tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post7603386684509322437..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: A Reply to Matthias on Holy Inference vs. Reason: How Do We Know What’s Inside the Box?Bahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-7838971940618265182014-01-31T09:06:57.957-05:002014-01-31T09:06:57.957-05:00Hi Robetr,
Neuroiplasticity does not break POE. E...Hi Robetr,<br /><br />Neuroiplasticity does not break POE. Essentially, yes, using our brains results in rearrangements/restructuring of neuronal connections, ion channels, etc. But that's far from being a case for wishing makes it so. It's the physiology makes it so. Mere wishing wouldn't work. No matter how much I desire for my brain to improve, it won't do unless I find the proper exercises to improve and take advantage of a physiology that I did not wish to be, it already is (or isn't, in which case I would have no hope for improvement) regardless of my desires, etc.<br /><br />I find this to be one of those things that's very clear in my mind, but very hard to explain. So I hope that was clear enough.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-24216771840504227832014-01-27T18:13:41.891-05:002014-01-27T18:13:41.891-05:00Hi Dawson,
My answer: the importance of reason to...Hi Dawson,<br /><br /><i>My answer: the importance of reason to human life.</i><br /><br />Of course!<br /><br />Thanks. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-63210449473429461812014-01-27T14:33:50.578-05:002014-01-27T14:33:50.578-05:00I have posted the following query in the comments ...I have posted the following query in the comments section of Rick Warden's <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2014/01/rands-primacy-of-existence-argument.html" rel="nofollow">new blog entry</a>:<br /><br />---------------<br /><br />Hi Rick,<br /><br />You gave the following and called it an "objective definition of metaphysical primacy":<br /><br />"<i>that which is considered to be the most primary and universally relevant supervening, preeminent force in terms of both being and existence</i>."<br /><br />I did not see any source which you might identify as the origin or text that you may have gotten this definition from. Can you link to a philosophical source where you got your definition?<br /><br />Regards,<br />Dawson<br /><br />---------------<br /><br />Warden has condemned Rand for making up her own definitions (allegedly simply to suit her own prejudices). Now I'm sure Warden wouldn't be doing the same thing he accuses Rand of doing....<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-30356123285346502312014-01-27T14:23:53.417-05:002014-01-27T14:23:53.417-05:00Hi Photo,
It's nice to hear from you.
I thin...Hi Photo,<br /><br />It's nice to hear from you.<br /><br />I think you're right that theists spend a lot of their effort battling against obvious facts. Virtually every theist who has attempted to interact here has demonstrated this to one degree or another. I have challenged theists for many years now to explain how I can reliably distinguish between what they call "God" and what they may merely be imagining. While there is a range of reactions which this question receives from theists, none have been able to answer it in a manner that vindicates their theism.<br /><br />You asked, "So, what's there to discuss?" <br /><br />My answer: the importance of reason to human life.<br /><br />I also think it is important to fine practice the art of philosophical detection. It's like playing the piano or learning a second language - use it or lose it.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-30716495961631257552014-01-27T14:19:15.496-05:002014-01-27T14:19:15.496-05:00Hi Robert,
I have not checked the article you lin...Hi Robert,<br /><br />I have not checked the article you linked to (I simply don't have time), and I don't know what "neuroplasticity" means. So I can't comment on this particularly. <br /><br />I am convinced however that there is no way to refute the primacy of existence. An attempt to refute the POE would have to assume the POE, thus contradicting itself. Even the claim that neuroplasticity is a real phenomenon, as a premise in that attempt, would make use of the POE. <br /><br />Observing Rick Warden's efforts to battle against the issue of metaphyscial primacy, however, shows that theists either do not grasp the matter and its relationship to epistemology, or they simply do not want to yield to it (which is an attitudinal expression of the POC). Whether it's ignorance or attitude, the POE still obtains.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-84303264278506973302014-01-27T13:18:00.027-05:002014-01-27T13:18:00.027-05:00Hey guys,
A quick hello and a very short comment....Hey guys,<br /><br />A quick hello and a very short comment.<br /><br />I think that the most problematic of all things for theists is that they put a lot of effort to defend something that cannot but be imaginary. They spend a lot of time trying to refute the obvious, as if just because they believe that their imaginary fiends are real, therefore what we can observe is not ... or something like that. No matter how much these guys try and challenge anybody else with straw-men, and whatever else, their worldview is still based on the imaginary. So, what's there to discuss?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-42507027545836401862014-01-27T11:24:53.785-05:002014-01-27T11:24:53.785-05:00There is a way to blur the distinction between pri...There is a way to blur the distinction between primacy of existence and primacy of consciousness that Christians won't utilize as they want to believe in their fantasy. Human brain consciousness is a physical biological process that can directly affect brain tissue via neuroplasticity. <br /><br />http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=40362<br /><br />This blurrs distinction between POE and POC perhaps allowing for counter argument against the Fact of Existence argument against theism and mysticism. Could a Christian apologist gain traction against the FOE argument by employing neuroplasticity? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-39349662884859534992014-01-26T19:11:59.317-05:002014-01-26T19:11:59.317-05:00Good points, Justin.
But even more to the point, ...Good points, Justin.<br /><br />But even more to the point, notice that Warden still resists addressing any of the questions that I have posed to him.<br /><br />For example, the following (which I posted over a week ago <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2014/01/three-refutations-of-objectivism.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>:<br /><br /><<<b>According to Christianity, what you call “supremacy of God’s consciousness” in the context that you yourself intended (“with regard to the physical world”) entails the primacy of the Christian god’s consciousness with respect to any objects distinct from itself. Observe:<br /><br />1) If your god wills that an apple exists in a certain location at a certain time, will the apple come into existence as willed or not? A yes here would affirm the primacy of consciousness since the apple’s very existence results from your god’s conscious actions. A no here would mean that any apple that exists, exists independent of your god’s conscious activity – i.e., your god would not have supremacy over the physical world.<br /><br />2) If your god wills that the apple is of the golden delicious variety, will the apple be a golden delicious apple? A yes here would affirm the primacy of consciousness since the apple (the object of your god’s consciousness) obeys your god’s conscious actions. A no here would mean that the apple would not obey your god’s consciousness – i.e., your god would not have supremacy over the physical world.<br /><br />3) If your god wills that the apple becomes a banana, will the apple become a banana? A yes here would affirm the primacy of consciousness since the apple obeys your god’s conscious actions. A no here would mean that the apple would not obey your god’s consciousness – i.e., your god would not have supremacy over the physical world.<br /><br />So how do you answer these questions?<br /><br />1) Yes or no?<br />2) Yes or no?<br />3) Yes or no?<br /><br />Don’t tell me, you’re not going to answer, right?</b>>><br /><br />Notice my prediction at the end. Warden is proving my case over and over again without ever seeming to realize it.<br /><br />And you're right - all he can do is dodge by battling straw men and trying to move the discussion away from the issues at hand. Sure signs that he's simply at his wits end on the whole matter.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-53427165213452640742014-01-26T19:04:01.024-05:002014-01-26T19:04:01.024-05:00Yes I caught that glaring error about existence ex...Yes I caught that glaring error about existence exists as well. I kind of lost interest at that point. If he is going to straw man that badly I kind lose all confidence in his ability at reading comprehension. Also while the NDE issue is a red hearing it should also be pointed out that the consensus of peer reviewed psychology and psychiatry is that there is no supporting evidence and that the entire phenomena is an inter subjective hallucination caused by a brain dying from lack of oxygen. Sure you can find the one off paper here and there but if he wants to invoke the authority of science then he must go with the consensus. In fact practically no one in the field of study relevant takes the issue of NDE seriously. Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-35234802762223914372014-01-26T18:42:10.036-05:002014-01-26T18:42:10.036-05:00Hi Justin,
Thanks the note.
Warden's new bl...Hi Justin,<br /><br />Thanks the note. <br /><br />Warden's new blog entry (apparently he's been praying and fasting... and furiously pumping away at his latest and greatest for the past week) can be found here:<br /><br /><a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2014/01/rands-primacy-of-existence-argument.html" rel="nofollow">Rand’s Primacy of Existence Argument Refuted</a><br /><br />And yes, Thorn does present a formalized version of his argument here:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.oocities.org/athens/sparta/1019/AFE/AFE1.htm" rel="nofollow">The Argument from the Fact of Existence Presented as a Formal Syllogism</a><br /><br />Warden seems to be clowning around when he says that the primacy of existence and the primacy of consciousness is a false dichotomy. Is that because he <i>wants</i> this to be the case (the POC), or because it is indeed the case independent of anyone’s wishes, dreams, preferences, imagination, feelings, etc. (the POE)?<br /><br />To support his view that the POE vs. the POC is a false dichotomy, he talks about mind-body dualism and NDEs! This simply proves that he still does not understand the issue at all. I don’t know what to say… I really didn’t think someone could be so out of touch with reason as this.<br /><br />Also, notice what Warden writes:<br /><br /><<<b>The phrase, “existence exists” conflates the abstract with the real. Existence does not exist. Things such as trees, physical laws and time exist with real qualities, but existence of itself does not exist. Existence is contingent upon something else existing. </b>>><br /><br />Notice the astounding errors in just this one statement. First, he confuses the concept 'existence' with its referents. Objectivism is very clear on this (see Peikoff, OPAR, chapter 1). Second, he asserts (without any kind of argument) that “existence does not exist.” Then he says that “things” exist. But if ‘existence’ is a collective noun noting everything that exists (as Objectivism informs its founding axiom), then existence does in fact exist. But in the same breath, Warden says that “existence is contingent upon something else existing” – which could only make sense if existence exists.<br /><br />This guy is beyond being merely a joke. At this point, I think he needs professional help.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-16690182361335442672014-01-26T17:58:43.428-05:002014-01-26T17:58:43.428-05:00@Dawson
Heads up our old Kruger Dunning boy wonde...@Dawson<br /><br />Heads up our old Kruger Dunning boy wonder Mr Warden is once again whining and complaining over at templestream. I love how he claims Anton Thorn never resented a argument in a valid syllogism and yet here I have it as it was published by him online years ago. Does Rick do any fact checking before opening his mouth? Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-40060825267960122412014-01-25T13:22:28.278-05:002014-01-25T13:22:28.278-05:00Ah QuantumHaecceity you are back. Just a reminder,...Ah QuantumHaecceity you are back. Just a reminder, my challenge still stands. Of course since I suspect you can not argue your way out of a wet paper sack I think it will continue to be not met. <br /><br />http://court-of-reality.blogspot.com/2013/10/an-open-challenge-to-quantumhaecceity.html<br /><br /><br /><br />Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-78943672897078443132014-01-25T11:39:36.646-05:002014-01-25T11:39:36.646-05:00Good Morning Friends
I had a few thoughts about H...Good Morning Friends<br /><br />I had a few thoughts about How do we know what's inside the box? I hope this isn't boring any of the readers. I've posted about these issues before, yet I think these points remain salient. BTW, if I've ever offended any of the readers, please accept my apology. Also I hope the reader is feeling well and will live long and prosper. [Vulcan Salute] <br /><br />Gosh. If I were still a Christian believer who was presented with Dawson's question and the alleged Paul's list of "spiritual" gifts, including what is read at 1 Cor. 12:8, Sophia and Gnosis, I'd retreat to Christian traditions regarding these words found in Strong's concordance.<br /><br />http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4678&t=NASB<br /><br />http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1108&t=NASB<br /><br />However, I think almost all believers must punt to mystery when asked for an explanation as to why their alleged Omnipotent and Omniscient God can't or won't simply inform them as to what's in the box when it allegedly can inform them according to the Strong's meaning of Sophia, "wisdom, broad and full of intelligence; used of the knowledge of very diverse matters." and gnosis, "knowledge signifies in general intelligence, understanding." Why won't Matthias' God inform him as to what's in the box when the author of much of the New Testament claimed his God could?<br /><br />Since we are aware of what 1 Cor 12:8 claims and we could alternatively ask, instead of what's in a box, the question why didn't Matthias' God inform the Catholic and Protestant religious prelates in the early 16th century during the Council of Trent and 30 Years War that the appended ending of the Gospel of Mark was spurious while much of the rest of the New Testament is interpolated and redacted and that Catholics and Protestants shouldn't fight wars against one another? I suspect almost all Christians,including Matthias, would either punt to mystery or invoke some version of the morally sufficient reason theodicy. The problem with the former is that it goes contra to what 1 Cor 12:8 claims about Christian Sophia and Gnosis while the later admits the Christian God, if it could possibly exist, would use evil as a means to achieve its ends. <br /><br />Christians can use the morally sufficient reason theodicy to try and defend the alleged goodness of their God but at cost of scraping out the notion their God's alleged moral nature is an absolute standard of morality. If the ends justify the means for the idea of the Christian God, then it's devoid or deficient of moral principles and hence can't be "perfect" and thus can't be "God". But if the Christian's alleged gifts of the Spirit can't as a function of Sophia and Gnosis provide answers to simple question like "What's in the box?" or notify Christianity's religious prelates and leaders that the Bible is laden with falsehoods, fallacies, absurdities, atrocities, and contradictions, or that Catholics and Protestants shouldn't fight wars against one another then the Christian's gift of the Spirit theodicy is invalid and false as well. Regardless which horn of this dilemma one is impaled upon, Christian Theism is either false or is highly probably false. <br /><br />Best Wishes for Continued SuccessAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-46016626444612605352014-01-24T20:24:55.640-05:002014-01-24T20:24:55.640-05:00Hello Matthias,
No problem taking your time. We a...Hello Matthias,<br /><br />No problem taking your time. We all have lives to lead and we’re all busy, so you should not feel like you’re under pressure to respond within a certain time interval. But I’m glad to learn that you’re still enjoying the discussion so far.<br /><br />But I am very curious to see how you respond to some of these points. Given your comments about how to conceive of how things “must be in light of what God is… in cases where the Bible doesn’t describe how a certain part of reality is,” I’d really like to see how this plays out in a real-world example (such as my computer having a problem or a mysterious box that has been delivered to my doorstep). <br /><br />Objectivism holds that we need to <i>look outward</i> at reality, beginning with perception of objects which exist independent of our conscious activity, identify relevant facts, integrate them into the sum of our knowledge, make inferences from them, etc., all by means of <i>reason</i>. For example, if I want to know what is in a box that has been delivered to my house, I open it and look inside.<br /><br />But your statement suggests a radically different approach to learning what is in the box, namely that believers can somehow consult what “God is” and on this basis “conceive of how reality “<i>must be</i>.” I don’t see how this could at all be compatible with the <i>looking outward</i> model that I briefly describe above, for what I <i>look outward</i>, I do not acquire awareness of <i>any</i> gods. And Christians themselves have told me that I should not expect to do so, since they have described their god as immaterial, invisible, imperceptible, beyond the reach of the senses, etc. <br /><br />Moreover, I have quoted statements by Greg Bahnsen to the effect that whatever I as an atheist affirm in my worldview must be opposed and even attacked by the Christian apologist. For example, Bahnsen writes (<i>Pushing the Antithesis</i>, p. 96): <br /><br /><<<b> The Christian worldview does not simply differ with unbelieving worldviews at some points, but absolutely conflicts with it across the board on all points. </b>>> <br /><br />Elsewhere Bahnsen writes (<i>Always Ready</i>, p. 77):<br /><br /><<<b> what is needed is not piecemeal replies, probabilities, or isolated evidences but rather an attack upon the underlying presuppositions of the unbeliever’s system of thought.</b>>><br /><br />Given these points, it seems that, as a Christian apologist, you’d have to take me to the woodshed for supposing that I should <i>look outward</i> - e.g., open the box and look inside it – to determine the contents of a box that has been delivered to my house. If everything my view espouses is wrong, false, un-Christworthy, etc., then surely I must be wrong for supposing that I should open the box and look inside it to identify its contents. Moreover, I’d like to see how the alternative you describe would work.<br /><br />If you could address this, it might be helpful in furthering my understanding (which I guess I’m not supposed to “lean on” any way, per Prov. 3:5).<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-54697527665232195462014-01-24T20:05:09.957-05:002014-01-24T20:05:09.957-05:00Hello freddies,
You wrote: “Holy shit but those l...Hello freddies,<br /><br />You wrote: “Holy shit but those links from QH are appalling.”<br /><br />While I have not visited the links that Quantum Hack posted in his comment, I’m not the least bit surprised by what you have to say here about what you saw there. Remember, QH is the guy who was impressed with the AynRandContraNature blog, which I have seen, and about which I had a very similar impression as you indicate here.<br /><br />QH doesn’t like me calling him “Quantum Hack.” It’s a term of endearment at this point given his trolling habits here at my blog. But to date his actions have been indistinguishable from those of an internet troll. Essentially a spectator, a troll delights in purposeless provocation; he wants to watch a fight. He does not give his real identity, and he does not give specifics. He does not contribute any intelligent commentary on the blog entry to which he has attached his comments. It’s completely off-topic. When his queries are answered, he intensifies his provocation. <br /><br />I have no idea why QH would have any interest in what my reaction to anything might be, especially given the fact that he has offered nothing intelligent on the matters discussed here. What indication does he give that he’s actually interested in discussing legitimate philosophical issues? None that I have seen.<br /><br />If QH is truly interested in my views, I’ve got nearly nine years worth of blog entries for him to read. Has he read any of them? Does not the content of the writing which I have already published on my blog and on my website not already give enough of an indication of how I respond to critics of Objectivism?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-69239161291163813202014-01-24T16:32:02.841-05:002014-01-24T16:32:02.841-05:00Hello @Matthias and @Dawson
Matt when you wrote: ...Hello @Matthias and @Dawson<br /><br />Matt when you wrote: "We conceive of how reality must be in light of how God is (in cases where the Bible doesn’t describe how a certain part of reality is. It’s all systematic in nature, which is appropriate for a worldview.)." did you mean to infer magic by use of the term "...in light of..." ?<br /><br />Many Thanks and Best WishesAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-33827081909517517182014-01-24T11:16:35.965-05:002014-01-24T11:16:35.965-05:00Holy shit but those links from QH are appalling.
...Holy shit but those links from QH are appalling.<br /><br />1) Is someone with an appalling lack of ability when it comes to reading for comprehension, leading them to create strawman after strawman of the statements they were supposedly critiquing. <br /><br />2) Is someone who just moans endlessly about what he perceives are problems in Objectivism but never really shows how they are problems, he ignores plenty of what Objectivism affirms and mostly just points at other philosophers and says "they did it better". His biggest problem is with ethics though, yet nowhere does he show Objectivist ethics to be at odds with it's principles. Basically he doesn't like the ethics on an emotional level and tries to express that dislike as if it's an intellectual attack on Objectivism. It isn't.<br /><br />I had to laugh that that's QH's idea of sophisticated refutation.freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-91480161284763017142014-01-24T08:11:53.910-05:002014-01-24T08:11:53.910-05:00Hello Dawson,
Sorry it’s taking so long to respon...Hello Dawson,<br /><br />Sorry it’s taking so long to respond. I plan to as soon as I get a chance to sit down and look at it all at once (gotta get the mind into momentum, as it were). Thanks for the exchange so far. <br /><br />MatthiasMatthiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04649482807995627662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-33723952494798347412014-01-24T07:14:00.569-05:002014-01-24T07:14:00.569-05:00@Dawson Bethrick
Awww Dawson, Quantum HACK? Don&#...@Dawson Bethrick<br /><br />Awww Dawson, Quantum HACK? Don't be a meanie like so many people are to Ayn Rand. <br /><br />When you said hack, my brain immediately remembered that hack smear that was made by the Maverick philosopher towards Ayn Rand.<br /><br />Don't be like that. These are really serious attacks against Objectivism, and given your adamant espousal of it, it would be really fascinating to see you INTERACT and engage these critiques in a posting.<br /><br />If I may offer an "urging", I would really like to hear what you have to say on the first one.<br /><br />QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-25471590945917450342014-01-24T06:00:21.007-05:002014-01-24T06:00:21.007-05:00Quantum Hack,
You asked: "How would you int...Quantum Hack, <br /><br />You asked: "How would you interact with and counter these two very sophisticated refutations of your worldview of Objectivism:"<br /><br />Very simply - by checking their premises. It works every time.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-11782893441656099292014-01-24T05:58:07.812-05:002014-01-24T05:58:07.812-05:00Hi C Papen,
Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, it...Hi C Papen,<br /><br />Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, it sould be "outward" there. I have corrected the offending typo.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-66253119157767107382014-01-24T05:29:41.900-05:002014-01-24T05:29:41.900-05:00@Dawson Bethrick
How would you interact with and ...@Dawson Bethrick<br /><br />How would you interact with and counter these two very sophisticated refutations of your worldview of Objectivism:<br /><br />(1) http://randroidbelt.blogspot.co.nz/2012/06/dead-fish-rots-from-head-down-end-of.html?zx=eab8d2b0e5eb1e85<br /><br /><br />(2) http://philosotroll.com/2013/08/27/objectivism-an-abridged-criticism.aspx<br /><br />QuantumHaecceityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10939627623915545949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-88723011633058406162014-01-23T23:30:38.458-05:002014-01-23T23:30:38.458-05:00Dawson Wrote:
I would say that an even graver mist...Dawson Wrote:<br /><i>I would say that an even graver mistake has been made, specifically an epistemological (if we dare call it that) mistake. Looking inward is no substitute for looking outward. Even the second Christian had enough sense to suppose it’s necessary to confirm a holy inference by checking the facts by looking <b>inward.</b></i><br /><br />From the context I assume that the inward in bold was supposed to be outward?c papenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06282668997314380216noreply@blogger.com