tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post7769525774913219458..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Jason Petersen on the Fallacy of Pure Self-ReferenceBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-40103134658273801072014-12-06T22:54:27.772-05:002014-12-06T22:54:27.772-05:00Can a company have values?Can a company have values?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08459235385224111176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-7725507387954431492014-11-09T21:14:08.937-05:002014-11-09T21:14:08.937-05:00Dawson,
You said; "if pure self-reference we...Dawson,<br /><br />You said; "if pure self-reference were not a problem, then the apologist would not have to add more to the story."<br /><br />They would argue that it is not them per se that are adding anything to the apologetic. Obviously, they would say that this idea was present in the scripture all along. Splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned, since they are just moving it all back a step to someone else who's dreamt it up rather than they themselves. <br /><br /> <br />You said, " the whole thing is blatantly ad hoc..."<br /><br />Agreed. I recently got into a cursory discussion about my atheism with a fellow co-worker who is still a practicing theist but with whom I share the same denominational background. Asking him to define the "how" was precisely the stumbling block for him that evoked the patented, canned responses like, "Well, I'm glad I don't have to take a man's word for it"; and "I'm glad I trust in God". Yeah, he basically threw his hands up and bashed man's ability to reason without provocation. Odd response. Now I see the kind of pain in the neck I was when I still held to the same devotional commitment.<br /><br />You said, "How many seats of consciousness are there in the trinity? One? Three?"<br /><br />I have often wondered how multiplying the problem helps to solve it. If one needs objects outside of his consciousness to even call what he has true consciousness, why would having two extra consciousness solve the issue. Then there are just three consciousness that need objective reality to inform their existence. Right?<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for the response. I have been reading along. Just too busy to write as often as I'd like. Cheers.<br /><br />Daniel<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08459235385224111176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-8528927740436865122014-11-09T18:03:34.258-05:002014-11-09T18:03:34.258-05:00Hi Ydemoc,
Nice to hear from you!
You wrote: “Ag...Hi Ydemoc,<br /><br />Nice to hear from you!<br /><br />You wrote: “Again, I haven't had very much time to post my thoughts, but I wanted to chime in to say that I've certainly been reading. Excellent stuff!”<br /><br />Thanks! I’ve had a little burst of activity on my blog in the last couple months. I will try to get more up later, but things are starting to get busy for me again.<br /><br />You wrote: “What strikes me (and it's really not much of a surprise) is the way Jason Peterson tries to defend his fantastical notions at all costs, in seemingly knee-jerk fashion, clearly sacrificing reason in the process.”<br /><br />Petersen apparently thinks he’s some kind of firebrand dishing up something original. He’s so caught up in his fantasies to see that the path he’s walking is well-worn and strewn with carcasses of thinkers much mightier than himself. <br /><br />I do notice that, so far, he’s not made good on his promise to make me eat my words… <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-60057977498274606892014-11-09T18:03:20.154-05:002014-11-09T18:03:20.154-05:00Hello Daniel,
It’s good to hear from you. Thanks ...Hello Daniel,<br /><br />It’s good to hear from you. Thanks for your question.<br /><br />You asked: “Wouldn't an ‘answer’ to the problem of pure self-ref be that God is not temporal, but existing at all times? He is present in the past and the future.”<br /><br />Yes, I’ve seen this kind of response before. Does it answer the problem of divine lonesomeness or obvert the fallacy of pure self-reference? In fact, I think it makes matters worse for the apologist. First of all, right off we can say that such a response is at least a tacit acknowledgement of the underlying problem: if pure self-reference were not a problem, then the apologist would not have to add more to the story. <br /><br />Second, the whole thing is blatantly ad hoc – just posit a magic consciousness, and that solves all problems. Such notions just confirm that the believer’s imagination – not facts, not objective reference to reality – is his fundamental guide here.<br /><br />But even worse, I would see such a response as a denial of the axiom of consciousness. Since consciousness is a type of activity, the notion an “atemporal consciousness” essentially denies the very nature of consciousness as such. To be conscious of something is to be conscious of something at a specific time. When did I see the car coming? Right before the bus turned into its lane. I did not see this before it happened, and I’m not seeing this two weeks after the incident. This is all due to the fact that consciousness is a type of activity. What evidence is there for such a thing as a single action that is eternal?<br /> <br />You asked: “If they imagine him as present in the past ‘before’ he created existence, but simultaneously present after the point of creation, he would be ‘aware’ of existence/existants even when all that existed was him.”<br /><br />The key here is “imagine.” Of course, the theist can imagine whatever he wants. We all can. But that’s all the theist has to go on when it comes to such matters. Of course, the theist would need to explain the *how* involved in all this, but then again, he’d just be imagining here as well. Again, it’s all ad hoc. <br /><br />You asked: “Also, wouldn't they also fall back on the triune nature?”<br /><br />Yes, this has also been cited in response to the problem of divine lonesomeness. But this only multiplies the problem. How many seats of consciousness are there in the trinity? One? Three? It doesn’t matter either way. If the triune god created everything distinct of itself, then it could not be consciousness of anything distinct of itself until it created anything distinct from itself. To suggest that it was conscious of things before it created them is simply to confuse objective reality with divine imagination. Such a consciousness would surely be eternally confused!<br /><br />Thoughts?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-32884855018770546292014-11-09T14:18:59.166-05:002014-11-09T14:18:59.166-05:00Dawson,
Again, I haven't had very much time t...Dawson,<br /><br />Again, I haven't had very much time to post my thoughts, but I wanted to chime in to say that I've certainly been reading. Excellent stuff!<br /><br />What strikes me (and it's really not much of a surprise) is the way Jason Peterson tries to defend his fantastical notions at all costs, in seemingly knee-jerk fashion, clearly sacrificing reason in the process. <br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-72344410450178700692014-11-09T12:59:43.393-05:002014-11-09T12:59:43.393-05:00*Erratum; I meant to reference "The Problem o...*Erratum; I meant to reference "The Problem of Divine Lonesomeness" in that comment* Pardon my speed and now my subsequent laziness in not rewriting it. Thanks. <br /><br />Daniel Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08459235385224111176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-78279956144352620072014-11-09T12:55:38.983-05:002014-11-09T12:55:38.983-05:00Hey Dawson/All,
Wouldn't an "answer"...Hey Dawson/All,<br /><br />Wouldn't an "answer" to the problem of pure self-ref be that God is not temporal, but existing at all times? He is present in the past and the future. <br /><br />If they imagine him as present in the past "before" he created existence, but simultaneously present after the point of creation, he would be "aware" of existence/existants even when all that existed was him. <br /><br />Also, wouldn't they also fall back on the triune nature? <br /><br />Thanks for the read,<br />DanielAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08459235385224111176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-90737220970628526002014-11-02T14:41:11.742-05:002014-11-02T14:41:11.742-05:00Photo,
Egads! I'm losing my mojo!
Thanks for...Photo,<br /><br />Egads! I'm losing my mojo!<br /><br />Thanks for pointing these out.<br /><br />I have corrected the offending errors. Hopefully it's better now!<br /><br />Thanks!<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-59301599803196981772014-11-02T12:44:39.084-05:002014-11-02T12:44:39.084-05:00Another great post!
Thank you!
regards, Johan (Swe...Another great post!<br />Thank you!<br />regards, Johan (Sweden)l_johan_khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15467379458813206767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-84107504125775143562014-11-02T10:45:29.399-05:002014-11-02T10:45:29.399-05:00Hey Dawson,
A few mistakes:
The link to "An...Hey Dawson,<br /><br />A few mistakes:<br /><br />The link to "Anton Thorn’s God and Pure Self-Reference" does not go to Anton's God and Pure Self-reference, but to Petersen's bullshit.<br /><br />You wrote self-interest instead of self-reference here: "the fallacy of pure self-interest, is in fact the only proper starting point."<br /><br />You wrote "primacy of consciousness" here: "he is implying that his statement denotes a fact that obtains independently of anyone’s conscious activity. That’s the primacy of consciousness." I think there you meant "primacy of existence."<br /><br />Best!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com