arguments trade on a false understanding of the nature of concepts, often assume that the notion of ‘a priori knowledge’ is legitimate, and endorse some kind of mystical alternative to rational knowledge (i.e., knowledge based on reason, reason being the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses). Perception is in fact an objective feature of our nature, just as are our heartbeat, digestion, respiration, circulation, etc. We have organs which are clearly associated with the different modes of perception, and so long as we are alive we cannot shut down our perception at will. If you have a toothache, for instance, you can try to deny it, but this will not make the pain go away. You will still feel it. Since perception has a causal basis which obtains independent of any conscious activity we may volitionally perform, perception is objective. Thus I would not dichotomize between the practical and the objective. <br /><br />Keep in mind: we do not begin with concepts already formed in our head. We have to form concepts on the basis of input from reality, specifically perceptual input. Perception is our primary means of awareness of reality. Without perception, there would be no knowledge, since knowledge is built ultimately on perceptual input.<br /><br />You wrote: “I am going to read more about the Primacy of Existence since I want to understand it, but have not done so yet.”<br /><br />Good idea. You may have questions on this as well. I’d love to help you understand. <br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-51136720500471589362013-03-23T20:54:36.958-04:002013-03-23T20:54:36.958-04:00Hello Dawson,
Thanks for your answers. You are co...Hello Dawson,<br /><br />Thanks for your answers. You are correct that your responses have led me to ask a few more questions. I'll limit it to just two additional questions for now:<br /><br />1. What makes those criteria for axioms necessary? I see problems in the listed criteria. Specifically, "perceptually self-evident" depends on the general reliability of perception and "undeniably true" would seem to require omniscience to determine. That is, unless you mean practically undeniably true as opposed to objectively undeniably true. <br /><br />I am going to read more about the Primacy of Existence since I want to understand it, but have not done so yet. <br /><br />2. You say consciousness has its origin in existence as opposed to non-existence. I would agree. But, how did consciousness arise in history? Was there time when there was no consciousness? If so, do you have an opinion on how/where consciousness arose? <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14999337049019546310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-89707924973259997832013-03-17T20:35:37.753-04:002013-03-17T20:35:37.753-04:00Hi Photo,
I agree that, in the discussion over at...Hi Photo,<br /><br />I agree that, in the discussion over at Choosing Hats, Ben is foregoing some ripe opportunities. But that is not unusual in what I tend to see among most atheists "out there," not only Ben. Ben seems to approach knowledge in general and apologetics in particular from a mishmash of varying and probably incompatible philosophical assumptions, some of which likely stem from philosophical skepticism. <br /><br />I think the choicest quote from Knapp's blog entry is its very last line, which states:<br /><br />"I have found that skeptics generally aren’t skeptical enough, and our friend is no exception."<br /><br />I have often noticed that when presuppositionalists are pressed on their claims about knowledge, philosophy, etc., that skepticism is a kind of "fall-back" position of theirs. Chris Bolt clearly thought that "answering the skeptic" was a top priority, as if satisfying their denials of knowledge somehow qualified as an accomplishment. Also, notice that presuppositionalists seem to have readied themselves only to attack skeptics, and thus "presuppose" that non-believers are necessarily or ultimately philosophical skeptics. Of course, many critics of the Christian worldview fall right into this trap, which only confirms in the presuppositionalists' minds that they've got everything figured out. But clearly they don't. Far from it!<br /><br />I hope to comment on the discussion over there more at some point, time allowing of course.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-54469242796813561332013-03-17T20:24:30.985-04:002013-03-17T20:24:30.985-04:00Hello John,
Thanks for your questions. Let me res...Hello John,<br /><br />Thanks for your questions. Let me respond briefly, and if you have additional questions, I would be happy to consider them.<br /><br />You asked: “1) You said, ‘Things exist. This is self-evident, and I accept this fact as an axiom’. Presuppositionalists who follow Gordon Clark hold "The Bible is the Word of God" as an axiom. What would you say in response to them?”<br /><br />Generally, my response to Clarkians on this matter would be two-fold:<br /><br />A) What they propose as an axiom in no way satisfies any of the criteria which a philosophical axiom needs to satisfy. For example (where “it” refers to the statement Clarkians propose as their axiom):<br /><br />- It does not identify a perceptually self-evident fact<br />- It is not conceptually irreducible<br />- It is not a universal truth (it’s a statement about a specific set of writings)<br />- it is not undeniably true<br />- it does not name an objective fact (e.g., we have no alternative but to imagine the god whose word the bible is said to be, etc.)<br /><br />B) Also, I would point out that what the Clarkians propose as an axiom assume the truth of my worldview’s axioms (existence, identity and consciousness), meaning: my worldview’s axioms would have to be true even for the Clarkian to be able to consider the statement he proposes as an axiom, let alone defend it as such. Unfortunately, however, my worldview’s axioms together point to a fundamental principle which, when applied consistently, rules out theism. That principle is call the primacy of existence. On this, you might want to read my Feb. 2010 blog entry <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2010/02/how-theism-violates-primacy-of.html" rel="nofollow">How Theism Violates the Primacy of Existence</a>.<br /><br />You asked: “2) How do you go about choosing axioms?”<br /><br />I don’t think we exactly go “shopping” for axioms, as we do for sportswear or vegetables, selecting those that suit us better than others. Rather, since the task of an axiom is to identify in general terms the facts of which we are aware of directly, we should first ask: what facts are we aware of directly? When I look out at the world I see <i>things</i> - concrete objects which exist in my environment. I also perceive these things in forms other than visual. For instance, they make sounds and I hear them; I can feel them if I touch them; some things have a fragrance or put off an odor, and I can smell them, etc. So in all cases, my awareness has an object or group of objects. In general terms, all my actions of consciousness have something in common: things exist (i.e., “existence exists”). Another fact that all my actions of consciousness have in common is the fact that each object in my awareness is distinct from every other object. This gives us the axiom of identity: to exist is to be something specific, to be itself. And thirdly, another general fact which all my actions of consciousness have in common is the fact that they are actions of consciousness, which gives us the axiom consciousness: consciousness is consciousness of something.<br /><br />The criteria which formalizing our axioms would need to satisfy are the following:<br /><br />- objective<br />- conceptually irreducible<br />- perceptually self-evident<br />- undeniably true<br />- universal<br /><br />You asked: “3) Do you have an opinion on the origin of consciousness?”<br /><br />Sure, at least generally. My view is that consciousness has its origin in existence (as opposed to in “non-existence”). How’s that?<br /><br />I’m guessing my responses will generate further questions on your part, in which case you are welcome to submit them at your leisure. I’ll try to get to them as time allows.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-43065416906633235112013-03-17T19:11:29.666-04:002013-03-17T19:11:29.666-04:00The discussion at choosing hats has become hopeles...The discussion at choosing hats has become hopelessly circular. Ben should tell the other guy that imagining that some supernatural being solves a problem neither means that the imaginary being solves the problem, nor that the imaginary being exists.<br /><br />That leaving aside that induction holds easily from identity. It's foundational whether we want it or not. Gods? Just bullshit anthropomorphisms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-8425885359199445612013-03-17T15:35:26.583-04:002013-03-17T15:35:26.583-04:00Hello Dawson,
Two questions in response to this w...Hello Dawson,<br /><br />Two questions in response to this well-thought out post. I do not intend to enter the fray of the imaginary debate yet, but rather have a few questions based on things you said in passing. <br /><br />1)You said, "Things exist. This is self-evident, and I accept this fact as an axiom." Presuppositionalists who follow Gordon Clark hold "The Bible is the Word of God" as an axiom. What would you say in response to them?<br /><br />2) How do you go about choosing axioms?<br /><br />3) Do you have an opinion on the origin of consciousness? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14999337049019546310noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-30840634318393792832013-03-14T17:45:57.912-04:002013-03-14T17:45:57.912-04:00Dawson,
You wrote: "Thanks for quoting that ...Dawson,<br /><br />You wrote: "Thanks for quoting that section! It helped me see a couple typos that needed correcting."<br /><br />You're welcome! And thanks for that Choosing Hats link. I didn't read it fully, but it looks like an interesting conversation. Hopefully I can give more attention at some point. <br /><br />As for your recent blog entry, as I was reading it, I kept asking myself, "Why would 'bethel' be so unwilling to accept Premise 1 of your argument? Does such resistance stem mostly from a mind warped by religious indoctrination? Or is it a result of his desire for something to be the case even though it isn't? Or could it be a combination of these and other factors?"<br /><br />I think I found the answer to my question when you wrote: "I can only surmise, given what we have examined here, that the author believes what he believes (if in fact he does believe it), simply because he wants it to be true, not because there really is any objective 'evidence' to support any of it. Otherwise, we should expect that he would have produced such evidence already."<br /><br />And so we have yet another believer demonstrating for us, in his own words, how tightly bound wishing and hoping are to imagination and, in turn, to god-belief itself.<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-56752183883515705942013-03-14T08:07:37.630-04:002013-03-14T08:07:37.630-04:00HI Freddies,
Thanks for your message. And you’re ...HI Freddies,<br /><br />Thanks for your message. And you’re welcome! It is my pleasure.<br /><br />“bethel” repeatedly denies Premise 1 and demands proof for it. This is very odd. For one thing, it seems self-evident to me that the imaginary is not real. In fact, it seems rather dubious insist that it be defended. But I think I’ve provided sufficient analysis and examples to settle the matter in favor of Premise 1. The examples which “bethel” has produced (e.g., the shape of the earth, the speed at which particles can travel, etc.) do not in any way pose a challenge to Premise 1. If one imagines that the earth is a cube, does this make the earth a cube? I would suppose that even “bethel” would agree that it would not. So what relevance do his examples have? None that I can see. <br /><br />I think the simplest way to determine whether or not the imaginary is real is to observe something and compare that thing you’re observing when you apply your imagination to it. Observe a glass of water and imagine the water turning a different color or the glass floating up into the air before your eyes. What happens to the glass of water? Do the thing you imagine it doing happen? Or, does it remain unchanged regardless of what you imagine? Premise 1 will support the prediction that nothing will happen to it. The denial that “bethel” has infamously proffered will only support the prediction that what you imagine will prevail in the world you are observing. Again, I can only suppose (and hope) that this fellow just isn’t thinking through these matters at all carefully. But then again, perhaps that’s part of the beauty of my argument: it compels Christians to come out into the light and expose the naked irrationality of their worldview. <br /><br />As Ydemoc pointed out in the previous discussion, “bethel” wrote in <a href="http://withalliamgod.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/bethricks-unsuccessful-case-against-christian-god/" rel="nofollow">his 11 March comment</a>:<br /><br /><< Notwithstanding the Christian view, in order to be a premise something must be universally accepted, or nearly so >><br /><br />Is this a criterion for qualifying a premise affirmed by Christianity proper? If so, then Christianity itself fails by its own criterion: since Christianity is not “universally accepted, or nearly so,” the Christian worldview cannot “be a premise.” But I have never gotten the impression that Christianity has ever endorsed such a teaching. But even then, unless everyone (“or nearly so”) agrees with the criterion itself, then this criterion cannot be accepted. <br /><br />Really, it is such a strange comment for “bethel” to make that, again, I can only suppose/hope that he’s not thinking through what he is saying very carefully at all. <br /><br />One last point. “bethel” seems to think I have been insulting him. I did not realize that I was doing this. Since he does not cite any examples of what he considers to be insults against him on my part, I have no idea what he is referring to. I typically try to focus on the topics rather than making things personal, at least I very much try to do this. Recall our exchanges with Michael Rawlings – I really did try to give him the benefit of the doubt early on, and I did not resort to insults until things got way, way out of hand (and even then I resisted). I try my best to be fair, but it seems that folks out there tend to be rather thin-skinned. <br /><br />Or am I missing something?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-89141776570819188002013-03-14T07:31:08.268-04:002013-03-14T07:31:08.268-04:00I suspect that bethel will most likely ignore this...I suspect that bethel will most likely ignore this comprehensive refutation of his poor attempt to deny your initial argument.<br /><br />Fortunately, anyone who is actually interested in holding a rational worldview will be able to see your thorough dismantling of his bizarre claims, so thank you for your efforts Dawson.freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-31480395463694049932013-03-13T19:28:40.187-04:002013-03-13T19:28:40.187-04:00Hi Ydemoc,
Thanks for quoting that section! It he...Hi Ydemoc,<br /><br />Thanks for quoting that section! It helped me see a couple typos that needed correcting. The passage now reads as follows:<br /><br /><< Thus it is difficult to understand why he would have a problem with the conclusion that the Christian god is imaginary if he thinks Premise 1 is not acceptable in the first place. If it is the case, as the author has affirmed, that “[b]eing imaginary is not mutually exclusive from being real” (see his 7 March comment here), then why would he have any problem with the supposition that his god is imaginary? If he truly accepts as true what he has said on behalf of his worldview, then he should be comfortable with the report that his god is both imaginary and real at the same time. Or does the author perhaps recognize, albeit only privately, that the imaginary is indeed unreal? If not, then his protests seem inconsistent with the position that he has taken to buck against this view. >><br /><br />The clause "if he thinks Premise 1 is not accept in the first place" now has "acceptable" instead of "accept."<br /><br />Also, I changed the parenthetical "(as he has affirmed in his 7 March comment here)" to "(see his 7 March comment here)" to avoid the redundancy. (Don't worry, the hyperlink has been left intact.)<br /><br />So thanks for helping me edit my own work!<br /><br />And yes, "Zoom! Right over his head!" is correct. I get the impression that "bethel" is going to argue against anything I affirm simply because I have affirmed it. If I affirm that jet airplanes make it possible to traverse large distances in relatively shorter travel times, he might argue against this as well.<br /><br />Btw, interesting discussion going on over at <a href="http://www.choosinghats.com/2013/03/chat-with-a-skeptic/" rel="nofollow">this Choosing Hats blog entry</a>. Check it out.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-67585541307502329132013-03-13T18:19:48.713-04:002013-03-13T18:19:48.713-04:00Dawson: "Thus it is difficult to understand w...Dawson: "Thus it is difficult to understand why he ["bethel"] would have a problem with the conclusion that the Christian god is imaginary if he thinks Premise 1 is not accept in the first place. If it is the case, as the author has affirmed, that “[b]eing imaginary is not mutually exclusive from being real” (as he has affirmed in his 7 March comment here), then why would he have any problem with the supposition that his god is imaginary? If he truly accepts as true what he has said on behalf of his worldview, then he should be comfortable with the report that his god is both imaginary and real at the same time. Or does the author perhaps recognize, albeit only privately, that the imaginary is indeed unreal? If not, then his protests seem inconsistent with the position that he has taken to buck against this view."<br /><br />Borrowing this blast from the past: "Zoom! Right over his head!"<br /><br />Ydemoc<br /><br /> Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-85408358651233065722013-03-13T16:39:45.897-04:002013-03-13T16:39:45.897-04:00Dawson,
You wrote: "And Ydemoc, I really app...Dawson,<br /><br />You wrote: "And Ydemoc, I really appreciate your efforts to engage the fellow over on Prayson’s blog."<br /><br />That's good to hear! As I told "bethel" over on Prayson's blog, I derive great value from doing so -- so much so, that I plan on heading over to Prayson's blog a little later and informing them of your latest blog entry!<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.com