tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post950193057197533114..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Some Thoughts on Pope Francis’ Recent Condemnation of CapitalismBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-89214207684662927892013-12-11T11:16:54.400-05:002013-12-11T11:16:54.400-05:00Dawson,
With Pope Francis having been named Time ...Dawson,<br /><br />With Pope Francis having been named Time Magazine's "Person of the Year," I figured this might be a good time and place to post a link to an article by Michael J. Hurd, where he discusses the pontiff's most recent disparaging comments concerning capitalism.<br /><br />Pope Francis Blasts America<br />Michael J Hurd (2013.12.03 ) <br /><br />http://capitalismmagazine.com/2013/12/pope-francis-blasts-america/<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-42144471275211579742013-06-24T09:13:51.481-04:002013-06-24T09:13:51.481-04:00Good morning all. Ydemoc noted No, I can't sa...Good morning all. Ydemoc noted <i>No, I can't say I'm surprised at all, since his worldview is essentially ripped right from the pages of the very book he's criticizing: Atlas Shrugged. Altruistic in the purest sense of the term; a true "hatred of the good for being good" mentality. </i><br /><br />It's very common for the enemies of Man to strawman capitalism, Objectivism, Rand, freedom, liberty in order to conflate into a package deal rational self-interest-<br />egoism with egotistical-sadomasochism-brutality-criminality so as to offer a false dichotomy of altruism vs barbaric aggressive internecine warfare as the only two choices as basis of civilization. There are an almost unlimited number of misinformed people like Kluwe to be found on any of the social media sites. It's good to defend rational self interest as the basis for morality, so it's time study and organize the common responses. <br /><br />Best, Good, Great Day Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-36498029449861136632013-06-24T00:19:32.196-04:002013-06-24T00:19:32.196-04:00Hi Dawson,
Here we go again...
I just came acros...Hi Dawson,<br /><br />Here we go again...<br /><br />I just came across an excerpt in Salon, from a new book ("Beautifully Unique Sharkleponies") written by Chris Kluwe, a former Minnesota Vikings punter. <br /><br />The title of the article is: "Here's what's wrong with Ayn Rand, libertarians: A world full of Ayn Rands would be a terrifyingly selfish place, writes the outspoken NFL star in his new book."<br /><br />I can't say I'm the least bit surprised, though, at how uninformed Chris is, how many unstated premises are lurking within his diatribe, how many things he gets wrong in his excerpt, starting with the very title , i.e., lumping Objectivists in with libertarians: Objectivists are not libertarians. No, I can't say I'm surprised at all, since his worldview is essentially ripped right from the pages of the very book he's criticizing: Atlas Shrugged. Altruistic in the purest sense of the term; a true "hatred of the good for being good" mentality. <br /><br />Here's the link: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/chris_kluwe_heres_whats_wrong_with_ayn_rand_libertarians/ <br /><br />And even if he isn't the one responsible for titling the article, that doesn't get him off the hook as far as I'm concerned. Not even close. <br /><br />After reading the piece, I came to the following conclusion: Chris needs to get a Kluwe, but I doubt he ever will.<br /><br />(Like he's probably never heard that one before.)<br /><br />I'm thinking that it might be worth it to register with the Salon so I can log-in a comment, because this fellow definitely needs some pushback.<br /><br />Ydemoc<br /> Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-3148850919694892492013-06-23T18:03:07.744-04:002013-06-23T18:03:07.744-04:00Dawson,
I was just wondering. I didn't find a...Dawson,<br /><br />I was just wondering. I didn't find anything particularly compelling about the “broadcast”, but I figured I would pose the question anyway.<br /><br />In regards to their treatment of Objectivism, even I found that they seemingly didn't have good grasp on the material. Which is disheartening. They have a popular platform from which to speak and it would be edifying to see them have solid metaphysics at their base. <br /><br />In Humanity,<br />DanielAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08459235385224111176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-22341758537310552092013-06-21T19:27:46.396-04:002013-06-21T19:27:46.396-04:00Hello Daniel,
You asked: “Has anyone seen the ‘At...Hello Daniel,<br /><br />You asked: “Has anyone seen the ‘Atheist Experience’ #567 in which Matt D. and co-host go through their objections to Rand's Objectivism?”<br /><br />I recall some time ago watching a video on YouTube which featured Matt and another individual railing on Rand and Objectivism, but I do not know if it was the episode you specify here. It may have been, but maybe not. Also, like Ydemoc, I do not recall the specifics, but I do recall the speakers reacting at some point against the morality of rational self-interest. I do not recall learning any new or groundbreaking criticisms of Objectivism from this broadcast; rather, it all seemed to be the same, tired, highly emotional venting that we can expect from juveniles who resent getting in trouble for damaging someone else’s property. Their treatment of the issue did not strike me as either philosophically informed or mature in nature. <br /><br />You continued: “It is rather old, and I am interested in reading a rebuttal to it.”<br /><br />I have not written a rebuttal to the broadcast that I watched. Frankly, I did not think it merited one, but perhaps you saw something different. But tell you what, if you think there were any criticisms worthy of attention in the episode you saw, perhaps you could post them in a comment and we could have a look.<br /><br />You asked: “Also, has Bethrick ever spoken with Dillahunty on their differing worldviews and if so, is the correspondence available for a read?”<br /><br />I know that I have never spoken with Dillahunty, and I do not ever recall corresponding with someone having that name. <br /><br />In the meantime, I finally got a new entry posted. You can all find it here:<br /><br /><a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2013/06/klouda-ing-issue.html" rel="nofollow">Klouda-ing the Issue</a><br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-85914269092283644302013-06-21T18:47:44.019-04:002013-06-21T18:47:44.019-04:00Hello Daniel,
I recall seeing an episode where th...Hello Daniel,<br /><br />I recall seeing an episode where they had a discussion on Rand. It was a while ago, and I cannot remember specifics, but I do remember being left with the impression that Matt and his co-host really didn't have a firm grasp of Objectivism.<br /><br />You wrote: "Also, has Bethrick ever spoken with Dillahunty on their differing worldviews and if so, is the correspondence available for a read?"<br /><br />I'm really not sure. <br /><br />As for your interest in reading a rebuttal, if I find anything, I will be sure to post it.<br /><br />Ydemoc<br /> Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-31222651695493276622013-06-21T10:58:18.048-04:002013-06-21T10:58:18.048-04:00Has anyone seen the "Atheist Experience"...Has anyone seen the "Atheist Experience" #567 in which Matt D. and co-host go through their objections to Rand's Objectivism? It is rather old, and I am interested in reading a rebuttal to it. Also, has Bethrick ever spoken with Dillahunty on their differing worldviews and if so, is the correspondence available for a read?<br /><br />In Humanity,<br /><br />DanielAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08459235385224111176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-47221704844780724992013-06-20T13:54:20.170-04:002013-06-20T13:54:20.170-04:00Hello Ydemoc
You wrote 2) that they have presente...Hello Ydemoc<br /><br />You wrote <i>2) that they have presented us with anything approaching a coherent case that would justify our accepting their mystical worldview.</i><br /><br />When religious apologists claim the Primacy of Existence is invalid they are question begging as David Kelly noted about Descartes first meditation.<br /><br /><i>Consider, for example,the first Meditation. Descartes begins by seeking any grounds for doubting the truth of his ideas-i.e., for doubting that they stem from and correspond to reality. The first such grounds he finds-sensory illusions and dreams-are actual occurrences, and in these cases we know that reality is not what it seems. For that reason, however, these occurrences could not raise the general question whether reality exists beyond our ideas; to identify an experience as an illusion, one must have enough knowledge of the objective facts to know that he is misperceiving them. Descartes therefore rests his case for universal doubt on the hypothesis that an evil demon may be deceiving him about everything. But what sort of ground for doubt is this? illusions and dreams actually occur, but demons do not-the hypothesis is pure invention. As such, it would be completely subjective and could not provide an objective reason for doubting anything. Then why does Descartes suggest the hypothesis? It can only be as a way of concretizing a possibility he has already accepted: that everything we are aware of exists merely as the representational content of our ideas, ideas that do not, because they are modes of consciousness, depend on anything outside consciousness and could therefore be put into our minds by an evil demon even if there were nothing outside consciousness. In accepting this possibility, Descartes is clearly presupposing the theory of ideas presented later in the Meditations. ~ David Kelly, "Evidence of the Senses", p.15 </i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-8647018948658798122013-06-19T18:31:05.569-04:002013-06-19T18:31:05.569-04:00Robert,
Thanks for that quote.
Every time I re...Robert,<br /><br />Thanks for that quote. <br /><br />Every time I read her material, I'm reminded how misguided apologists are in thinking that:<br /><br />1) they have come anywhere close to breaching and/or undermining Objectivism's axioms, the primacy of existence, and its theory of concepts, <br /><br />2) that they have presented us with anything approaching a coherent case that would justify our accepting their mystical worldview.<br /><br />So, thanks!<br /><br />Ydemoc<br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-52317464324760475442013-06-19T14:01:48.770-04:002013-06-19T14:01:48.770-04:00part 2 of Rand from the foreward to ITOE.
If, in ...part 2 of Rand from the foreward to ITOE.<br /><br /><i>If, in the light of such “solutions,” the problem might<br />appear to be esoteric, let me remind you that the fate of<br />human societi es, of knowledge, of science, of progress and of every human <br />life, depends on it. What is at stake<br />here i s the cognitive efficacy of man’ s mind.<br />As I wrote in For the New Intellectual: “To negate man’ s<br />mind, it is the conceptual level of his consciousness that<br />has to be invalidated. Under all the tortuous complexiti es,<br />contradictions, equivocations, rationalizations of the post <br />Renaissance philosophy—the one consistent line, the<br />fundamental that explains the rest, is: a concerted attack on<br />man’s conceptual faculty. Most philosophers did not intend<br />to invalidate conceptual knowledge, but its defenders did<br />more to destroy it than did its enemies. They were unable<br />to offer a solution to the ‘problem of universals,’ that is: to<br />define the nature and source of abstractions, to determine<br />the relationship of concepts to perceptual data—and to<br />prove the validity of scientific induction.... The philosophers<br />were unable to refute the Witch Doctor’s claim that their<br />concepts were as arbitrary as his whims and that their<br />scientifi c knowledge had no greater metaphysical validity<br />than his revelations.” <br /><br />These are the reasons why I chose to introduce you to<br />Objectivist epistemology by presenting my theory of<br />concepts. I entitle this work an “Introduction,” because the<br />theory is presented outside of its full context. For instance, I<br />do not include here a discussi on of the validi ty of man’ s<br />senses—since the arguments of those who attack the<br />senses are merely variants of the fallacy of the “stolen<br />concept.” For the purposes of this seri es, the validi ty of the senses<br />must be taken for granted—and one must remember the<br />axiom: Existence exists. (This, incidentally, is a way of<br />translating into the form of a proposition, and thus into the<br />form of an axiom, the primary fact which is existence.)<br />Please bear in mind the full statement: “Existence exists—<br />and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary<br />axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that<br />one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness<br />being the faculty of perceivi ng that which exists.” (Atlas<br />Shrugged.)</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-31206957683120388972013-06-19T14:01:13.855-04:002013-06-19T14:01:13.855-04:00Here's a gratuitous Rand quote from the forewa...Here's a gratuitous Rand quote from the foreward of ITOE. (part 1)<br /><br /><i>The issue of concepts (known as “the problem of<br />uni versals”) is phi losophy’s central issue. Since man’s<br />knowledge is gained and held in conceptual form, the<br />validity of man’s knowledge depends on the validity of<br />concepts. But concepts are abstractions or universals, and<br />everything that man perceives is particular, concrete. What<br />is the relationship between abstractions and concretes? To<br />what precisely do concepts refer in reality? Do they refer to<br />something real, something that exists—or are they merely<br />inventi ons of man’s mind, arbitrary constructs or loose<br />approximations that cannot claim to represent knowledge?<br />“All knowledge is in terms of concepts. If these concepts<br />correspond to something that is to be found in reality they<br />are real and man’s knowledge has a foundation in fact; if<br />they do not correspond to anything in reality they are not<br />real and man’s knowledge is of mere figments of his own<br />imagination.” (Edward C. Moore, American Pragmatism:<br />Peirce, James, & Dewey, New York: Columbia University<br />Press, 1961, p.27.)<br />To exemplify the issue as it is usually presented: When<br />we refer to three persons as “men,” what do we designate<br />by that term? The three persons are three individuals who<br />differ in every particular respect and may not possess a single<br />identical characteristic (not even their fingerprints). If<br />you list all their particular characteristics, you will not find<br />one representing “manness.” Where is the “manness” in<br />men? What, in reality, corresponds to the concept “man” in<br />our mind?<br /><br />In the history of philosophy, there are, essentially, four<br />schools of thought on this issue:<br /><br />1. The “extreme realists” or Platonists, who hold that<br />abstractions exist as real entities or archetypes in<br />another dimension of reality and that the concretes we<br />perceive are merely their imperfect reflections, but the<br />concretes evoke the abstractions in our mind.<br />(According to Plato, they do so by evoking the memory<br />of the archetypes which we had known, before birth, in<br />that other dimensi on.)<br /><br />2. The “moderate realists,” whose ancestor<br />(unfortunately) is Aristotle, who hold that abstractions<br />exi st in reality, but they exist only in concretes, in the<br />form of metaphysical essences, and that our concepts<br />refer to these essences.<br /><br />3. The “nominalists,” who hold that all our ideas are<br />only images of concretes, and that abstractions are<br />merely “names” which we give to arbitrary groupings of<br />concretes on the basis of vague resemblances.<br /><br />4. The “conceptualists,” who share the nominalists’<br />vi ew that abstracti ons have no actual basi s i n reali ty,<br />but who hold that concepts exist in our minds as some<br />sort of ideas, not as images. (There is also the<br />extreme nominalist position, the modern one, which<br />consists of declaring that the problem is a<br />meaningless issue, that “reality” is a meaningless<br />term, that we can never know whether our concepts<br />correspond to anything or not, that our knowledge<br />consists of words—and that words are an arbitrary<br />social convention.)</i> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-69727543712528961842013-06-19T10:21:31.173-04:002013-06-19T10:21:31.173-04:00Good morning all.
I left another message for Mr. ...Good morning all.<br /><br />I left another message for Mr. Petersen. <br /><br /><i>Hello Mr Petersen from Robert Bumbalough<br /><br />Yesterday I left a comment regarding the comment of another commenter, Ydemoc, and I see you've either not yet had time to moderate the comments or have decided to not post them. It's of little matter; however, I'd very much like to discuss your presuppositional apologetics case over either at Dawson Bethrick's blog or here. Would you be agreeable to allow Ydemoc, Justin, myself, Mr. Bethrick and some of his readers to engage you in a gentlemanly and civil discussion on these interesting philosophical matters? If so, drop by Incinerating Presuppositionalism and give us a notice.<br /><br />Best and Good, Have a Great Day</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-83490856564325733552013-06-18T19:33:36.283-04:002013-06-18T19:33:36.283-04:00Justin,
I went there, but I'm still getting a...Justin,<br /><br />I went there, but I'm still getting an 404 Error message. <br /><br />Robert,<br /><br />I see that your comment still hasn't posted on the link that you provided. <br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-15637232796218393772013-06-18T16:35:08.523-04:002013-06-18T16:35:08.523-04:00Hey everyone, Peterson has his post back up and su...Hey everyone, Peterson has his post back up and surprise surprise, no comments by either Robert or Ydemoc.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-1339983136097031792013-06-18T09:29:22.884-04:002013-06-18T09:29:22.884-04:00I posted a comment on Peterson's blog at
http...I posted a comment on Peterson's blog at<br /><br />http://answersforhope.com/a-conversation-with-fundamentally-flawedwarning-bad-language/#comment-5784<br /><br />It is awaiting moderation. Here is the text.<br /><br />Hello Jason from Robert Bumbalough; I too would like to comment on your statement identified by Ydemoc who remarked regarding your post now taken down that was at <br />http://answersforhope.com/a-very-brief-critique-on-an-objection-to-presuppositional-apologetics/<br />and which is cached at <br />http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:XgoL5yTKVNkJ:answersforhope.com/a-very-brief-critique-on-an-objection-to-presuppositional-apologetics/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us<br /><br />Ydemoc remarked <i>You make some very interesting statements in your above blog entry.</i> about<br /><br />You [Jason] write: "..but consciousness provides no foundation for epistemology for other assumptions beyond consciousness must be made. "<br />Indeed this is interesting, for how is it that a person of nominal intelligence could hold such a position of complete skepticism assuming reality and consciousness aren’t real? Surely you’re intelligent enough to understand that your statement is an assertion of fact which itself denies the validity of both existence and consciousness. What purpose could it serve in promoting your religious worldview to embrace such nihilism in the sense of “extreme skepticism, according to which nothing in the world has a real existence.”<br /><br />Ydemoc provided links to Dawson Bethricks blog where he interacts with more than a few Christian presuppostional internet apologists. Those bog are highly recommended, and if you’d take time to carefully read and compose responses you’ll be sure to have an audience of unbelievers to pitch your case.<br /><br />Best and Good, Have a Great Day.<br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-14246094388471917192013-06-17T19:49:00.592-04:002013-06-17T19:49:00.592-04:00I should also mention that Justin has interacted w...I should also mention that Justin has interacted with a full version of Jason Peterson's post over his (Justin's) blog:<br /><br />http://court-of-reality.blogspot.com/2013/06/arguing-with-presuppositionalists-is.html<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-51814099138289436102013-06-17T19:44:22.900-04:002013-06-17T19:44:22.900-04:00To All,
UPDATE: Even though I recognize that my c...To All,<br /><br />UPDATE: Even though I recognize that my comment and his post could appear at any time, I'm still getting an "Error 404" message over on Jason Peterson's blog. <br /><br />Fortunately, in anticipation of responding to and interacting with Jason Peterson, I made a full copy of his post.<br /><br />For now, I think I'll keep the full version in my back pocket. However, if the situation should ever warrant it -- for instance, if Jason should ever drop in over here and I'm in the mood to see some rationalization, backpedaling, evasion, etc. -- then that's when I'll bring it out.<br /><br />Ydemoc<br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-81828428533133765442013-06-17T19:19:04.023-04:002013-06-17T19:19:04.023-04:00To All,
Hmmm. I just went over to Jason Peterson...To All,<br /><br />Hmmm. I just went over to Jason Peterson's blog entry to see if my reply had posted. I went to the following URL:<br /><br />http://answersforhope.com/a-very-brief-critique-on-an-objection-to-presuppositional-apologetics/<br /><br />Here's what came up:<br /><br />"Not Found, Error 404<br /><br />The page you are looking for no longer exists. Perhaps you can return back to the site's homepage and see if you can find what you are looking for. Or, you can try finding it with the information below."<br /><br />Perhaps this is only a temporary glitch. Perhaps not.<br /><br />Stay tuned!<br /><br />Ydemoc<br /><br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-73199756615144501692013-06-17T18:55:16.966-04:002013-06-17T18:55:16.966-04:00To All,
I fired off a very brief reply to Jason P...To All,<br /><br />I fired off a very brief reply to Jason Peterson over on the blog:<br /><br />http://answersforhope.com/a-very-brief-critique-on-an-objection-to-presuppositional-apologetics/<br /><br />It is currently awaiting moderation. I wonder if it will post at all. We'll see.<br /><br />In any event, here's what I wrote (misspellings, grammatical errors, and imprecisions included) in all its sloppy glory:<br />_________________________<br /><br />Hello Jason,<br /><br />You make some very interesting statements in your above blog entry. <br /><br />You write: "..but consciousness provides no foundation for epistemology for other assumptions beyond consciousness must be made. "<br /><br />I see. So the widest of all abstractions, that which subsumes everything that is, was, or will be, including every action, attribute, relation, etc., (including consciousness), "has no epistemological benefit"? And "the faculty of awareness -- the faculty of perceiving that which exists" (Rand) provides "no foundation for epistemology"? <br /><br />Could you then please tell me how anyone could have any knowledge at all -- let alone a theory of knowledge -- without something which exists, along with a faculty capable of being aware of it? In other words, how can you even form any concept which would inform such epistemology, without:<br /><br />A) Existence (an axiomatic concept, answering the question, "Knowledge of **what**?")<br /><br />B) reasoning, thought, observation, learning, concepts, etc. -- all actions of consciousness, i.e., the axiomatic concept "consciousness" (answering the question **Knowledge** of what?")<br /><br />C) Identity, i.e., if something exists (existence), then some **thing** exists (identity); it is what it is, A is A.<br /><br />"Inherent in any man's grasp of any object is the recognition, in some form, that: there is something I am aware of. There is -- existence; something -- identity; I am aware of -- consciousness. " (Leonard Peikoff)<br /><br />So when you say, "There is nothing that we have stated that commits the stolen concept fallacy," well, you couldn't be more mistaken, for your blog entry -- indeed your entire worldview -- is chocking in stolen concepts. <br /><br />Do you even have a grasp of what a "stolen concept" is? Your hasty denial above gives no indication that you do. <br /><br />Perhaps I'll address more of your blog entry later. In the meantime, here's a link that may better inform you as to where I'm coming from. By some of the links on your blogroll (Sye in particular), you may already be familiar with the the auther and his material (but given your interaction above, it's difficult for me to come to that conclusion). His name is Dawson Bethrick:<br /><br />Anyway, the following is his nine-part series:<br /><br />RazorsKiss on the Christian God as the Basis of Knowledge<br />http://katholon.com/RK.htm<br /><br />Here is Dawson's interaction with what Dustin Segers has to say about the primacy of existence:<br /><br />http://katholon.com/Doofusman.htm<br /><br />And here is a link to all of Dawson's blog entries in his multi-series "Answering Dustin Segers" on: The Nature of Truth, Logic, The Uniformity of Nature, The Problem of Induction, Objective Morality, and Collectivism, Evil and Slavery.<br /><br />http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/search/label/Dustin%20Segers<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />Ydemoc<br /><br /><br /><br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-2309104535146137202013-06-17T13:55:23.637-04:002013-06-17T13:55:23.637-04:00Hello friends. Nal observed: God's existence ...Hello friends. Nal observed: <i>God's existence must be demonstrated, first. Otherwise, all the ramifications of a Christian worldview are meaningless. </i><br /><br />Peikoff did a podcast addressing the issue of "God".<br /><br />http://www.peikoff.com/tag/existence/page/2/#list<br /><br />Since the "God" notion is entirely arbitrary, it's not something that meets the basic qualification for demonstration, and hence is nonsense. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-47060556734749626562013-06-16T10:34:26.067-04:002013-06-16T10:34:26.067-04:00Daniel GodIsTime:
In a fully Christian worldview... Daniel GodIsTime: <br /><br /><b>In a fully Christian worldview, however, this conversation makes complete sense. As image-bearers of God, we would expect to find ourselves discussing these kinds of things, and we would expect that the universe around us is ordered in such a way that our conclusions *matter*.</b> <br /><br />That is exactly why the Christian worldview is a human invention, it satisfies human psychological needs, as long as you don't dig too deeply. Afraid of death? The Christian worldview offers eternal life. Need purpose in your life? The Christian worldview even offers a purpose for the entire universe. Want revenge for your enemies? The Christian worldview offers your enemies an eternity in hell. Feeling insignificant? The Christian worldview says that you are the apple of their god's eye. <br /><br />God's existence must be demonstrated, first. Otherwise, all the ramifications of a Christian worldview are meaningless. NALhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12244370945682162312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-65608292984867047942013-06-14T09:42:08.918-04:002013-06-14T09:42:08.918-04:00Hello friends: I owe myself a debt in the form of ...Hello friends: I owe myself a debt in the form of an apology to you as Objectivists and fellow Homo Sapiens. When I was a young man I practiced social metaphysics and surrendered values as an intellectual appeaser in lieu of membership in a group of savages, a Christian cult. Please forgive me for throwing away my intellectual integrity when I was younger. Although I was then as now of only average intelligence, by consistent effort and diligent application I could have become a key person in a worthy capitalist enterprise to the benefit of all. However, to my credit I did come to my senses in time to salvage my self-esteem. Now its time to work and be proud, so chat ya later.<br /><br />Best and Good<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-66119044690655211942013-06-13T19:04:38.871-04:002013-06-13T19:04:38.871-04:00Daniel,
One more thing...
I was just reading Daw...Daniel,<br /><br />One more thing...<br /><br />I was just reading Dawson's "Considering Tony's Offerings" and I thought this quote from Dawson might be useful to you:<br /><br />"...Indeed, any flaws in my worldview are irrelevant to a serious case for validating the claim that the Christian worldview is true or that a god exists. My worldview could have all kinds of flaws, and your god could still be imaginary. So if you want to validate your belief that your god is something more than just a figment of your imagination, you need to focus on presenting that validation, not on finding some fault in my worldview.<br /><br />Put it this way: the conclusion that your god is real does not logically follow from the premise that my worldview is somehow flawed. You need an argument. But you don’t present one."<br /><br />I thought this might be something to keep in mind when dealing with your apologetic pal, whether you consider yourself an Objectivist or not.<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-30868448976048276592013-06-13T18:50:25.729-04:002013-06-13T18:50:25.729-04:00You wrote; "As far as your list (a-e) I under...You wrote; "As far as your list (a-e) I understand where you are coming from here, but what I think he is trying to do is to be one step before all that and 'presuppose' that none of the points raised in your list 'mean' anything or would exist if it weren’t for us being 'image-bearers' of his god."<br /><br />Maybe ask him how it is in any way coherent to posit something prior to that which provides the basis for all knowledge, i.e., the perceptual level, i.e., reality, i.e., existence, consciousness, identity. <br /><br />I've noticed that theists often attempt this maneuver: leaping backwards, prior to that which provides the basis for all knowledge in the first place, in an attempt to prop up or make room for their god. But if all knowledge starts with what the axioms explicitly identify (which it does) and if the primacy of existence obtains (which it does), then the only place the theist is landing when attempting such a leap, is merely a product of his or her imagination.<br /><br />You wrote: "Thank you for reminding me about that quote from Dawson’s, 'The Axioms and the Primacy of Existence'." <br /><br />Certainly!<br /><br />You wrote: "I completely forgot about it. I guess that is the one down fall of finding Dawson’s work: there is just so much good information I just can’t keep track . It’s a good problem to have!<br />The conversation that you quote between Dawson and Bahnsen, is precisely what I needed. Thank you. And thank YOU, Dawson."<br /><br />Again, my pleasure. And here are some other links to more of Dawson's stuff that may have slipped your mind. I think they could be useful:<br /><br />_______________________<br /><br />Answering Dustin Segers’ Presuppositionalism, Part II: The Nature of Logic <br />http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2012/04/answering-dustin-segers_08.html<br /><br />In this, Dawson address in detail the following question from Dustin Segers': "If you believe that only matter exists, (a) how do you account for the immaterial, universal, propositional, immaterial [sic] laws of logic given your philosophical materialism apart from an appeal to God and (b) how to you make sense out of our obligation to be rational?"<br /><br />_________________________________<br /><br />Considering Tony's Offerings<br />http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2011/06/considering-tonys-offerings.html<br /><br />In this blog entry, Dawson skillfully refutes and shows to be absurd, such groundless charges from Tony as:<br /><br />"But if you pause and think carefully—reflecting deeply and using only your naturalistic, materialistic worldview assumptions about the nature of reality you will find that you cannot even validate, in terms of your own worldview, your own personal existence..."<br /><br />And...<br /><br />"It seems in blogging about metaphysical and epistemological matters, you should be able validate (in terms of your own materialistic worldview assumptions) the personal existence of you yourself, the blogger." <br /><br />And...<br /><br />"If you are honest, given your worldview assumptions, you are actually only embracing matter—any personal nuance in the understanding of, and relating to, your loved one can only be but an irrational figment of your materialistic worldview's imagination."<br />_______________________________<br /><br />Perhaps more later.<br /><br />Ydemoc Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-61808231997569883352013-06-13T18:49:23.058-04:002013-06-13T18:49:23.058-04:00Hi Daniel,
You wrote: "Thank you for a lengt...Hi Daniel,<br /><br />You wrote: "Thank you for a lengthy and detailed response."<br /><br />You're welcome! And, as I stated recently in a post on another blog, doing so allows me to further integrate material which I was familiar with. So in that sense, thank you! <br /><br />You wrote: "The time you spent is not taken for granted."<br /><br />I can tell -- your comments below reflect your appreciation. <br /><br />You wrote: "I have already read/saved Dawson’s 'Theistic Misuse of the Concepts Meaning, Value and Purpose' (along with his entire archive) and found it immensely helpful."<br /><br />Nice! And if I find anything else that I think may be helpful to you, I won't hesitate to post it, (in fact, I may do so shortly, as I still have a few outstanding items of interest which I didn't have time to peruse and/or post, yesterday)<br /><br />As a matter of fact, here are a couple them right now! <br /><br />Objectivist Answers<br />http://objectivistanswers.com/ <br /><br />Objectivism Online<br /> http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?<br /><br />You wrote: "This is precisely why my friend continues to try to explain what he means by 'meaning'."<br /><br />What, no definition in his bible?! The very book which provided the inputs for his god-belief? A book about an invisible magic being which he claims that without, life would have no meaning!? Shocking!<br /><br />You might try this angle: Ask him if he thinks the concept "meaning" can be reduced, ultimately, to the perceptual level of awareness, i.e., if it is a valid concept that fits within a hierarchy of knowledge, and is based upon and tethered to reality. <br /><br />If he asks you what you "mean" by all this, refer him to Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 133, where Leonard Peikoff writes:<br /><br />"Reduction is the means of connecting an advanced knowledge to reality by traveling backward through the hierarchical structure involved, i.e., in the reverse order of that required to reach the knowledge. 'Reduction' is the process of identifying in logical sequence the intermediate steps that relate a cognitive item to perceptual data." <br /><br />Or, refer him to p. 136: <br /><br />"In regard to higher-level concepts, reduction completes the job of definition. The purpose of a definition is to keep a concept connected to a specific group of concretes. The definition of a higher-level concept, however, counts on the relevant lower level concepts, which must themselves be connected to concretes; otherwise, the definition is useless. <br /><br />Reduction is what takes a person from the initial definition through the definitions of the next lower level and then of the next, until he reaches the direct perception of reality. This is the only means by which the initial definition can be made fully clear."<br /><br />After he's done this homework (and perhaps a bit more), ask him: So where is a god needed in all this again? Where again is faith needed in the acquisition and validation of knowledge? Somewhere along the line, I must have missed the role that "faith," and/or "god" plays in all this. Could you please tell me where they fit? <br /><br />You wrote: "I badgered him (and continue to do so) to define his terms but so far all I am getting is abstract analogies and ambiguousness. On par I guess."<br /><br />Yes, not dissimilar to what we get from his storybook. <br /><br />You wrote: "I was just wondering if he did indeed present his version of 'meaningfulness' appropriately and if perhaps it was just me who is failing."<br /><br />Well, I'll have to look more carefully, I suppose, at your exchanges to answer that very question myself. Regardless, he still should try and address at least a few of the comments I raised earlier about "hierarchy" and "reduction." But he'll probably refuse or be unable to, probably because he's so immersed in the idea that all knowledge comes from on-high.<br /><br />(continued)Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.com