tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post6843289825164932965..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Stolen Concepts and Intellectual ParasitismBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-63682381265932857332008-07-12T12:18:00.000-04:002008-07-12T12:18:00.000-04:00Glenn,Okay, my blog is finished and was posted las...Glenn,<BR/><BR/>Okay, my blog is finished and was posted last night: <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2008/07/before-beginning-problem-of-divine.html" REL="nofollow">Before the Beginning: The Problem of Divine Lonesomeness</A> <BR/><BR/>It's a bit of a longer read, so get a cup of coffee and a donut, and enjoy!<BR/><BR/>Let me know if you have any further questions.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-81139697980060651622008-07-10T23:25:00.000-04:002008-07-10T23:25:00.000-04:00Hello Glenn,Pardon my absence - I've been travelin...Hello Glenn,<BR/><BR/>Pardon my absence - I've been traveling on business this week. I've been slowly working on a response to your question, and it's gotten more involved than I had originally intended. I hope to be finished with it and will post it as a new blog article once it's ready. In the meantime, you might want to check out these two items, one from me:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2008/06/dodging-subject-object-relationship.html" REL="nofollow">Dodging the Subject-Object Relationship</A><BR/><BR/>and the other by Anton Thorn:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/LTYA/LTYA06.htm" REL="nofollow">Letter #6 to a Young Atheologist</A><BR/><BR/>Thorn's article is really the first I've seen which delves into this matter. In his piece, he argues that the notion of a pre-creation deity, like the Christian god before "the beginning" we read about in the book of Genesis, cannot escape what he calls the fallacy of pure self-reference. I think this is an incontrovertible argument, and I've yet to see a sufficient theistic response to it. In my upcoming blog, I will review one attempt to overcome the basic problem which Thorn drags out into the light.<BR/><BR/>Until then...<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-66754622833879762712008-07-05T08:08:00.000-04:002008-07-05T08:08:00.000-04:00You appear to assume that there would be something...You appear to assume that there would be something illegitimate in a believer thinking that God was both subject and object, and that his being an object is logically prior to his being a subject, but that both are eternal.<BR/><BR/>You may have a reason for making this assumption, but that reason does not appear to have been spelt out. Would you care to elaborate? Thanks.Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15365045662764795503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-30776233269671067372008-06-21T13:12:00.000-04:002008-06-21T13:12:00.000-04:00Hi Robert,I enjoyed your initial comment here so m...Hi Robert,<BR/><BR/>I enjoyed your initial comment here so much that I devoted a whole new blog entry to it. See here: <A HREF="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2008/06/dodging-subject-object-relationship.html" REL="nofollow">Doding the Subject-Object Relationship</A>.<BR/><BR/>I haven't reviewed your more recent comment yet, but hope to do so later today. Now it's off to do some errands and get ready for lunch.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-46132922405671590692008-06-21T01:07:00.000-04:002008-06-21T01:07:00.000-04:00When the Christian wrote:"I can have the capacity ...When the Christian wrote:<BR/><BR/>"I can have the capacity to be aware of things without actually being aware of anything."<BR/><BR/>I should have responded that when an organism is unconscious due to anesthesia, illness, or injury, it still has its sensory organs, but it is still unaware of existence when it is unconscious. This is consistent with consciousness being awareness of existence.<BR/><BR/>A thought experiment wherein I am surgically altered by having my several sensory cortices removed. In that state my sensory organs would still be functional, but I would be completely deprived of sensory input. In that case, I would still be alive and conscious. The reason for my continued consciousness would be that I am a biological being. My brain that hosts me as a living process would still be in existence despite the surgical alteration. My consciousness is dependent upon the existence of my brain. If my brain is sufficiently damaged or destroyed, the neural process that is me will cease, and I will no longer exist.<BR/><BR/>The objection that "have the capacity to be aware of things without actually being aware of anything." has no merit regarding the question of a disembodied and immaterial primordial consciousness because such a fantasy would have no physicality or sensory perception.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The Christian's second objection that <BR/><BR/>"Consciousness is having the capacity to be aware of things" has no weight because sensory perception alone has no capacity to be aware. Senses report perceptions to the consciousness, but senses are not in themselves conscious. My biological consciousness is a very complex gestalt of many cerebral systems working together. Separated form each other, my neural systems would not be conscious in and of themselves. The Christian's assertion is an example of the stolen concept. He asserted the concept of consciousness and attributed it to something that cannot be conscious. Meanwhile he denied that consciousness, to be conscious, must be aware of existence.<BR/><BR/>The Christian's third objection gets to the meat of his obstinate refusal to acknowledge reality. He wrote:<BR/><BR/>"God could be aware of himself. One can be introspectively aware of themselves, their feelings, their thoughts, their character, etc. There is no contradiction there."<BR/><BR/>This is a further example of the stolen concept because it, as Dawson's argument cinches it, <BR/><BR/>"The very notion of a bodiless consciousness commits the fallacy of the stolen concept by affirming consciousness while denying the biological processes which make consciousness possible."<BR/><BR/>A disembodied mind would not be like my thought experiment above. There is no physical reality in which a mental process can operate in this fantasy scenario. With no mental content, no sensory perception, no awareness, no physical reality how could there be a consciousness? (Rand was fond of saying "blank out" at places such a as this. I'm torn between honoring her memory by doing likewise or saying something else.) The solution for the Christian was to steal the concept of existence, ascribe it to his fantasy, deny existence has always existed and call it "There is no contradiction there."<BR/><BR/>His forth objection to consciousness is awareness entailed bleating about "God the Father could be aware of God the Son...".<BR/><BR/>This is just a multiplication of his third stolen concept applied to the doctrine of the trinity. For the same reasons this assertion is likewise a fallacy. But the trinity is itself an additional fallacy. I wrote to the Christian about the trinity this:<BR/><BR/>""To trinitarian Christians, God the Father is not at all a separate god from God the Son and the Holy Spirit, the other divine persons. Trinitarian Christians describe these three persons as a Trinity. This means that they always exist as three distinct "persons" (Greek hypostases), but they are one God, each having full identity as God himself (a single "substance"), a single "divine nature" and power, and a single "divine will"."<BR/><BR/>This is absurd nonsense; it is a clear violation of the Law of Identity, A=A. One being, God-a single substance, cannot have three separate minds-centers of consciousness, nor can one being have three separate wills-centers of initiation of action. The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly impossible." <BR/><BR/>I should have elaborated by noting that Christianity commits a stolen concept fallacy by asserting the doctrine of the trinity. "One substance" is a stolen concept since the entity is said to be immaterial, non-corporeal, transcendent and supernatural. The later qualities all reject the idea of substance, for substance must be something physical. <BR/><BR/>The idea that the entity is of one substance and has multiple attributes is itself a stolen concept. By definition the god substance is perfect, implying unity of nature. To accredit multiple minds and wills with an infinite diversity of action to a unitary nature is to steal the concept of instantiation while denying physicality of that which is instantiated. <BR/><BR/>Thanks Dawson. Your essay here helped clear up some questions I had about these things.<BR/><BR/>Of late I've been attacking the Christian's personal religious experience. They believe because of what they mistakenly think is the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. If I can discredit that personal experience by showing how they are committing blasphemy, lying for their god, or expressing heresy, then I can write something like: "What your doing is not at all what would be expected if your religious experience were to be real. If there was an actual spiritual presence integrated into your central emotional-intellectual core , then it would influence you to not blaspheme, lie, or do heresy. But what your are doing is exactly what is expected if your religion was man made and the product of your imagination."<BR/><BR/>I know this will not cause the Christian to deconvert on the spot, but she will go away with some doubt. She'll go online and ask for advise from other Christians on some message board. They will respond and she'll feel better. She will go to Sunday school and talk about what was written to her, those folks will overplay their hands and she'll go away just a little bit more skeptical. An the next time she debates some infidel online, she'll be a little bit more likely to open her mind and give the counter apologetics credence.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your blog Dawson. I'm learning some stuff.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-22422538694115643052008-06-19T13:33:00.000-04:002008-06-19T13:33:00.000-04:00Greetings Dawson:Recently I had a message exchange...Greetings Dawson:<BR/><BR/>Recently I had a message exchange with a Christian. I made the following argument, and he <BR/>responded with the italicized comment.<BR/><BR/>1. To believe that a theistic creator deity exists and is responsible for reality, the believer must imagine their deity was in some timeless fashion akin to "before" existence alone in a timeless, non-spatial, void without anything. That is alone as a consciousness, conscious of nothing or only itself without time, space, energy, location, dimensions, fields, concepts, knowledge, symbols, perceptions, physical natural law, logic or matter. Believers imagine that their deity was a primordial, immaterial, non-spatial, consciousness that wished existence to instantiate. <BR/><BR/>2. Consciousness is an irreducible primary.<BR/><BR/>3. Consciousness at the most common denominative rung on the ladder of complexity consists of awareness of existence.<BR/><BR/>4. Consciousness of consciousness necessarily requires primary consciousness to first obtain as awareness of existence.<BR/><BR/>5. Prior to existence there could not have been anything to be aware of.<BR/><BR/>6. Without anything to be aware of, there could not have been any awareness.<BR/><BR/>7. Without awareness there could not have been any consciousness.<BR/><BR/>8. From 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 there could not have been a primordial consciousness prior to existence.<BR/><BR/>9. Creator gods are defined as primordial consciousness.<BR/><BR/>10. From 8 and 9 Creator gods cannot exist.<BR/><BR/>Following are the Christians comments.<BR/><BR/><I>my point is 1) I can have the capacity to be aware of things without actually being aware of anything. <BR/><BR/>We need to make a distinction here:<BR/><BR/>A) Consciousness is having the capacity to be aware of things and <BR/><BR/>B) Consciousness is being aware of things. You sound like you accept B. I accept A.<BR/><BR/>And my second point is 2) Even if B were true, God could be aware of himself. One can be introspectively aware of themselves, their feelings, their thoughts, their character, etc. There is no contradiction there.<BR/><BR/>And my third point 3) Even if B were true, God the Father could be aware of God the Son. ...snip... </I><BR/><BR/>In responding to this person, I pointed out that all the standard definitions of consciousness easily found online either directly assert or presuppose consciousness is awareness. I wrote a very lame reply in addition to the dictionary reference.<BR/><BR/>"To be conscious is to be aware of external reality. Meta-consciousness necessarily must rest upon a foundation of awareness of reality. If there is no reality, there can be no consciousness. The fallacy you are making is know as asserting the primacy of consciousness."<BR/><BR/>I then referred the person to Anton Thorn's "Metaphysical Primacy of Existence" essay.<BR/><BR/>My point in all of this is to ask how an objectivist may most correctly respond to those who assert consciousness can be something other than awareness of existence? Such assertions are the foundation of primacy of consciousness thinking. I suspect you've written on this subject many times, which of your past essays would you recommend to educated the interested reader on how to respond to Christians such as the person I recently corresponded with?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-66651467703713678142008-06-14T15:48:00.000-04:002008-06-14T15:48:00.000-04:00Your best one yet - and I've read nearly all of th...Your best one yet - and I've read nearly all of them.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>-KKeithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14844529811179063030noreply@blogger.com