tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post2952646160573914351..comments2024-03-29T07:36:41.429-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Being Prepared for Encounters with EvangelistsBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-67641264166112421452015-08-29T09:54:28.872-04:002015-08-29T09:54:28.872-04:00Alif,
More or less, my point is provide informati...Alif,<br /><br />More or less, my point is provide information and to encourage study and self-reflection.<br /><br />And I would point out, again, that many of your questions have been answered in Dawson's writings, which are easily available and searchable on this blog.<br /><br />Here are some search terms that can help you get started:<br /><br />"Primacy of existence"<br />"Metaphysical subjectivism"<br />"Dawson's razor"<br />"Uniformity of nature"<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Brandon D DickensAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02232659034334403223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-32102168386886440692015-08-29T07:08:34.937-04:002015-08-29T07:08:34.937-04:00Thank you both. (Alif is to Afzal as A is to Ayn) ...Thank you both. (Alif is to Afzal as A is to Ayn) Tho' I'm used to 'Alif', familiarly.<br /><br />I hear that scientists say 'the universe came into existence'. Would Objectivism admit this? Or is it immaterial ( I mean unimportant)?<br /><br />It seems people here hold universe just *is*. <br />But is this the 'steady state eternal model'? This is somewhat old hat.<br /><br />Language. Some verbs describe states not actions. what does nomenclature has to do with its nature/identity? All this is convention between communities. <br /><br />In my community 'fanny' is completely different to what others mean.<br /><br /> <br />Not altogether sure what point is being made here, sorry. Are we talking Wittgenstein and language games? I wonder how Wittgenstein is seen in objectivism.<br /><br /><br />I'm not sure how I omit'd that which 'implies' no agency when I gave the specific example from the Quran of the seed germinating: tellingly there 'Allah' asks which agent makes it 'germinate' - You? (human beings)or 'Allah'? <br /><br />why does - and this goes to the pith - the germination process or a quark doing what it does, 'imply' no agency? Seems question begging. If I see an action I assume an actioner, surely - rightly or wrongly. <br /><br /><br />In posts here -which are most informativ- there's a frequent inveighing contra consciousness being impotent over matter. <br /><br /><br />This seems an Aunt Sally fallacy: since when do theists equate the consciousness ['Will'] of deity with eg the will of me?! I will a Pina Colada...and God wills fire not burn...have no parity. <br /><br /><br />Alif<br /><br />(still sans pina colada)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />praestanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02343506153156692581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-17201444509841554342015-08-29T04:12:07.273-04:002015-08-29T04:12:07.273-04:00Alif (Afzal),
One more point...
I noticed in you...Alif (Afzal),<br /><br />One more point...<br /><br />I noticed in your examples of causation, you have conspicuously left out actions that <i>do not</i> imply agency, such as "the tree grew," "the rock fell," or "the fire burned." In any event, for a good Objectivist exposition of causality, please see Dawson's post from 03/10/2010 entitled “Causality as a Necessary Relationship.”<br /><br />Here are some highlights:<br /><br />“...causality is essentially the identity of action, which is directly consistent with the Objectivist axiom of identity: to exist is to be something, to have identity. Since action exists, it has identity, just as do the entities which exist.”<br /><br />“There can be no action without an entity to perform it. The existence of something which acts is a necessary precondition for any action. Also, action is the action of the entity which performs it. As such, action is an attribute of something that exists, which means: it is part of its nature.”<br /><br />“...if action did not have identity, how could we formulate concepts which identify actions? Think of all the verbs in the English language. Verbs like ‘to walk’, ‘to swim’, ‘to think’, ‘to exercise’, etc. All these verbs name actions. How could actions be named if they did not have identity?”<br /><br />Hope that helps.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Brandon D DickensAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02232659034334403223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-70838862530461871002015-08-29T03:25:18.121-04:002015-08-29T03:25:18.121-04:00Alif (or Afzal?),
Although I do not, in any way, ...Alif (or Afzal?),<br /><br />Although I do not, in any way, speak for Dawson, I thought I would share some information.<br /><br />A good post of Dawson's to read that addresses some of your questions would be "Basic Contra-Theism" from 05/04/2006.<br /><br />Here are some highlights from that post:<br /><br />“An age-old ploy in the attempt to validate god-belief involves the supposition that the universe needed a creator. Arguments to this end have been formalized in numerous variations, but the basic argument makes the claim that the universe is something that 'began to exist,' and ends by positing a deity which is said to have created the universe, allegedly by speaking or wishing it into existence.”<br /><br />“Just as the universe is not an 'event,' the universe is also not an effect, whether caused or uncaused. The universe is the sum totality of all that exists.”<br /><br />“...causality necessarily presupposes existence.”<br /><br />“...theistic creationism itself consists of two fundamental errors, namely that something exists 'outside the universe' (that's one error), and that this extra-universal thing is a form of consciousness which <i>wished</i> the universe into existence (there's a second error). Thus in the final analysis, theistic creationism is presented as an explanation on the basis of the misguided notion that two wrongs make a right, and this simply does not fly.”<br /><br />Combined with what Dawson has already written in this thread, hopefully that post will help you understand why the question “what existence caused the universe into its existence” is fallaciously formed, at least from an Objectivist point of view.<br /><br />I would encourage you to utilize the search function of this blog to find many good points on this topic from Dawson's writing over the past 10 years.<br /><br />Also, it should be pointed out that Dawson is an equal opportunity anti-mystic, though he does spend the majority of his time dealing with the Christian version of mysticism. His critiques, however, are equally applicable to a wide variety of anti-rational beliefs.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Brandon D DickensAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02232659034334403223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-50672096456514574442015-08-28T17:31:53.436-04:002015-08-28T17:31:53.436-04:00Thanks for the illumination Dawson
(I feel a righ...Thanks for the illumination Dawson<br /><br />(I feel a right compunction in not using a more standard spelling, which I'll do so now albeit I might use older forms eg 'stopt'; 'det' etc).<br /><br />Isn't the whole enterprise of the theist to advance <br /><br />'you can't have 'creation' without a 'creator'. <br /><br />now, we recognise the tea drunk; the stone turnd; the lawn mowd; the field ploughd; the seed sown; the crops thresht etc we perceive agency. I mention crops because there's a standard quran verse used by muslim dialecticians ['mutakallimoon' whence 'kalam' - first cause argument]<br /><br />Starting from existence is *precisely* the wont of the theist...though they tend to go backwards (and forwards: ie to eschatology]. <br /><br />what existence caused the universe into its existence?<br /><br />Ex Nihilo, Nihil Fits say Parminedes. Comment?<br /><br />Or at Quran 56: Have you thought about what you cultivate? Is it you who make it germinate or are We the Germinator? The trilemma is: it's god; it's you; or it happens by itself.<br /><br />Care to take on Allah?<br /><br />Cheers.<br /><br />Afzal<br /><br /><br />praestanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02343506153156692581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-28492698778334595622015-08-24T22:26:50.261-04:002015-08-24T22:26:50.261-04:00Hello Alif,
You wrote: “I read somwhere here that...Hello Alif,<br /><br />You wrote: “I read somwhere here that causation presupposes existence.”<br /><br />Yes, I have affirmed – and continue to affirm – this view. But it’s important to understand why I say this, and understanding why will help address your questions.<br /><br />Causality is the law of identity applied to action. This means that actions, like the entities which perform them, have identity. This is self-evident: swimming is distinct from walking, which is distinct from flying, which is distinct from having a conversation, which is distinct from operating heavy machinery, which is distinct from composing a sonata, etc. We distinguish between various actions all the time. We could not do this if actions themselves did not have identity. In fact, it is because actions have identity that we can distinguish one from another (as well as from the entities which perform them), and thus identify them in conceptual form. For example, my daughter swims in a swimming pool, and a fish swims in a lake. The actions are performed by different types of entities, but they’re similar enough to be identifiable with the same concept. <br /><br />There are a number of corollaries to this fundamental recognition, but crucial here are the facts that (a) the actions which an entity performs depend on the nature of the entity which performs them (e.g., when a bird flies, it does so by flapping its wings to produce lift), and (b) the entity which performs an action (whatever action that may be) must first exist in order for it to perform that action – and thus for that action to happen (as Kelley puts it, “you can’t have a dance without a dancer”). <br /><br />No, we won’t learn such things by reading the bible, but I digress…<br /><br />Alif: “ Whot du u say about "the *first* cause" was there ever wun?”<br /><br />It depends specifically on what this is intended to mean. If we mean that existence is the first cause, I see no problem with this insofar as it goes, but it does not seem to speak to the question very satisfyingly. But in fact, that is what I would say: first, existence exists, then things which exist act. So if “cause” refers to something that performs action, you can’t get any more fundamental than existence, though this is a collective noun (denoting everything that exists), and we usually think of specific things that perform actions. <br /><br />What I do not hold is that we can start with action and then treat existence as a product or “effect” of an action. This would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. What specifically was doing the action? Didn’t it have to exist in order to act? Again, you can’t have a dance without a dancer. You can’t have action without something that performs the action.<br /><br />Alif: “Does this nesasrily intail or imply an uncaused cause?”<br /><br />The clear implication of the axioms is that existence is uncaused. Existence is not a result of some prior action, causation, or conscious activity. <br /><br />The way I see it, there’s only one rationally viable starting point: the fact that existence exists. If one doesn’t like starting with existence, then he would be compelled to start with non-existence. But why do this when we know that existence exists? <br /><br />Theists who posit a creator of the universe (i.e., the sum totality of all that exists) imply that the proper starting point is with non-existence, and thus posit their god (which they claim exists) to “explain” the fact that existence exists. This is a non-starter and leads to a whole host of stolen concepts. <br /><br />Why not start with existence, and go from there? Why begin with fantasizing alternatives to existence? Is this not a childish habit that people simply don’t allow themselves to outgrow? <br /><br />I hope that helps!<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-25371716246211386922015-08-24T17:26:18.655-04:002015-08-24T17:26:18.655-04:00Incidentally Dawson I read somwhere here that caus...Incidentally Dawson I read somwhere here that causation presupposes existence. Whot du u say about "the *first* cause" was there ever wun? <br />Does this nesasrily intail or imply an uncaused cause?<br /><br />Thanks<br /><br />praestanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02343506153156692581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-35420910515605951532015-08-20T16:43:30.351-04:002015-08-20T16:43:30.351-04:00Hello Dosun
Just looking in.
Nowadays, I always...Hello Dosun<br /><br />Just looking in. <br /><br />Nowadays, I always ask Xtians as to why ask I must believ in Jesus, the deity that makes mums n dads eat their own children..eg Jer 19.9. <br /><br />Prhaps I can rescus a nice lass from the Christ clutch.<br /><br />We need to disabuse the prevalent marcionite view. Jesus is the ego eimi (isa 43:10, 51.12 - Jn 8.58) How quickly Xtians forget this when I say, 'Jesus says in Genesis....<br /><br />Hope ur riting projects ar going well. A book would be great. Du send complimentary copy to eerdmans or zondervan..<br /><br />May I also currect u: in that 'Be evr ready' is at 1 Peter 3:15 <br />(not vurs 5 as this post has it.)<br /><br />Alif<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />praestanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02343506153156692581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-73521566960570670032015-08-06T17:04:37.773-04:002015-08-06T17:04:37.773-04:00Hello Dawson and readers. Thanks and kudos to Mr. ...Hello Dawson and readers. Thanks and kudos to Mr. Bethrick for yet another good blog.<br /><br />Best Wishes. <br /><br />:)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-63803815260061424832015-07-31T05:16:49.940-04:002015-07-31T05:16:49.940-04:00I'm grateful that someone like you has the pat...I'm grateful that someone like you has the patience to deal with such people as I lost patience with many years ago, and that patience gets shorter and shorter as I get older. :-(95BSharpshooterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10757806090270175757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-72826474494920430142015-07-26T08:08:07.759-04:002015-07-26T08:08:07.759-04:00In regards to question number 18: "If Jesus ...In regards to question number 18: "If Jesus commanded you to kill someone, would you do it?" which is supposed to make them question their morality. <br /><br />I've found that apparently, the answer would be "yes", at least with some of them.<br /><br /><br />I remember dealing with Jason Lisle on his blog when the topic of morality came up. This is what happened:<br />I got into it with a poster named "josef" who said this in response to my asking him if killing babies was moral if god said to do it:<br /><br />Quote:<br /><i>"Of course. Whatever God commands is absolutely moral because God himself is the absolute standard for good. In fact, if God really did command to do something, such as kill babies, then it would be immoral not to do it. And on what basis do you have to disagree with this outside of mere opinion?"</i><br /><br />I brought that up to Lisle, and this is what happened:<br />http://www.jasonlisle.com/2012/11/09/deep-time-the-god-of-our-age/comment-page-2/#comment-7376<br />Lisle says, quoting me at first:<br /><i>"Remember Joseph saying that it would be immoral to NOT kill a baby if god commanded it?<br /><br />[Dr. Lisle: Joseph is right. What God commands is necessarily right. Any other definition of morality is ultimately arbitrary and therefore logically unjustified.]"</i>Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-58522950665921448162015-07-26T08:01:52.384-04:002015-07-26T08:01:52.384-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-40016897802684505852015-07-23T09:54:36.755-04:002015-07-23T09:54:36.755-04:00A sober, mature and rational approach is to consid...<i>A sober, mature and rational approach is to consider what man is based on the facts we discover by looking out at the world rather than seeking refuge in emotions and self-pity.</i><br /><br />This is nicely put. One of the ideas dancing in my head as I wrote that semi-answer. They think that we should start with what we "believe," with what we might imagine (such as imagining that we're but fizz). But that's them. We start with what we can discover by looking around at the world. A very important distinction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-85839716912006144642015-07-23T00:16:30.146-04:002015-07-23T00:16:30.146-04:00Hi all,
This is the short form of the Doug Wilson...Hi all,<br /><br />This is the short form of the Doug Wilson quote:<br /><br />If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.<br /><br />The quote above is a combination of things Wilson said in a debate with Farrell Till. It is frequently found on the web in this condensed form, as at this site:<br />http://5solas4claytongarner.blogspot.com/2011/07/atheism-reasoning-refuted-by-soda-fizz.html<br /><br />I just found the following link, which has some of the original debate:<br />http://infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/wilson-till.html<br /><br />I made some notes about the short quote, which I would be happy to share with anyone.<br /><br />Note that Wilson is not claiming that, if God doesn't exist, the world could not exist. He is assuming the world can be exactly as it is but without God, thereby conceding this is possible. He has given up the need for a creator, or for a god to author logic, morality, and the uniformity of nature.<br />• If he denies this is possible (for the world to exist exactly as it is but without God), then he has no basis for his assertion. He is just fantasizing about something he believes is impossible - not the world we actually inhabit - so there's no need to give his fizzing any more consideration. He could just as easily be fantasizing about poker-playing purple pixies on Pluto.<br />• In his scenario, we still have science, philosophy, art, language, pizza, mathematics, culture, technology, etc. and it all results from "chemical fizz" without God. We still have love, laughter, morality, logic, etc. without God. Clearly the electrochemical processes of our brains are nothing like "swamp gas over fetid water"; they are more like powerful, flexible organic supercomputers.<br />• If we have the world exactly as it already is without any god existing, why try to introduce one into the picture?<br />• Why should we think Wilson, whose understanding of reality is fundamentally wrong in his own proposed scenario, has any valid insights into the nature of a godless world?blarkofanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09430986055242205576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-23015067597749616312015-07-22T21:50:02.723-04:002015-07-22T21:50:02.723-04:00Hi Photo,
Nice to hear from you. As always, I enj...Hi Photo,<br /><br />Nice to hear from you. As always, I enjoy your comments.<br /><br />You wrote: “So, if they rather be some god's despicable, but forgiven, pieces of crap, that's their choice.”<br /> <br />I think the fundamental take-away point for Joe (and anyone else) to consider here, is that the Christian would *rather* things be some way other than what it they actually are. He prefers his god to be real and his god-beliefs to be true (“I want it to be true,” <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2013/10/mike-licona-says-i-want-it-to-be-true.html" rel="nofollow">says Mike Licona</a>), so he denigrates any alternative as though it were offensive or degrading (meanwhile his own religion denounces man as a sin-ridden incompetent who can only do wrong when left to his own devices). The “fizzing” thing is really just a mischaracterization designed to make the clapping choir go “That was a good one, Doug! You really got him there!” It’s Doug Wilson trying to have a rock star moment without any demonstrable musical skills. <br /><br />I strongly suggest that we learn to notice when believers characterize belief in their god as a result of a choice. They characterize non-believers as choosing *not* to believe that their god is real, which is a tacit acknowledgement that they think the whole thing boils down to a simple choice between (a) “God exists” and (b) “God doesn’t exist,” and that one makes this choice arbitrarily. If this is not *the* ultimate root of the apologist’s projections, it’s surely one of them. He has made the arbitrary choice to believe in his god – why haven’t you?<br /><br />Look, man is whatever he is regardless of what anyone wishes him to be or finds uncomfortable about his nature. A sober, mature and rational approach is to consider what man is based on the facts we discover by looking out at the world rather than seeking refuge in emotions and self-pity. Even if one is disenchanted with the direction one’s culture is heading (and there’s always been plenty of good reason for this throughout history), that does not justify giving up on human nature and retreating into a worldview informed by fantasies.<br /><br />Photo: “If they want to project the problems of their worldview onto mine, then it's them who have a problem.”<br /><br />Of course, the apologist is arguing that the problem in question (mind = fizzing) is a problem that arises from assumptions entailed by “naturalism.” And no doubt, the apologist can easily cough up quotes from champions of “naturalism” which substantiate this characterization. It never occurs to the apologist that the naturalists he quotes may in fact be “borrowing” assumptions from mystical worldviews like Christianity. <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-62448974684072644002015-07-22T19:59:32.261-04:002015-07-22T19:59:32.261-04:00Joe,
I am sure you have heard of the presuppositi...Joe,<br /><br /><i>I am sure you have heard of the presuppositionalist, like Douglas Wilson, use the illustration that in a pure naturalistic world humans are no different than fizz in a bottle. Humans are just atoms fizzing in a different way.</i><br /><br />Well, I would tell them that I expect Christians to despise human nature enough to compare it to fizzing, given that their fantasies tell them that we're all but crap undeserving of mercy, and that just a few will be shown "grace." Undeserving forgiveness. So, if they rather be some god's despicable, but forgiven, pieces of crap, that's their choice. That doesn't mean that I have to despise myself the way their religious fantasies teach them to.<br /><br /><i>The idea is that if humans are just chemicals reacting then human beings have no meaning or purpose.</i><br /><br />Again, not surprised that Christians would have such low opinions about human nature that they're compelled to compare themselves to "mere fizzing," while pretending that being some god's undeserving puppets is somehow meaningful.<br /><br />That's but a start.<br /><br />My advice. don't buy into their bullshit as if you had to answer their demands. Their demands are but projections of their own shitty worldview. Their low self-respect and their low opinion of humanity is a product of their religious fantasies. Thus, it's them who are responsible for their own prejudices. I have no reason to buy into them. If they want to project the problems of their worldview onto mine, then it's them who have a problem. I won't solve it for them. They can keep them all for themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-90444108007324461352015-07-22T08:26:17.894-04:002015-07-22T08:26:17.894-04:00Hi Everyone,
Thanks for your comments.
In order...Hi Everyone,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. <br /><br />In order…<br /><br /><br />Justin,<br /><br />I didn’t know that. I pass PS every day, but on the weekdays. I’m not inclined to go there on the weekends if I can avoid it – and I can! Besides, I’m not the type to get into a yelling match. I’d rather it be a calm, quiet conversation. But you and I should get together again soon!<br /><br /><br />Ydemoc,<br /><br />That’s a good question. I should add it to the list. But, which category? It sort of straddles a couple or three. I do think it would make quite an impression on some young, eager evangelist, to take out a slip of paper from my pocket with a list of questions for him, essentially saying, “I’ve been waiting for you…” Hear the < gulp!><br /><br /><br />Joe,<br /><br />Thanks for visiting my blog. I’m glad you’ve found it helpful. Yes, I’ve heard the fizz thing on and off for years, going back to Wilson’s debate with Till I think it may have been. And yes, I’m aware that it’s enjoyed a revival of sorts among presuppers. I believe I heard Sye or one of his clones using it recently – perhaps against Dillahunty? I’m not surprised that mystics other than presuppers would find its use opportune. <br /><br />I don’t have a blog entry addressing specifically the fizzing characterization. And I can’t say I’ve seen any good responses to it. So I’ll add it to my list of writing projects. I have notes on it somewhere already. But I can already think of many obvious objections. <br /><br />Okay, I have to run off to work. <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-4524578990653598422015-07-21T11:14:53.635-04:002015-07-21T11:14:53.635-04:00Dawson,
I am sure you have heard of the presupposi...Dawson,<br />I am sure you have heard of the presuppositionalist, like Douglas Wilson, use the illustration that in a pure naturalistic world humans are no different than fizz in a bottle. Humans are just atoms fizzing in a different way. The idea is that if humans are just chemicals reacting then human beings have no meaning or purpose. Do you have a blog article dealing with this kind of argument? How would you respond to it? I have recently heard a Catholic apologist use this fizz example with an atheist. I find your writing and your blog very helpful. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261581774826680756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-3357398132115313612015-07-21T10:36:55.490-04:002015-07-21T10:36:55.490-04:00Dawson,
You wrote: "When I pick up a little ...Dawson,<br /><br />You wrote: "When I pick up a little pebble in my backyard, what specifically will I find in that pebble that tells me that it was created by an act of consciousness?"<br /><br />Yep, I've employed this one with some success. The Christian I used it against had no real answer and ended up changing the subject, i.e., evading.<br /><br />You've produced a bunch of questions that should really come in handy. <br /><br />And here's a question that that I recently posed to the very same Christian, "Other than what's written in your bible, what informs your concept of Hell? Where can we go to verify that Hell actually exists as opposed to Hell just being a product of imagination?"<br /><br />The crickets chirped loudly after that one. <br /><br />Thanks again!<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-18042248436205736882015-07-19T22:39:15.010-04:002015-07-19T22:39:15.010-04:00You need to go down to pioneer square on a Saturda...You need to go down to pioneer square on a Saturday. There is usually someone loudly arranging the passing crowds with dire threats of hell fire:)Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.com