tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post812704037586426668..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: An Examination of the Ontological ArgumentBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-23246139801586221702013-11-05T14:22:50.719-05:002013-11-05T14:22:50.719-05:00The Ontological argument, even if granted, also pr...The Ontological argument, even if granted, also proves Yahweh isn't god. Consider this little gem:<br /><br /><br />1. God is the greatest conceivable being.<br />2. I can conceive of a greater being than Yahweh.<br />3. Therefore, Yahweh is not God.<br />The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-62715334128916893042013-11-05T09:24:09.170-05:002013-11-05T09:24:09.170-05:00On my "Crackbook" page this morning:
&...On my "Crackbook" page this morning:<br /><br /> "My original comment was borne out my frustration with the inconsistency of defining God as "that than which nothing greater can be imagined" when the God generally presented (by Christianity, at least) is presented by definition as one greater than the imagination. For all of the big doctrines - the trinity, the incarnation, the problem of evil - as well as a host of more minor doctrines and biblical stories, we are asked to make allowances for God's behavior because he is beyond the scope of our imagination.The Christian God, at least, is not the greatest being we can imagine, but something else entirely. If we're going to prove him into existence with our imagination, we ought at least to be consistent."<br /><br />I picked a hell of a week to quite smoking. Between my ex-"friends" and the news on my father's decent into Christ-induced intellectual intoxication, I don't know how long I can manage without a drag.<br /><br />Lol<br />In Humanity,<br />DanielAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08459235385224111176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-71913260127171953292013-11-05T07:53:59.193-05:002013-11-05T07:53:59.193-05:00"I don’t think it is actually possible to ima..."I don’t think it is actually possible to imagine something that is truly infinite."<br /><br />I have to start posting my blogs sooner. I have a whole section in one of my upcoming posts on just this idea in almost just the way you detailed it here. Get outta ma head. <br /><br />DanielAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08459235385224111176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-11839550918715612392013-11-04T23:42:28.230-05:002013-11-04T23:42:28.230-05:00@Nal
you said
"Objectivism has the best fo...@Nal<br /><br />you said <br /><br />"Objectivism has the best foundationalism. Existence exists, the primacy of existence, and the axiom of consciousness. Understanding consciousness and its relationship to reality is the heart of all philosophy, and the primacy of existence puts that relationship in the proper orientation. It just makes sense. "<br /><br />In fact I would go one further and say the contrary is simply incoherent, ie impossible. Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-15992454296369209512013-11-04T22:18:05.370-05:002013-11-04T22:18:05.370-05:00Dawson,
NAL wrote, regarding your blog entries: &...Dawson,<br /><br />NAL wrote, regarding your blog entries: "I appreciate the details."<br /><br />Yep, me too!<br /><br />Ydemoc<br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-51864267725393158622013-11-04T21:48:53.237-05:002013-11-04T21:48:53.237-05:00In fact, I have gotten my share of complaints – ty...<b>In fact, I have gotten my share of complaints – typically from Christians – that my posts are too long.</b> <br /><br />It's their own fault. Their worldview is vague and muddled and it takes space to debunk each of the possible meanings of their statements. This is good from a counter-apologetics perspective, there is no escape route left un-debunked. <br /><br />I appreciate the details. On another blog, the philosopher briefly discussed the logical incoherence of omniscience and cited no references or any details. I was left to google and fortunately found the Michael Martin article which had the details I was looking for. <br /><br />Another blog was discussing epistemology justification and the Münchhausen trilemma. I think that Objectivism has the best foundationalism. Existence exists, the primacy of existence, and the axiom of consciousness. Understanding consciousness and its relationship to reality is the heart of all philosophy, and the primacy of existence puts that relationship in the proper orientation. It just makes sense. NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00443631599483141361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-27391706886027286812013-11-04T09:45:20.356-05:002013-11-04T09:45:20.356-05:00Another great post, Dawson. Thanks.
Even 30+ year...Another great post, Dawson. Thanks.<br /><br />Even 30+ years ago, when I was a gung-ho Southern Baptist (chairman of the deacons, taught adult Sunday school, played in a Christian band, etc.), I would not have considered the ontological argument very compelling. It's too obviously just word-play detached from reality. I would not have argued against it (back then), but I would not have relied on it either. The same was true for Josh McDowell's Evidence That Requires a Verdict where he recites how many copies of the Bible have been printed or how many languages it has been translated into. I didn't criticize it (back then), but I knew that popularity is not a measure of truth.<br /><br />The logical gimmick that drives the ontological argument is so clearly faulty when applied to concepts other than the Christian god (such as Blarko, or Justin's wonderful Eric the God-Eating Magic Penguin). Just defining anything as "the greatest that can be imagined" doesn't guarantee it actually must exist. I define the "Reality Destroyer" as the most powerful weapon imaginable. Since an actual Reality Destroyer is more powerful than a Reality Destroyer I am just imagining, an actual Reality Destroyer must exist. B_llsh_t!blarkofanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09430986055242205576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-52417493613973384022013-11-04T07:46:01.011-05:002013-11-04T07:46:01.011-05:00Hello Daniel,
You wrote: << I loved this on...Hello Daniel,<br /><br />You wrote: << I loved this one, Dawson. >><br /><br />I’m glad you have found it helpful. <br /><br />You wrote: << I am glad that folks like "Unknown" drop by to drop some of their mad erudition on you. What the hell is that? >><br /><br />From what I saw, the comments that “Unknown” posted were merely attempts to help me edit my own work, so I do appreciate them (and I have made the needed edits “Unknown” brought to my attention – so thank you “Unknown” whoever you are).<br /><br />I posted this entry on Sunday – which was an extremely busy (and tiring) day for me. It showed up as being posted on Nov. 2 as my blog is still tied to California time – but in fact, it was Sunday here in Thailand when I actually published it. <br /><br />Normally, I write my entries in several stages. This is in part due to my limited time, and also in part due to my own idiosyncrasies. I tend to write in an either brief or prolonged fiery blaze punctuated with any number of interruptions – either self-imposed or impinged upon me by my environment (e.g., my wife or daughter, a phone call, nature calls, the laundry, or I just need to get up and move around, etc.). But I always try to come back, and if it’s still hot on my mind, I come back in white heat. I might get an idea when I’m washing dishes or take a shower that just needs to be integrated into something I’m writing, and I almost need to knock down whatever’s in front of me to make sure I get that idea written down somewhere – anywhere –and eventually added to my blog in progress. <br /><br />Naturally, I might very well make errors at some point, so I always try to edit. Typically I give my blog a once-over while it is still on MS Word, before I copy it over to Blogger’s editor. Once it’s on Blogger’s editor, I need to do some final formatting, which can be a pain in the ass, frankly. But I do it nonetheless. My blog is truly a labor of love!<br /><br />Finally, I usually like to review my blog once it’s published on Blogger, and make any little minor edits that I think need to be made (such as the kind that “Unknown” pointed out).<br /><br />Unfortunately, I had a really busy Sunday evening, and I was not able to do this final step. So I am grateful to “Unknown” – whoever this individual might be – for calling out the spots that needed correction. <br /><br />I still haven’t gone over the post with one final fine-toothed comb-over. I may never get the opportunity to do so. I’m spending this evening responding to comments, which is far more enjoyable! <br /><br />Some years ago, I made the determination to stop fearing my own fallibilities – and I have more than anyone else! Alfred North Whitehead is reported to have stated: “Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance is the death of knowledge.” I confess that I am ignorant of so many things – and doing so when in fact I am ignorant of something, can only arm me. And that is because I am not ignorant of my ignorance. But even more, I am not ignorant of my need for an objective method of knowing. And <i>that</i> is the final defining point. <br /><br />Anyway, I need to eat dinner. So I have to go now. I’ll try to post more later. Seriously, I have tons more in the works. I just don’t have tons of time to work on it all.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-45385856843330666452013-11-04T07:44:47.268-05:002013-11-04T07:44:47.268-05:00In regard to 2, I would not say that I am “media m...In regard to 2, I would not say that I am “media minded” either – where this is taken as preference for video and/or audio formats. I prefer writing, and I have yet to do any videos. Occasionally I receive e-mails urging me to go on YouTube, but frankly, I don’t know how I would do this. I like to do things well, and I’m pretty sure that any video I might produce would be dismally campy. Back in the late 90s an atheist producer with a Sacramento news station hounded me for weeks to appear on a local broadcast. I politely refused. It’s just not been my thing. Maybe in the future. <br /><br />Now it is interesting that this fellow, a Christian mind you, states that “it’s easier t argue against Christianity and the Bible than to defend it.” <br /><br />Regardless, I am not about trying “to make atheist converts” from any religion. Rather, my hope is to awaken any thinker to his capacity for <i>reason</i>, and to embrace it in a consistent and uncompromising manner. If Christian apologists want to denounce me for this, they are only telling us about themselves.<br /><br />The comment continues:<br /><br /><b><< So, while Christians will win a debate that delves into the intricacies of an issue to its very depths, and which often requires a lot of reading/documenting/thinking, atheists, by contrast atheists can produce superficial videos that can leads to instant converts. >></b><br /><br />So according to this view, atheist prefer some “superficial” means while theists are tirelessly intellectual in their handling of the issues. I don’t think that’s true at all, though, at least with regard to the theists. Theists are constantly relying on superficialities – whether they are slogans like “the impossibility of the contrary” or indemonstrable assertions like “the atheist worldview cannot account for [fill in the blank].” Meanwhile, it is theists – not atheists – who champion woefully misguided contraptions like the ontological argument or the “presuppositional” argument. Indeed, from what I have observed, no theist has been able to successfully distinguish what he calls “God” from what he may merely be imagining. That, I think, is quite alarming. Then again, it is not my problem.<br /><br />Then he says:<br /><br /><b><< It's analogous to the manufacturing and use of weapons. A nuclear bomb is more powerful than rooms full of pistols and rifles, but the latter are easier to make and use (and can be used effectively by more people because it requires less expertise). >></b><br /><br />It’s telling that this fellow thinks argumentation and debate is analogous to things that <i>destroy</i>. Don’t these folks ever think about <i>constructing</i> values rather than destroying them? Meanwhile, where has this guy interacted with any of my arguments? Or are they mere side-arms in comparisons to theism’s alleged nuclear fallouts? <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-41419539778831589462013-11-04T07:44:23.705-05:002013-11-04T07:44:23.705-05:00Hello Ydemoc,
You wrote: << I recently sent...Hello Ydemoc,<br /><br />You wrote: << I recently sent your piece Gods and Square Circles to a friend who maintains an agnostic position when it comes to the question of god… I haven't gotten a response back on it because the last time I talked to him, he hadn't read it. But he did say that he plans to do so. >><br /><br />I’ll be amazed if he does read it. While I stand by everything I recall writing in that piece, and I think it makes important points, I admit it’s extremely long, and I’m guessing most who attempt to read it would give up, wondering what’s the point. I realize that most folks out there are very busy people – life has its demands, and reading things carefully takes time. It sure does for me! I’m a very slow reader as it is, but I do my best to stick with it, in spite of a very demanding schedule. I’m guessing many folks are not very different from me in this respect. I’ve begin to realize at this point in my life that my “problem” is that I write much faster than I can read. And that’s pretty much confined to typing now; my handwriting is atrocious, as my hand cramps very quickly when I handwrite (which is not helped by my aggressive bass guitar practice schedule – I occasionally wake up with painful numbness in my hands and arms now). <br /><br />This having been said, I’m reminded of a comment I saw over on Triablogue some time ago (see <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/06/making-people-see-their-need-for.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>:<br /><br /><b><< Non-Christians, especially atheists, have (from a human perspective) the advantage in this generation where people have 1. short attention spans and 2. are media minded (i.e. video and/or audio) rather than literature minded (i.e. books). That added to the fact that it's easier to argue against Christianity and the Bible than to defend it makes it much easier for atheists to make atheist converts out of Christians and other theists.>></b><br /><br />I will speak for myself, but in regard to 1, I don’t think I have a short attention span – over eight years maintaining this blog alone suggests that I have some demonstrable stamina in this. In fact, I have gotten my share of complaints – typically from Christians – that my posts are too long. <br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-17870928684891659852013-11-04T07:43:04.199-05:002013-11-04T07:43:04.199-05:00NAL also wrote: << There is still another pr...NAL also wrote: << There is still another problem with the Ontological Argument: since the mental activity of humans is finite, anything greater would not necessarily be infinite. The Christian god is considered to be infinite (putting aside the different sized infinities). >><br /><br />Fascinating point; it uncovers another non sequitur implicitly endorsed by the ontological argument. <br /><br />In fact (and I’m just thinking out loud here; feedback appreciated), I don’t think it is actually possible to imagine something that is truly infinite. And this is why I think this: When we imagine things, we imagine things that are analogous to concretes – things that are full of specifics. Even if those specifics change or are – in the context of our imagining them – always subject to change, they are specific in any given conception of them. While concepts are open-ended, our imagination applies the procedure of measurement-omission to expand what we imagine beyond what we perceive, but it seems to me that the destination of this process (i.e., whatever it produces for the mind to contemplate), would have to be finite (again, however fleeting or momentary) for it to serve as an object of mental activity. Imagination produces a semblance of objects for the mind to contemplate, and thus its products would have to be distinct within a context internal to the imaginative process. <br /><br />If I imagine something at any given moment, I’m imagining one thing as opposed to something else, whether it is my wife, a happy day at the park, or an invisible magic dragon in my front yard. In each case, there is a combination of features giving a semblance of identity to what I am imagining. For the mind to be able to project a combination of features in the imagination, those features would have to have identity or something analogous to it (however fleeting). <br /><br />This of course would not stop me from calling what I imagine “infinite” if I wanted to. That’s quite easy to do, and if I bought into a worldview which encouraged me to do just this without critically examining what I was saying, I very well might do just that (such as before I became philosophically enlightened).<br /><br />Regards, <br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-3610210317083608122013-11-04T07:41:32.219-05:002013-11-04T07:41:32.219-05:00NAL wrote:
<< "A being that exists as ...NAL wrote:<br /><br /><< "A being that exists as an idea" is an equivocation. It is the idea that exists, not the being. >><br /><br />Right. And what’s more is the converse: any idea that exists in my mind, exists <i>as an idea</i>, not as an independently being. A is A. An idea is an idea. An independently existing being does not exist as an idea, period. My cell phone, my computer mouse, my pen, my driveway, the tree in my backyard, etc., all exist as independently existing entities. They do not exist as ideas in my mind. I can identify and mentally integrate them with other things that I find in reality, but when I do this, they still remain in existence independent of my consciousness. Similarly, when I recall them from my memory, I am not recalling the objects themselves, as though my memory were able to run downstairs, grab my computer mouse or my driveway, and bring it back up to my study. I’m recalling a percept, a percept that I acquired by perceiving the object in question.<br /><br />Anyway, that’s my thinking here. Does anyone think I’m wrong? Isn’t there a distinction between what actually exists, and what my mind is doing when I think about what exists? I would say there is, and I would also say that the ontological argument, deliberately or accidently, plays fast and loose with this distinction at this point (Premise 3). On the contrary, I think it is vitally important to keep this distinction explicitly in mind.<br /><br />NAL continued: << Previous commenters have had a problem with this concept. >><br /><br />There have been many who have commented on the ontological argument. Many have been highly critical of it, and many have sought to defend it or salvage by revising it in some way, anxious to protect its conclusion. I would hope that many would have seen this problem already, but I cannot say that I recall encountering it in any critical treatment of the ontological argument. In the case of those who are eager to defend the argument, I would not expect them to stumble upon this problem. <br /><br />For those who have found the argument unsatisfactory for some reason and sought some way to identify their point(s) of contention with it, they may or may not have sensed a conflict here. If one has already accepted the trappings of the primacy of consciousness and thus some blurring between thought and the objects to which it relates, this distinction is likely to have been lost on them. One’s underlying metaphysical and epistemological premises play a decisive role in how one understands and reacts to the ontological argument. <br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-69773927641420043742013-11-03T20:13:50.035-05:002013-11-03T20:13:50.035-05:00I loved this one, Dawson. I am glad that folks lik...I loved this one, Dawson. I am glad that folks like "Unknown" drop by to drop some of their mad erudition on you. What the hell is that? <br /><br />Anyway, thanks for the post. I'm going to be sharing some of this on Crackbook.<br /><br />In Humanity,<br />DanielAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08459235385224111176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-51691747360359894792013-11-03T19:56:03.454-05:002013-11-03T19:56:03.454-05:00Dawson,
I recently sent your piece Gods and Squar...Dawson,<br /><br />I recently sent your piece Gods and Square Circles to a friend who maintains an agnostic position when it comes to the question of god.<br /><br />I haven't gotten a response back on it because the last time I talked to him, he hadn't read it. But he did say that he plans to do so. <br /><br />What prompted my sending it to him was a discussion we had in which he maintained that I could not prove that there isn't a little, bearded, all-powerful man circling the planet Jupiter. I did my best to explain (this was an in-person discussion) that unless he had some credible evidence in favor of such a claim (and that there was no evidence against it), then such a notion is completely arbitrary. <br /><br />One of his favorate lines that he uses quite often is: "Anything is possible." I've pointed out to him on numerous occasions that this is a contradiction, e.g., if anything is possible then it would have to include the fact that there is such a thing as "impossibility," thus negating his very claim. <br /><br />This time when he asked it, I was ready with a concrete response. I said, "Are square circles possible?" <br /><br />He slowly repeated my question, thought about it for a moment, and then said, "I'll have to get back to you on that one."<br /><br />After he reads Gods and Square Circles, will he still maintain that that "anything is possible"? <br /><br />Knowing my friend, I would say: Now **that** is entirely possible!<br /><br />And thanks once again for all the new entries!<br /><br />Ydemoc<br /><br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-73117656889206241472013-11-03T12:48:41.495-05:002013-11-03T12:48:41.495-05:00Excellent analysis of Premise 3. "A being tha...Excellent analysis of Premise 3. "A being that exists as an idea" is an equivocation. It is the idea that exists, not the being. Previous commenters have had a problem with this concept. <br /><br />There is still another problem with the Ontological Argument: since the mental activity of humans is finite, anything greater would not necessarily be infinite. The Christian god is considered to be infinite (putting aside the different sized infinities). <br /><br />NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00443631599483141361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-20473277688618443752013-11-03T11:48:46.871-05:002013-11-03T11:48:46.871-05:00@Dawson
Hey this Platonic "reasoning" c...@Dawson<br /><br />Hey this Platonic "reasoning" can be fun. I say two can play this game. Check out this little gem.<br /><br />look God can't exist because of Eric the God-Eating Magic Penguin. Since Eric is God-Eating by definition, he has no choice but to eat God. So, if God exists, He automatically ceases to exist as a result of being eaten. Unless you can prove that Eric doesn't exist God doesn't exist. Even if you can prove that Eric doesn't exist, that same proof will also be applicable to God. There are only two possibilities - either you can prove that Eric doesn't exist or you cant - in both cases it logically follows that God doesn't exist.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-34593930075136373522013-11-03T11:13:27.593-05:002013-11-03T11:13:27.593-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00443631599483141361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-11215508368855349082013-11-03T10:55:47.680-05:002013-11-03T10:55:47.680-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00443631599483141361noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-7710158308126762372013-11-03T01:44:37.521-04:002013-11-03T01:44:37.521-04:00Yeah, you're right, I probably just don't ...Yeah, you're right, I probably just don't get it.<br /><br />But here's one thing I do get: your mentioning of IHOP brought back memories of food back in the States. Damn! What I would do for a plate of enchiladas!! Back home I had a waffle iron and I used to make waffles every weekend. Here I have a choice between noodles and rice... not much else!<br /><br />If only I could conceive the greatest bean and cheese burrito into reality... Now then I might get it!<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-29635768260894773052013-11-03T01:24:49.275-04:002013-11-03T01:24:49.275-04:00Dawson I suspect you are just failing to get it. T...Dawson I suspect you are just failing to get it. This sublime Platonic reasoning. Now I want you to imagine a pancake greater then any other pancake. The perfect most pancakest pancake that ever was. Then I want you to understand that you wont be able to order this at the international house of pancakes. On the upside at least the one you can order is real :)Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.com