tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post5309610362819212295..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: A Reply to Matthias on Philosophical Starting PointsBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-90488353050759823892014-10-16T08:51:00.120-04:002014-10-16T08:51:00.120-04:00Great post!
Thank you!Great post!<br />Thank you!l_johan_khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467379458813206767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-91738404485968173082014-01-24T06:25:18.187-05:002014-01-24T06:25:18.187-05:00@Justin Hello friend. Thank you for those excellen...@Justin Hello friend. Thank you for those excellent points and summary. The issues seems more understandable to me now. <br /><br />Time for me to get ready. It's a cold morning, so there's more to do prior to leaving on the commute.<br /><br />Make it a good day. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-59867862795041747842014-01-23T21:00:34.952-05:002014-01-23T21:00:34.952-05:00@Robert
Rick made this mistake over and over in h...@Robert<br /><br />Rick made this mistake over and over in his interactions with Dawson. Rick believes that metaphysical subjectivism is defined as every consciousness enjoying a subjective relationship. It was pointed out to him over and over that if only one consciousness even to a small degree has such a relationship then metaphysical subjectivism attains. <br /><br />I even pointed this out on my blog with my interaction with Rick's posting if he ever bothered to read it. I stated that metaphysical subjectivism and metaphysical objectivism are mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive. For MO to attain it must be universal and complete. It is a case of either A or not A. The reason for this is obvious if one considers the implications and possibilities of even one being having a subjective relationship with the objects of its awareness. Of course Rick wilfully refused to acknowledge this. <br /><br />In Matthias's case I suspect something else is going on. His failure to comprehend is not Rick's style of evasion but more I think a conflation in his mind of "objectivism" and authoritarianism. You see this when the claims is made that Christian morality is objective because what is good or evil is not up to each and every one of us but defined by god and god alone. They conflate the dichotomies of subjectivism/objectivism with the relativistic/central authority. Still there is a similarity, neither is willing or able to conceptually grasp the import of the universal relationship between the subjects and objects of consciousness. Oh well, what can you do. Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-62683383314390563642014-01-23T14:04:06.334-05:002014-01-23T14:04:06.334-05:00In the comments of Confessions of a Van Tillian Su...In the comments of Confessions of a Van Tillian Subjectivist blog, Matthias wrote > <br /><br /><i>If Christians believe that only God can wish something into existence, then it’s not a true “subjectivism” they’re holding, is it? </i><br /><br />No. Christian God belief is a form of subjectivism because the Christian worldview is based on the fantasy of the Christian God, a form of consciousness that is "believed" to keep existence existing and is able to excercise unmediated capacity to modify existence at will. Of course Christians are loath to admit this as they wish to believe they are operating objectively.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-69659358659363598052014-01-23T06:19:08.210-05:002014-01-23T06:19:08.210-05:00Good morning Dawson and thanks for this current bl...Good morning Dawson and thanks for this current blog reply to Matthias. Hello to Ydemoc, Justin, Freddie, Photo, and to all other readers. <br /><br />I'll read this current blog today, and I'm cheered and encouraged by the quote Ydemoc highlighted above where Dawson noted:<br /><br /><b>"Given this, there is every indication that the Christian notion of “God” could not be implicit in all knowledge. Since concepts which unite concrete entities which we find in the world by looking outward (such as the concept ‘tree’ or ‘car’) are formed on the basis of perceptual input (i.e., on the basis of direct awareness), there is no intervening step allowing for the insertion of some cosmic being which we do not perceive to involve itself as a conceptual necessity in forming such concepts. Thus such concepts do not conceptually “presuppose” the Christian god. Only by imagining certain things (such as that the Christian god not only exists, but also created all the material out of which trees and cars and other concrete entities are formed) could one say this. And yet, since this would be ignoring the fundamental distinction between reality and imagination, it would fail the test of objectivity and thus need to be rejected."</b><br /><br />There is no magic going on in human knowledge, so the fantasy of Christians aside, the God they imagine would, if it were possible for it to exist, not have any role in how humans acquire knowledge. The Christian fantasy of their God isn't "necessary" for me to know anything. <br /><br />Cheers. Here's to confidence based upon actual inputs from existence that exists and is what it is independently from any form of awareness. :) Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-29980472905623196242014-01-23T00:31:51.048-05:002014-01-23T00:31:51.048-05:00Dawson,
Excellent! One of the many takeaways for...Dawson,<br /><br />Excellent! One of the many takeaways for me was this:<br /><br />"Given this, there is every indication that the Christian notion of “God” could not be implicit in all knowledge. Since concepts which unite concrete entities which we find in the world by looking outward (such as the concept ‘tree’ or ‘car’) are formed on the basis of perceptual input (i.e., on the basis of direct awareness), there is no intervening step allowing for the insertion of some cosmic being which we do not perceive to involve itself as a conceptual necessity in forming such concepts. Thus such concepts do not conceptually “presuppose” the Christian god. Only by imagining certain things (such as that the Christian god not only exists, but also created all the material out of which trees and cars and other concrete entities are formed) could one say this. And yet, since this would be ignoring the fundamental distinction between reality and imagination, it would fail the test of objectivity and thus need to be rejected."<br /><br />In other words, if all legitimate concepts reduce back to the perceptual level (or are based on concepts which do -- and they must if they are to be considered legitimate), then there's no room whatsoever for the notion of a "God."<br /><br />Ydemoc Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.com