tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post6946718640536645323..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Anderson on the Lowder-Turek DebateBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-5691014867627900182017-06-10T10:19:20.632-04:002017-06-10T10:19:20.632-04:00Dawson noted // All too predictably, as “evidence”...Dawson noted // All too predictably, as “evidence” for the existence of a matter-creating consciousness, Turek points to the so-called “Big Bang,” ... //<br /><br />There are many hypotheses supported by objective observations and explaining those observations that explicitly indicate existence is past eternal and the origin of the big bang was a natural phenomenon.<br /><br />Eclectic Media, an Objectivist philosopher who engages in couter Christian apologetics on YouTube, posted many videos describing why the assertion that universe began at the big bang is not assumed extablish fact by scientific cosmology. <br /><br />https://youtu.be/XdZSYtDWvI8<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-68684461568030220002017-05-15T17:12:12.133-04:002017-05-15T17:12:12.133-04:00Great stuff, looking forward to the next one.
I w...Great stuff, looking forward to the next one.<br /><br />I watched about half of the debate video. Found Turek's formulation of the moral argument interesting in its tidy conciseness: "There is no injustice unless there's justice. And there is no justice unless God exists."<br /><br />How about this: "There is no malnutrition unless there is nutrition. And there's no nutrition unless a limitless supply of food exists."<br /><br />I guess an limitless food supply may be imagined as existing in Heaven. Christians could happily accept this strange conclusion. The reasoning still seems tenuous.<br /><br />To generalise this reasoning pattern: the existence of a frustrated desire implies the existence of something that promises a perfect fulfilment of that desire.<br /><br />Can anything other than wishful thinking substantiate this? (What conclusion ought one to draw from the existence of frustrated sexual desire?!)<br /><br />Earlier from Turek: "If there is no God, the man who did this to your sister is never gonna get justice. [...] Do you really think that's the way the universe is? Do you really think there's no such thing as justice?"<br /><br />Wait a second. If some criminals ultimately get away with their crimes, justice doesn't exist? That doesn't follow. What follows is: there's no perfectly-satisfied, universal justice. And that is what some people mean by the term 'justice' in some contexts. Then there's 'justice' as the moral ideal, conceived without any reference to it being fully realised. On my reading, Turek's argument fallaciously equivocates these.<br /><br />I started watching because I wanted to see how Lowder deals with the cosmological argument. Still got an hour and some change to go!<br />Jason mchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04117753894806913150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-43625413482930436692017-05-11T23:29:46.176-04:002017-05-11T23:29:46.176-04:00Hey Dawson,
Thank you for such a fantastic reply!...Hey Dawson,<br /><br />Thank you for such a fantastic reply! <br /><br />And may I say in response to your closing sentence "... MORE TO COME!"<br /><br />That's music to my ears!<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-52619378582958916632017-05-11T10:04:11.558-04:002017-05-11T10:04:11.558-04:00Hi Dawson,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. ...Hi Dawson,<br />Thanks for taking the time to respond. Yes, "Objection to Objectivism: Part 1" was what I was referring to. I don't keep up with Lowder's blog much either but after reading your review I decided to see if he had anything to say about the debate. The most recent blog post was on Objectivism so my first impression was that Lowder had read your critique and decided to critique Objectivism but since the post is not by Lowder I don't think that is the case. I read your update to Ydemoc. I am glad you are doing well and look forward to your next post. Take care. Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261581774826680756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-63247732898942120422017-05-10T20:26:55.685-04:002017-05-10T20:26:55.685-04:00Hi Joe,
Thanks for your comments. I really apprec...Hi Joe,<br /><br />Thanks for your comments. I really appreciate you advertising my blog, whenever and wherever you might do so. <br /><br />Regarding the critique of Objectivism on the Secular Outpost, do you mean specifically this blog entry? - <a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2017/05/08/objections-objectivism-part-1-three-popular-objections/" rel="nofollow">Objections to Objectivism – Part 1: Three Popular Objections</a><br /><br />?<br /><br />This entry interacts with a portion of a book called <i>The Fundamentals of Ethics</i> by someone named Russ Landau. That's not the film composer Russ Landau I take it? I'm not familiar with this book, so I did a quick search. Seems that it's by Russ Shafer-Landau (see <a href="https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/the-fundamentals-of-ethics-9780199997237?cc=us&lang=en&" rel="nofollow">here</a>).<br /><br />So, no, I haven't been following the critique of Objectivism on Lowder's blog, whether it's the above-mentioned post or some other post(s) on his blog. I have visited Lowder's blog maybe eight or 14 times now, including today's search prompted by your question. I tend not to find anything of interest there I'm afraid. In fact, for many years now, I tend not to look at atheist blogs. I don't like the sense of letdown and disappointment that always seems to overcome me when I have looked at atheist blogs, so I just tend not to visit them. I'd rather explore and learn what I think. And then I write. And since I love the fight, I'd rather read up on what apologists are up to. But I don't have much time for that these days, as I mentioned above in reply to Ydemoc.<br /><br />As for Lowder being unprepared to respond to presuppositionalist-type argumentation, we shouldn't be surprised by this. IMO, one needs a clear understanding of what Objectivism identifies as the axioms, the primacy of existence and the objective theory of concepts to respond effectively to presuppositionalist assertions. Without such an understanding, expect a lot of groping and flailing. <br /><br />That said, I do respect Lowder for some of his contribution to the debates of his I've watched, so I'm not trying to be overly critical here. But I think he still has a lot of homework to do in the area of primary philosophy. <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-32038297019536371652017-05-10T20:06:35.294-04:002017-05-10T20:06:35.294-04:00Hi Ydemoc,
As always, thanks for your comment and...Hi Ydemoc,<br /><br />As always, thanks for your comment and interest! <br /><br />Yes, it's true, when I posted my last anniversary entry, I did state that my activity on my blog very well may decrease moving forward. Perhaps that was more of a warning of contingency rather than a firm announcement, but given all that is going on my life - all good things, please know! - my time is consumed in many directions, and my responsibilities leave little time for my varied interests, interests which require a lot of focus. There's a difference between deep work and shallow work, and my interests are heavily freighted with full-faucet deep work. So they compete for any free time I might have. If I'm posting on my blog, that probably means I'm not developing a theme in a movement of a string quartet or some other work I've set out to compose. <br /><br />I guess I sense a need to explain myself. Sorry if I seem duplicitous in all this. Know that if something stirs my interest, my ire, my passion, I'll be on it like Tide on a stain. And when I survey what I have addressed and what I have yet to address in the vast field of apologetics and its labyrinthine excesses, I know I have yet much work to do! So I'll do my best to continue producing, as time and resources allow. Not sure what else to say! But I do appreciate the observation! And yes, you are due an explanation if there's even a slight conflict by my words and my actions.<br /><br />Yes, that is to say, MORE TO COME!<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-40146040642325340712017-05-10T14:30:52.253-04:002017-05-10T14:30:52.253-04:00I just watched the debate and Jeff gives some good...I just watched the debate and Jeff gives some good evidence but he seems to be totally unprepared to answer the presuppositional type questions and assertions. It is interesting how the evangelical apologists, who have traditionally been strictly evidential, are now slipping in presuppositional apologetics into their case for theism.I think the objective evidence is wearing on them so they are reduced to these mere assertions they have gotten from presuppositional apologetics. Sadly, most atheist debaters have no clue of how to respond to them which is why I try to point people to your site as much as I can. Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261581774826680756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-14314518453686402952017-05-10T10:07:20.408-04:002017-05-10T10:07:20.408-04:00Dawson, another good one. I enjoy all of your post...Dawson, another good one. I enjoy all of your posts. I was wondering if you saw the critique going on of Objectivism on Jeff Lowder's blog "Secular Outpost"? I would be interested in your thoughts concerning that critique. Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261581774826680756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-67941385283802505312017-05-09T22:14:42.605-04:002017-05-09T22:14:42.605-04:00Dawson,
I had gotten the impression that after yo...Dawson,<br /><br />I had gotten the impression that after your March 26th "Year Twelve" anniversary post, that we might not see you posting as frequently. <br /><br />It looks like I was (happily!) mistaken. <br /><br />Thanks for another one!<br /><br />Ydemoc Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.com