tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post822870096398152858..comments2024-03-29T07:36:41.429-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: A Reply to Dustin Segers’ Dismantled Blog Entry on ObjectivismBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger201125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-38081890262143066532012-12-15T21:27:36.128-05:002012-12-15T21:27:36.128-05:00You might enjoy this vigorous "Religious Fai...You might enjoy this vigorous "Religious Faith Vs Logic Debate" With Dustin Segers and Adam Johnson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuO0me-pCwc<br />ebecker2000https://www.blogger.com/profile/11268526771144615461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-21356748743525998272012-02-13T21:05:22.898-05:002012-02-13T21:05:22.898-05:00Test.Test.Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-34505583877789351312011-11-21T13:14:30.983-05:002011-11-21T13:14:30.983-05:00Great Justin, I'll be waiting.
By the way BB ...Great Justin, I'll be waiting.<br /><br />By the way BB has a new post.<br /><br />Ydemoc has already decided to waste time on it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-60435725585341707342011-11-21T08:39:08.377-05:002011-11-21T08:39:08.377-05:00@Nide
Good morning, and no I didn't remember ...@Nide<br /><br />Good morning, and no I didn't remember any dreams from last night:(. I will post this evening or maybe tomorrow in response to your inquiry. be well you stubborn and tenacious fundie:)Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-66002329881374680182011-11-21T01:16:19.389-05:002011-11-21T01:16:19.389-05:00Justin,
I remember most of my dreams. However, no...Justin,<br /><br />I remember most of my dreams. However, not every detail.<br /><br />Buy I think I have a better question or road go down.<br /><br />Honestly I think Rand's statement about conscious is arbitraty.<br /><br />So, I wanna see what you think<br /><br />At what stage of pregnancy do you think consciousness begins for the babe<br /><br />And when it becomes conscious what is the babe conscious of?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-4851653576827481122011-11-21T00:26:36.020-05:002011-11-21T00:26:36.020-05:00@Nide
I agree, I doubt very much either of us are...@Nide<br /><br />I agree, I doubt very much either of us are going to convince each other of pretty much anything at this point, I suspect we have both dug our heels in as it were.However I would like to explore your question<br /><br /><br />"By the way when your sleeping are you conscious of anything?"<br /><br />could you clarify this. I rarely ever remember my dreams tho I am told I actually have them. For me sleep is like a 6 to 7 hour interruption in my awareness of reality. I close my eyes and wham! its 6 to 7 hours later. So I don't really think that I am conscious in the conceptual awareness sense of the word during the time that I am asleep. Do you remember your dreams?Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-31855293296550726132011-11-21T00:16:20.120-05:002011-11-21T00:16:20.120-05:00@Nide
"By the way when your sleeping are you...@Nide<br /><br />"By the way when your sleeping are you conscious of anything?"<br /><br />Do you mean like dreaming or something to that effect?Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-45252558603436100602011-11-21T00:14:58.551-05:002011-11-21T00:14:58.551-05:00@Ydemoc
just for amusement I have attempted to cr...@Ydemoc<br /><br />just for amusement I have attempted to craft a coherent argument that would encapsulates Nide's position as much as I can fathom it. And I think I can actually make a valid argument, it just fails the principle of parsimony, they all end up being arbitrary and thus fail the soundness test.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-58134564209866967812011-11-21T00:09:38.118-05:002011-11-21T00:09:38.118-05:00Justin,
I asked about stars. Not the himalayas.
...Justin,<br /><br />I asked about stars. Not the himalayas.<br /><br />Seriously, what do mountains and stars have to do with each other.<br /><br />Anyway. I think this topic has ran it's course.<br /><br />By the way when your sleeping are you conscious of anything?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-33710919550670189002011-11-20T23:52:43.060-05:002011-11-20T23:52:43.060-05:00@NIde
the above question, either interact with it...@NIde<br /><br />the above question, either interact with it directly and attempt an answer or I will be very tempted to just ignore any further posts by you.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-60431826439387482042011-11-20T23:49:40.341-05:002011-11-20T23:49:40.341-05:00I ask again, why should I take a metaphysically su...I ask again, why should I take a metaphysically subjective paradigm seriously? Until I get a convincing coherent answer god belief is off the table as even a possibility for me.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-54005258008625702562011-11-20T23:48:34.125-05:002011-11-20T23:48:34.125-05:00Nide said.... I interacted with your WLC critique....Nide said.... I interacted with your WLC critique. My position stands an infinite regress is a contradiction. A self contained finite earth raises many questions. Like I said we must begin with something uncreated, rational and conscious. <br /><br />I have gone back over your post and the only thing you said that was relevant to my WLC critique was this<br /><br />“Not really. God has always been. He is the "starting" point. Even though he doesn't have a "start". It's a mystery.”<br /><br />Unfortunately this sentence is unintelligible, it is a complete non sequitur without any semantic meaning. If there is anyone reading this forum that can make sense of this please enlighten us. As for staring with something uncreated, rational and conscious. Well existence by its very meaning as the sum total of everything would have to be taken a a whole uncreated. As for rational, that is a property of conscious beings and a consciousness in order to be conscious would have to first be conscious of something, or put another way conscious of existence apart from its self. So no, we cant start with a consciousness, rational or otherwise. We have to start with existence. <br /><br />Nide said.... “Justin when I imagining stars forming out of dust and gases how is what I am imagining not imaginary?”<br /><br />That is not the relevant question. The relevant question is does what you are imagining have a referent in reality. And in this case yes, there are stars, and we have examples of them in each stage of formation. Now if you were imagining a pink dragon id ask you for its referent:)<br /><br />Nide said...... “Have you ever seen a star form or have scientist seen one form?”<br /><br />I guess the process of extrapolation is foreign to you? We have examples of stars forming in each stage of the process. Geologists can measure the increase in mountains that are growing each year, the Himalayas for example grow about an inch a year. Or are you a logical positivist, if you cant actually see it, you don't believe in it. But wait you cant actually see god with your senses can you?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Nide said.... “You keep telling about all this scientific data. Without even bothering to provide a source.”<br /><br />Really...... Really? I learned about how stars form from gas and dust in junior freaking high school back in 1984! and it was not new and controversial then. Are there things we still don't understand about how they form, sure. I said this before and I will say it again, omniscience is not a requirement for having validated and justifiable knowledge. Or put another way, incomplete knowledge is still knowledge. <br /><br />Here go educate yourself if you have even one inquisitive bone in your body. You will find half a page of citations at the bottom. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation<br /><br /><br />Nide said...... “P.S. Existence is invisible. It's interesting because God is invisible.”<br /><br />Remember existence is not a particular thing, it is the sum total of everything. Many of those things are very visible. I am visible, Jupiter is visible, my pet lizard is visible. Somethings are not such as alpha radiation. in which case we must rely on other means of detection such as a Geiger counter.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-84261717592950288462011-11-20T22:53:19.470-05:002011-11-20T22:53:19.470-05:00Justin,
I interacted with your WLC critique. My p...Justin,<br /><br />I interacted with your WLC critique. My position stands an infinite regress is a contradiction. A self contained finite earth raises many questions. Like I said we must begin with something uncreated, rational and conscious. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Justin when I imagining stars forming out of dust and gases how is what I am imagining not imaginary?<br /><br />Have you ever seen a star form or have scientist seen one form?<br /><br />You keep telling about all this scientific data. Without even bothering to provide a source.<br /><br /><br />P.S. Existence is invisible. It's interesting because God is invisible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-157475554310765732011-11-20T22:04:21.262-05:002011-11-20T22:04:21.262-05:00correction
In answer to Nide's statement
“W...correction<br /><br />In answer to Nide's statement <br /><br />“Well, if you can show otherwise. Feel free”"<br /><br />What am I to argue your case for you now? lol. I raise objections as to why I should accept your claim that god exists, namely the inherent metaphysical subjectivism of Christianity and you ask me to show how it could be otherwise? To date you have not argued that Christianity is not metaphysically subjective nor have you dealt with the dilemma that metaphysical subjectivism presents to the law of identity. Tho to be fair to you I do realize that task is impossible.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-49923312775538807032011-11-20T21:59:30.844-05:002011-11-20T21:59:30.844-05:00Nide said.... “They don't have a mind of their...Nide said.... “They don't have a mind of their own. If you disagree the burden is on you.”<br /><br />agreed the the Red Sea, the Earth's oceans and the rotation of the Earth do not have a mind of their own. I never said they did nor did I imply that they did. I wonder if you even comprehended my post at all?<br /><br /><br />Nide said.... “Not really. God has always been. He is the "starting" point. Even though he doesn't have a "start". It's a mystery.”<br /><br />Nide you just cant stay away from those fallacies can you? Two found here. On one had this is a clear case of special pleading, you reserve infinite regress for your god but not the universe without any justification. This leads into the second fallacy, another example of A is A and not A in the same time and the same respect (going to make a macro to past that one in!). Thus you also have committed the fallacy of non sequiter. <br /><br /><br />Nide said... “This is just as arbitary as, you say, making God the starting point is.”<br /><br />That statement was the conclusion to two prior lengthy paragraphs explaining in detail why this was the case. Do you choose to interact with them? Nope. I on the other hand went thru the last argument you posted point by point. Do you discuss my critique of W.L. Craigs objection to infinite regress, nope! Do you interact with my explanation of a finite bounded yet self contained universe? Nope!<br /><br />Nide said.... “Ok, God just is.”<br /><br />Ever hear of the principle of parsimony? I can see existence, I am interacting with it right now. Where is your god? Occum's razor “entities shall not be multiplied beyond necessity”.<br /><br /><br />Nide said..... “Because stars don't pop out of nowhere.”<br /><br />This hardly answers my question. However your statement is correct. In fact the science of astronomy has much to say on how stars form from gas and dust clouds within galaxies, fascinating stuff, and of course the bible has nothing useful to contribute to the study of stars. We had to use the scientific method, logic applied to gaining knowledge to learn about how stars form. <br /><br />Nide said..... “Something can't come from nothing.”<br /><br />Like I said earlier, something we both can actually agree upon, amen! <br /><br />Nide said..... “Creation is inevitable.”<br /><br />If you mean creation ex nilhio, then your statement just prior to this one is most curious...<br /><br />Nide said..... “By the way do stars<br />have a conscious can they reason?”<br /><br />To the best of our knowledge the answer would be a no.<br /><br />Nide said..... “Well, if you can show otherwise. Feel free”<br /><br />What am I to argue your case for you now? lol. I raise objections to why I should accept your claim that god exists, namely the inherent metaphysical subjectivism of Christianity and you ask me to show how it could be otherwise? To date you have not argued that Christianity is not metaphysically subjective nor have you dealt with the dilemma that metaphysical subjective presents to the law of identity. Tho to be far to you I do realize that task is impossible. <br /><br />Nide said...... “How about gravity is it conscious and can it reason?”<br /><br />Questions like this make me wonder if you have the faintest clue as to what my paradigm entitles. Well to answer, to the best of my knowledge the answer is no.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-34160914580309297112011-11-20T21:18:47.710-05:002011-11-20T21:18:47.710-05:00Justin,
Said: Oh really? Parting of the Red Sea, ...Justin,<br /><br />Said: Oh really? Parting of the Red Sea, Noah's flood, stopping the Earth's rotation just to name a few.<br /><br /><br />Well, the sea, floods, earth's rotation etc.<br /><br />They don't have a mind of their own. If you disagree the burden is on you.<br /><br /><br />You said: "Oddly however you seem to have over looked that fact that if it is a valid contradiction it would equally apply to your notion of an internally existing god."<br /><br /><br />Not really. God has always been. He is the "starting" point. Even though he doesn't have a "start". It's a mystery.<br /><br /><br />You said: "Regardless of weather the past is infinite or not, there is no place for god."<br /><br /><br />This is just as arbitary as, you say, making God the starting point is.<br /><br /><br />You said: "Existence just is."<br /><br /><br />Ok, God just is.<br /><br /><br />You said: "Actually you got that the wrong way round. Rationality is using logic in your reasoning."<br /><br /><br />If you are being logical you are being rational and if you are being rational you are being. I think we can interchange them.<br /><br /><br /><br />You said: "Nide said..... “Only something rational and conscious can be a starting point.”<br />why?"<br /><br /><br />Because stars don't pop out of nowhere.<br /><br />Something can't come from nothing.<br /><br />Creation is inevitable.<br /><br />Unless, you can show otherwise. By the way do stars<br />have a conscious can they reason?<br /><br /><br /><br />You asked: "Well you may think you know this, how did you thru logic justify it? How do you escape the paradox of metaphysical subjective?<br /><br /><br />Well, if you can show otherwise. Feel free<br /><br />How about gravity is it conscious and can it reason?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-57595338135798783152011-11-20T19:22:49.322-05:002011-11-20T19:22:49.322-05:00An additional point to make following up my earlie...An additional point to make following up my earlier post on the big bang. Many people have a misconception of the big bang, they think of it as an explosion that took place within space and time. This is incorrect, it is more accurate to think of it as an explosion of space and time. It is not expanding into anything. The expansion is what is creating more space and time.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-85348835438631956902011-11-20T19:10:27.597-05:002011-11-20T19:10:27.597-05:00An additional point to make following up my earlie...An additional point to make following up my earlier post on the big bang. Many people have a misconception of the big bang, they think of it as an explosion that took place within space and time. This is incorrect, it is more accurate to think of it as an explosion of space and time. It is not expanding into anything. The expansion is what is creating more space and time.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-46482671921790783082011-11-20T16:30:21.721-05:002011-11-20T16:30:21.721-05:00Nide said.... “3. The Existence that atheist want...Nide said.... “3. The Existence that atheist want to start with is arbitraty, "mindless" and irrational.”<br /><br />Concepts such as arbitrary, mindless and irrational do not really apply here when existence is taken as a whole. Existence just is. It is not here for any purpose or plan thus it cant be said to be arbitrary or otherwise. Most of it is mindless come to think of it, but of all the uncountable existants that make up all of existence there are 7 billion that are not mindless. Some of them are irrational some of the time so I guess in some sense yes at least parts of existence at times are irrational. <br /><br />Nide said.... “4. Logic assumes rationality “<br /><br />Actually you got that the wrong way round. Rationality is using logic in your reasoning. <br /><br />Nide said..... “Only something rational and conscious can be a starting point.”<br />why?<br /><br />Nide said.... “6. Since the world we live in is logical we also know it is <br />rational.”<br />World, universe, existence, whatever you wish to call it is neither logical nor illogical, it just unconditionally is. We use logic to understand it, to provide a conceptual framework for understanding and building knowledge. Logic is a method of the mind, nothing more than that.<br /><br />7. Therefore, we KNOW our starting point must be God.<br />Well you may think you know this, how did you thru logic justify it? How do you escape the paradox of metaphysical subjective?Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-92177594278324092852011-11-20T16:29:43.534-05:002011-11-20T16:29:43.534-05:00Nide said...... “2. Something can't come from ...Nide said...... “2. Something can't come from nothing.”<br /><br />Hey something we agree on! First thing if this statement is true it rules out ex nihilo creation as that is surely something from nothing, so this is a real problem for Christianity to deal with if they are going to maintain this stance. However I do understand your intent here, so allow me to expand on this. You are thinking that I am claiming the big bang came from nothing. This is not the case. “Come from” is an action and the concept action presupposes the concept time which in turn presupposes the concept existence. So in order for the big bang to have come from anything or nothing for that matter their would have to have been time prior to the big bang. If this is the case then we have the possibility of infinite regress or have at least pushed back further into the past the bounds of existence. The interesting alternative however is that there is no prior to the big bang, no existence. In this case no, the big bang is not something from nothing. Something has always existed. The concept always presupposes time as well. The consequence of my realizing this is that regardless of whether the past is infinite or not, existence has always existed. I do realize this is a difficult concept to grasp. That the universe can be finite bounded yet self contained. Think of the earth, it is sphere with a finite surface area yet no edge you can come to. The universe according special and general relativity is a 4 dimensional hyper sphere, 3 spacial dimensions curved thru time. Earlier I said asking what came before the big bang was like asking what is five miles north of the north pole, it is an apt analogy. The big bang is like a pole on the 4 dimensional hyper sphere with the latitude lines representing increasing time sense the big bang and longitude lines representing space, which gets further part the farther you are from the north pole (big bang) as the universe expand. The expansion actually stretches out space making more of it. The closer you get to the pole (big bang) the more crowded space becomes and the less “past time” there is between you and the big bang. At the pole all space is the same space and time not so much stops as no longer is meaningful. Is it meaningful to ask which way is north if you are standing on the north pole? If you do not understand this I sympathize, it took me a while as well. We understand things in terms of allegories to things we can touch, see, interact with. Science in the 20th century has brought us into contact with ideas that we simply cant relate to anything we have in our ordinary lives. Quantum mechanics is one such example, the idea of a first moment in time for which there is no prior moment is another such idea. So in summation, let me be clear, I am not advocating something from nothing. Regardless of weather the past is infinite or not, there is no place for god.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-91910442189219168912011-11-20T16:28:48.535-05:002011-11-20T16:28:48.535-05:00@Ydemoc
Here we go again! I must be a glutton for...@Ydemoc<br /><br />Here we go again! I must be a glutton for punishment. Hope you enjoy<br /><br /><br />Nide said..... “is matter orderly?”<br /><br />I would say matter has identity. Sometimes such as in turbulence this is not orderly, other times such as in crystals it is very orderly/<br /><br />Nide said... “How about rationality did it come irrationality?”<br /><br />Not sure what you are asking here, I would say no.<br /><br /><br />Nide said.... “So, Here's the conflict you say if reality is subject to God we couln't know anything. Well, I have said this plenty of times God can't make lies true. So, no he can't alter reality.”<br /><br />Oh really? Parting of the Red Sea, Noah's flood, stopping the Earth's rotation just to name a few.<br /><br /><br />Nide said.... “1.An infinite regress is a contradiction.”<br /><br />Yes, Williams Lane Craig took this exact same approach with the Kalam argument. However you are wrong here. The objection is as follows. If we have infinite regress it would take forever to count up to the present, yet here we are at the present so we cant have infinite regress. This counter to this is that if we have an infinite regress there is no starting point to count up from. No matter how far into the past you go there is still an infinite past behind any point in time you choose. That is right, any point in time has an infinite past. Any fraction of infinite on the other hand is a finite number. On such a infinite time line all you can do is measure the time distance between any two arbitrary points and that distance will always be finite. Of course as I have said before my world view does not hinge on the universe having an infinite past, it is compatible with it or without it. Oddly however you seem to have over looked that fact that if it is a valid contradiction it would equally apply to your notion of an internally existing god. <br /><br /><br />continuedJustin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-76851058835060888002011-11-20T16:17:35.477-05:002011-11-20T16:17:35.477-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-68479982479138112172011-11-20T16:07:58.360-05:002011-11-20T16:07:58.360-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-1292795424881017512011-11-20T16:07:31.906-05:002011-11-20T16:07:31.906-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-82262034098132879492011-11-20T16:06:53.821-05:002011-11-20T16:06:53.821-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.com