tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post8372167671864860805..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: At a Loss for Words: Rick Warden's Latest CommentBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-25237601138081843652014-05-13T05:14:30.602-04:002014-05-13T05:14:30.602-04:00Hello Frank,
Thank you for your comment and your ...Hello Frank,<br /><br />Thank you for your comment and your invite. <br /><br />Yes, I am absolutely certain in my atheism.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-90936076731408332662014-05-13T02:21:34.982-04:002014-05-13T02:21:34.982-04:00You seem highly educated and extremely assured on ...You seem highly educated and extremely assured on your atheism ...having visited Rick Wardens blog could I invite you over to the blog by Randal Rauser The Tentative Apologist blog Im sure youd be a welcome contributor over there.Randal Rauser.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17078155978265246901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-77631517209566636962014-03-17T17:18:01.590-04:002014-03-17T17:18:01.590-04:00Photo,
I saw your recent attempts to hold-hand Ri...Photo,<br /><br />I saw your recent attempts to hold-hand Rick Warden to the truth - one today and one last week some time. He simply refuses to acknowledge that he was completely wrong. I'm guessing he won't even check out the blog entry above that you linked to. It's clear as day that he is utterly wrong on so many points. Yet when called on it, he calls you a troll and wants to dissolve the discussion. Then he challenges others who may be reading to address his questions. Does he realize that his questions have already been addressed? If he does not read what has been explained to him, how could he know that his questions haven't already been answered? Like Jason Lisle, Warden is a pathlogical liar for Jesus through and through. <br /><br />As I stated, at a loss for words...<br /><br />At least these folks are showing the world what they're all about.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-81268988849466706392014-03-09T22:30:17.756-04:002014-03-09T22:30:17.756-04:00Dawson wrote
"Frankly, I have so much still y...Dawson wrote<br />"Frankly, I have so much still yet to say that I am having a hard time finding the time I need to keep at it"<br /><br />I am glad to hear that. Your blogs only get better and clearer. samonedohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14502545219196104567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-26764475734615833202014-02-20T18:41:26.849-05:002014-02-20T18:41:26.849-05:00In my several blog posts and comments interacting ...In my several blog posts and comments interacting directly with Warden’s attempted defenses, I asked many, many questions, virtually all of which he has ignored. I pressed him repeatedly on three in particular:<br /><br /><<<b> 1) If your god wills that an apple exists in a certain location at a certain time, will the apple come into existence as willed or not? <br /><br />2) If your god wills that the apple is of the golden delicious variety, will the apple be a golden delicious apple?<br /><br />3) If your god wills that the apple becomes a banana, will the apple become a banana?</b> >><br /><br />These are straight-to-the point polar questions (i.e., they need to be answered yes or no) which focus on the relationship in question – namely between the Christian god as a knowing subject and some object distinct from itself that it is claimed by Christianity to have made. <br /><br />When Warden did finally address my questions (see his 10 Feb comment <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2014/02/definition-of-metaphysical-primacy.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>), he answered them each with a “yes”. Of course, he has to. But in so doing he confirms the truth of the charge that Christianity assumes the primacy of consciousness in the relation between its god as a knowing subject and anything and everything distinct from itself - <i>regardless of whether or not that god is thought to have created itself or can or cannot extinguish its own existence</i>. <br /><br />He also says that I “claim… that it is a ‘red herring’ to <i>ask</i> for the definition of the central concept of the central argument” (emphasis added). But in fact I have nowhere said or even implied that it is a red herring simply to “ask” for a definition. Rather, Warden used his own confusions on the definition of metaphysical primacy in a most embarrassing attempt to shift focus away from my argument in order to quibble over some matter which his own worldview does not even address! All of Warden’s concern at this point was to avoid dealing with the implications of theism in terms of the subject-object relationship. That’s when Warden then accuses me of “refusing” to explain what the issue of metaphysical primacy refers to, which at this point can only be a bald-faced lie.<br /><br />Even worse now, instead of acknowledging that in fact I have addressed the concerns which Warden claims I “refuse” to explain, he now gives you a list of duties that you are now supposed to perform.<br /><br />He says that I have “made [myself] scarce,” but in fact I’m right where I’ve always been.<br /><br />The guy is really whacked. <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-70118859748999391562014-02-20T18:40:51.803-05:002014-02-20T18:40:51.803-05:00Photo,
I saw Warden's latest comments in repl...Photo,<br /><br />I saw Warden's latest comments in reply to you and Vince (<a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2014/02/definition-of-metaphysical-primacy.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>). <br /><br />Seriously, I frankly don't know what to say. He is so strung out on tangents, it's clear that he will never face the fundamental issues. <br /><br />At one point (details <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2014/02/at-loss-for-words-rick-wardens-latest.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>), he makes an accusation: “Dawson Bethrick refuses to define or clarify what Rand's "metaphysical primacy" specifically refers to.”<br /><br />As I have shown in the link, this accusation is so wildly off the mark as to suggest that Warden simply hasn’t paid any attention whatsoever to what has been presented to him, or that there’s some deeper defect in his comprehension skills.<br /><br />When you remind him of this, he launches off into yet further diversionary tactics, never once acknowledging that his accusation is completely false. In fact, he calls your comment “truly astounding” and goes on to accuse me of other transgressions. <br /><br />He then goes on to repeat his charge that I have indulged in “metaphysical cherry picking.” By this he apparently means I’m wrong to focus on certain facts which support my case (such as Christianity’s assumption of the primacy of consciousness in the relation between its god and everything it is said to have created). Why this would be wrong is beyond me. <br /><br />Then he goes on about my lying analogy, which I introduced simply to make a point which he has completely missed. He references an earlier post of his where he asks: “Why is Bethrick’s lying analogy an extremely poor example of metaphysical primacy regarding Premise 4?” But the lying analogy was not intended as an “example of metaphysical primacy,” but rather to show that an inconsistency does not erase anything that is actually there. <br /><br />Here’s what I originally wrote (<a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2014/01/wardens-persisting-failure-to-integrate.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>):<br /><br /><<<b> By analogy, suppose someone is caught lying. The evidence that he was lying is clear, and he even admits that he was lying. It will not do to say that in some other situation he was not lying, as if this would cancel out the fact that he was indeed lying in the first case. A lie is still a lie. </b>>><br /><br />Warden has repeatedly attempted to defend theism against the charge that it assumes the primacy of consciousness on the basis that theism does not claim that its god (a) created itself or (b) can extinguish itself by an act of will. None of this addresses the charge in question, just as citing a situation in which a liar was not lying does not erase (“cancel out”) the fact that he did lie on a particular occasion. I have shown ample evidence that theism assumes the primacy of consciousness in the relationship it affirms between its god and everything distinct from itself. Warden’s defense ignores all this and his own admissions to the same. If anyone is guilty of “metaphysical cherry picking,” it’s him, not me. <br /><br />I have repeatedly pointed out that even theists cannot maintain the primacy of consciousness <i>consistently</i> - i.e., in all areas of thought. Warden ignores this too.<br /><br />[continued…]Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-37307385704130123872014-02-19T09:46:22.591-05:002014-02-19T09:46:22.591-05:00Regarding the posting of comments over on Warden&#...Regarding the posting of comments over on Warden's blog:<br /><br />Last I checked, one (or maybe two) of my initial comments that I left over there, still hasn't been posted. <br /><br />When I brought my missing post to Warden's attention, he said that he checked his spam folder, but could not locate my missing comment. <br /><br />By the way, when I first began posting comments over there, I always had to wait for moderator approval. But then, when I submitted my post informing Rick of my missing comment, it went through immediately -- there was no waiting for approval.<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-42742872159353856642014-02-19T07:31:28.947-05:002014-02-19T07:31:28.947-05:00@Dawson
No, my comment much to my surprise went s...@Dawson<br /><br />No, my comment much to my surprise went straight threw where as my earlier attempt never posted at all. Oh by the way my anon poster has come back with more posts. I am having great fun trying to improve how I can explain why there are no infinites. He has asked me to clarify my use of the terms actual infinities and potential infinities. I will respond hopefully sometime tomorrow or the day after. Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-47511590135901329422014-02-19T01:59:01.089-05:002014-02-19T01:59:01.089-05:00Hi Photo,
That's odd. Whenever I've poste...Hi Photo,<br /><br />That's odd. Whenever I've posted a comment on Warden's blog, it went right through and published immediately, without requiring moderator approval. Maybe he's granted me some special pass without my knowing? I kinda doubt that. <br /><br />Justin posted a comment there recently. <br /><br />Justin,<br /><br />If you're reading this, do you recall having to wait for moderator approval on Rick Warden's blog when you commented there recently?<br /><br />But yes, Photo, I think one could say I was quite tireless in emphasizing just what the issue of metaphysical primacy has to do with, so Warden's behavior is quite inexplicable. Hence my loss for words!<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-27464263292404895052014-02-18T18:34:24.552-05:002014-02-18T18:34:24.552-05:00Dawson,
I told Rick that I was puzzled that he di...Dawson,<br /><br />I told Rick that I was puzzled that he did not notice all of your explanations about the primacy of existence, and what primacy means, despite you talk about that quite often, and that you explained that carefully and at length in your answers to his claims. The comment has not passed moderation after some days. What could that possibly mean?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-7813067251722260902014-02-18T06:11:02.924-05:002014-02-18T06:11:02.924-05:00Hi Breakerslion,
It's good to hear from you a...Hi Breakerslion,<br /><br />It's good to hear from you after all this time! <br /><br />Yes, sorry about the head-hurt after visiting the link on my blog. I probably should have posted a warning along with the link. Perhaps I've become a bit desensitized to Christian psychopathy. <br /><br />I am still going strong, since March 2005. I have plenty in the works for future postings. Frankly, I have so much still yet to say that I am having a hard time finding the time I need to keep at it.<br /><br />You wrote: "Truth is finite, bullshit is infinite." <br /><br />Well said! If there is anything that is "infinite," it is the extent to which an evader seeks to rationalize his evasions.<br /><br />I do like Justin's response to the claim that Pi is infinite. It's less than 3.2, a clearly finite quantity. How can a number that is less than a finite quantity itself be infinite? Indeed, we could say that Pi is less than 3.1416. I think Justin's response really puts the capper to this supposed counter-example. <br /><br />I have to say, I never find myself tiring at the amazing accomplishments of the human mind operating on reason. <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-77825406763172194532014-02-17T21:11:16.723-05:002014-02-17T21:11:16.723-05:00@ Justin Hall re. the infinite:
"Truth is fi...@ Justin Hall re. the infinite:<br /><br />"Truth is finite, bullshit is infinite." - JWBbreakerslionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14327290369084118043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-54173734903408432412014-02-17T21:06:19.069-05:002014-02-17T21:06:19.069-05:00Thanks. I followed your link, and now my head is f...Thanks. I followed your link, and now my head is full of fuck.<br /><br />Seriously, can God create a knothole so small that He Himself can't force an argument through it? ... let alone his minions?<br /><br />Happy New Year. Glad to see that some of us are still blogging. I'll be back.breakerslionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14327290369084118043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-32763937420062231352014-02-17T09:20:11.203-05:002014-02-17T09:20:11.203-05:00Cool Beans Friends. Pope Francis has hired JK Rowl...Cool Beans Friends. Pope Francis has hired JK Rowling To Rewrite The Bible. Can anybody give me an "You're only imagining your god."<br /><br />http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/01/21/church-hires-jk-rowling-to-rewrite-the-bible/<br /><br />Harry and Jesus together at last. Tis a match made in ??????. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-32668510030572201872014-02-14T13:43:10.454-05:002014-02-14T13:43:10.454-05:00One of the beautiful aspects of the argument from ...One of the beautiful aspects of the argument from the fact of existence related to the issue of metaphysical primacy is that all rational minded organisms directly sense their own subject vs object and perception vs awareness-of-perception relationships. We all, regardless of what species we may be or upon what planet we may live, know that to be aware of our own selves as subjects of consciousness we must first be aware of some object that is not our own consciousness. Otherwise then if self-awareness were not simultaneously an awareness of objects distinct from the subject of consciousness, Kant's consequent would validate. He knew this when he noted <br /><br />"The consciousness of my own existence is simultaneously a direct consciousness of the existence of other things outside of me."<br /><br />Explaining the relation between self-awareness and object awareness, Kant noted:<br /><br /> “The 'I think' must be capable of accompanying all my presentations. For otherwise something would be presented to me that could not be thought of at all-which is equivalent to saying that the presentation either would be impossible, or would be nothing to me." (I.K., Refutation of Material Idealism)<br /><br /> It seems quite impossible for a consciousness to "exist" without existence. <br /><br />Christians cannot get past Philosophy 101. That's OK. They can believe invisible pink unicorns are in their shoes if they wish, but there will be issues is they demand others do special things to their shoes in order to make the unicorns happy.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-45487859307507953432014-02-14T13:01:03.567-05:002014-02-14T13:01:03.567-05:00@Dawson
never mind I found it, my browser had a o...@Dawson<br /><br />never mind I found it, my browser had a old version of that page cached. <br /><br />@Robert<br /><br />Hey rob given your interest in science I was wondering if you could read this over and tell me if I conveyed the information in a easy to understand manor. <br /><br />http://court-of-reality.blogspot.com/2014/02/sidereal-period-vs-synodic-period.htmlJustin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-70289037555717693952014-02-14T12:18:21.156-05:002014-02-14T12:18:21.156-05:00@Dawson
Did Rick take down this post in embarrass...@Dawson<br /><br />Did Rick take down this post in embarrassment. I am unable to locate it on his blog. Also I see that he is unwilling to interact with what I have posted.Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-50477204803292651042014-02-14T12:02:36.329-05:002014-02-14T12:02:36.329-05:00I just had an anonymous poster try to tell me on m...I just had an anonymous poster try to tell me on my blog that I am incorrect in stating there are no known instances of the infinite. He used the example the number pi. I took the time to explain the difference between the potential and the actual. However I think I was wrong. I think there really is an example of the actual infinite in reality, the irrational stubbornness of one Mr Rick Warden. Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-47147669084927236222014-02-14T11:52:27.031-05:002014-02-14T11:52:27.031-05:00Hi Dawson,
The guy is amazing. You are kind to as...Hi Dawson,<br /><br />The guy is amazing. You are kind to assume Rick is merely "dense"; I think it is just as likely he is deliberately dishonest. I think Rick knows that most of his readers will only skim what he writes looking for anything that confirms their beliefs, and that few of them will ever visit your blog to see what you actually have written. This emboldens him to say whatever he wants, as part of the long tradition of liars for Jesus. I am reminded of a quote from Martin Luther:<br /><br />“What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.”<br /><br />Justin, thanks for your "facepalm" blog. Enjoyed it very much.blarkofanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09430986055242205576noreply@blogger.com