tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post8845358624818670549..comments2024-03-27T09:11:00.450-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: Warden’s “Addenda” regarding the Nature of TruthBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-4296247213087522062014-01-05T02:33:47.450-05:002014-01-05T02:33:47.450-05:00Okay, I know I should be working on other things t...Okay, I know I should be working on other things today, but this was just too much fun. So I have posted yet another interaction with Warden's persistently point-missing drivel. You can access it here:<br /><br /><a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2014/01/spinning-out-of-orbit-rick-warden-lost.html" rel="nofollow">Spinning Out of Orbit: Rick Warden Lost in the Outer Limits</a><br /><br />Okay, now I really do have to get some things done. <br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-87953564749574589202014-01-04T18:17:34.574-05:002014-01-04T18:17:34.574-05:00Dawson & Justin,
I have just posted a comment...Dawson & Justin,<br /><br />I have just posted a comment over at Rick's, asking him how he squares his contradictory comments regarding metaphysical primacy.<br /><br />I'm waiting for his reply.<br /><br />http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/12/bethricks-refined-primacy-argument.html?showComment=1388877123064#c5223279916736247182<br /><br />Ydemoc<br /><br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-37336436167320060372014-01-04T14:56:37.088-05:002014-01-04T14:56:37.088-05:00Yes it does nicely, thank you. If Rick reads these...Yes it does nicely, thank you. If Rick reads these comments I would love to hear how he will answer them. Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-90052050824133875192014-01-04T14:54:21.122-05:002014-01-04T14:54:21.122-05:00I posted the following over on Warden's blog:
...I posted the following over on Warden's blog:<br /><br /><b>Justin asked: "Can god make is snow green flakes?"<br /><br />Rick responded: "Yes."<br /><br />How would your god do this, Rick? If it did do this, would its conscious activity be involved somehow?</b><br /><br />Let's see how Warden answers this, if he chooses to do so.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-64802431376745760792014-01-04T14:45:49.384-05:002014-01-04T14:45:49.384-05:00Justin,
How's this?
************
Suppose t...Justin,<br /><br />How's this?<br /><br /><br />************<br /><br />Suppose the Christian god, in its all-wise counsel, decided to make all the snow that I had ever observed in my lifetime up to recent times green. And yet, in the past few weeks it decided, in its all-wise counsel, to make snow white. Suppose further that, in its all-wise counsel, it decided to erase from my mind all memories of snow being green and replaced them with memories of snow being white all along. <br /><br />1) Could an omnipotent god do this? <br /><br />2) If no, why not? <br /><br />3) If yes, how would I know what’s taken place? <br /><br />************<br /><br /><br />Does that more or less capture what you wanted to ask Warden?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-71604359586942194072014-01-04T14:41:19.701-05:002014-01-04T14:41:19.701-05:00Dawson & Justin,
Interesting developments. I...Dawson & Justin,<br /><br />Interesting developments. I'll definitely take a look at Rick's newest entry, but it will have to be later on this afternoon or this evening. <br /><br />In the meantime, perhaps Rick could try and square the following two quotes:<br /><br />A recent quote of Rick's: "In essence, Lanza proposes that consciousness holds supremacy over the material world. This, of course, is in keeping with the biblical account of Genesis in which the material world was created by the consciousness and will of God."<br /><br />An older quote, from among Dawson's first interactions with him on this blog: "While I agree that reality exists independent of consciousness, I do not agree with many of the subjective assumptions of Atheistic Objectivism." (September 27, 2010 9:27 AM)<br /><br />So which is it, Rick? Does existence exist independent of consciousness or doesn't it?<br /><br />Ydemoc<br /><br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-3039731430522599132014-01-04T14:27:44.739-05:002014-01-04T14:27:44.739-05:00Hi Justin,
Yes, I see that your comment posted ov...Hi Justin,<br /><br />Yes, I see that your comment posted over on Warden's blog entry.<br /><br />Notice also that Warden has recently adopted the peculiar habit of quoting entire posts of mine (in blue) at the end of his posts reacting to mine. I'm guessing he does this to show the world that he has read what I have published. But it does not show this. The content of his own blogs only show that, if indeed he has read what I have written, he is missing the entire motherboard necessary for basic comprehension. Really, I can only suppose that he's trying to persuade himself that he has an answer to my argument. He must really be experiencing some deep psychological fits lately, for nothing he does is working. Pretty funny actually.<br /><br />Well, as I always say, Christians <i>are</i> the entertainment. And Warden is no disappointment.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-51407346787466114822014-01-04T14:16:45.906-05:002014-01-04T14:16:45.906-05:00Well guys his death wish continues. he has posted ...Well guys his death wish continues. he has posted a new diatribe on the nature of truth. I posted this question to him<br /><br />"Rick can god make is snow green flakes and erase from my memory that it ever snowed white flakes and if he can how would we ever prove he had or hadn't or would or wouldn't? "<br /><br />Ok it is an awful example of a run on sentence, sorry. However I wounder how he will answer. <br />Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-22011858550353862014-01-04T14:14:45.867-05:002014-01-04T14:14:45.867-05:00Hi Ydemoc,
You wrote: “Most of my notes have to d...Hi Ydemoc,<br /><br />You wrote: “Most of my notes have to do with Rick's repeated insistence that his alleged god is eternal and that it didn't create itself; and how these claims have absolutely no bearing upon upon your argument and the primacy of existence.”<br /><br />What’s striking is that Warden does not even try to explain how his god’s being eternal is supposed to constitute a challenge to my argument. Apparently Warden thinks it’s self-evident. But in actuality, what’s self-evident is that just by raising this point, he betrays the fact that he simply does not grasp the issue of metaphysical primacy to begin with. If Warden understood the nature of my argument and what the issue of metaphysical primacy has to do with, he would have known that the claim that his god is eternal is irrelevant to the matter at hand and thus of no use as a challenge to my argument.<br /><br />Warden has posted a new entry on his blog. It can be found here:<br /><br /><a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2014/01/metaphysical-primacy-timeless-truth-and.html" rel="nofollow">Metaphysical Primacy, Timeless Truth and Atheist Presuppositionalism</a><br /><br />Again, he fails to interact with my argument entirely. He continues to think that pointing out that his god is eternal (as he imagines it) is somehow relevant to my argument. I have explained numerous times how it is not, and yet he claims to have read my posts. At no point does he discuss the relationship between consciousness and its objects, even though I have pointed this out many, many times now. Nor does he discuss the issue of facts obtaining independent of conscious activity as the basis of truthful identifications. At least Segers seems to have had enough sense to drop it. By contrast, Warden continues to ram his head into a brick wall, never noticing the pools of blood accumulating at his feet.<br /><br />In his comment to you (found <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/12/bethricks-refined-primacy-argument.html?showComment=1388858913916#c8599551338476253915" rel="nofollow">here</a>), he writes:<br /><br /><<<b>I did review Dawson's two recent replies. If you read my latest post you will see that I am attempting to hold Dawson's feet to the fire with regard to relevant points that undermine his arguments. He has a habit of drifting off into irrelevant points. This is one reason why simple logical arguments and syllogisms are valuable, they force one to come to terms with specific relevant points they would otherwise attempt to avoid.</b>>><br /><br />Truly, I think this guy has gone completely mental. I’m at a loss as how to someone with all his marbles in place could spew such bizarre absurdities. He’s holding my feet to the fire? Good grief! Rick Warden is a classic example of the human mind fried in the deep vat of Christian mysticism.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-23094015341415656152014-01-04T01:20:29.615-05:002014-01-04T01:20:29.615-05:00Hi Dawson,
Thanks for your response to my comment...Hi Dawson,<br /><br />Thanks for your response to my comments.<br /><br />You wrote: "I noticed that Warden did recently publish a comment of yours."<br /><br />Yes, I submitted that one yesterday, I believe. And what's odd is that it went through right away. No "published after approval" stuff -- it appeared immediately after I submitted it. But last I checked, the others I submitted still haven't been published, as I indicated in my most recent comment over on Rick Warden's blog. <br /><br />In any event, I wrote down a few notes while reading your most recent post. Most of my notes have to do with Rick's repeated insistence that his alleged god is eternal and that it didn't create itself; and how these claims have absolutely no bearing upon upon your argument and the primacy of existence.<br /><br />If anything, when the theist alleges that his god is eternal and that it did not create itself, then this claim opens the door to a host of other major issues which the theist needs to explain. <br /><br />Such problems do not plague the Objectivist's position. <br /><br />Ydemoc<br /> Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-12310141787015153482014-01-03T18:31:38.836-05:002014-01-03T18:31:38.836-05:00Hi Ydemoc,
I noticed that Warden did recently pub...Hi Ydemoc,<br /><br />I noticed that Warden did recently publish a comment of yours. I think it was the more recent one. He published it on his blog <a href="http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/12/bethricks-refined-primacy-argument.html" rel="nofollow">Bethrick’s Refined Primacy Argument Against God Refuted</a>. As of the time of my writing this, he has not posted a response to your comment or interacted with my examination of his “Addenda” section. Nor has he published a new blog entry. Perhaps he’s still in his shed sharpening his axe.<br /><br />Your alternative version of Sye’s canned slogan – "Other human beings have informed me about it such that it's complete hearsay that I can repeat it and feel good in pretending that I'm certain about" – is a vast improvement over the standard line from his playbook in that it more accurately encapsulates what’s involved. If Sye were honest, he’d say something more along these lines. By claiming that things have been “revealed” to him, he’s implying that he’s received “private revelations” and/or has a direct communication path with his god (as opposed to the typical “natural revelation” and “special revelation” routes affirmed by Calvinists, corresponding to the natural world and the Christian bible respectively, interpreted of course by fallible human faculties). They deny the law of identity by trying to evade the fact that they themselves are fallible. Appealing to a supernatural mind that they imagine as a surrogate for their own is their attempt to do just this. It’s embarrassingly transparent. That they would think that such retorts would impress non-believers only shows how out of touch they are with the nature of the antithesis that divides their worldview from worldviews aimed at dealing with reality as it really is – i.e., objectively (not that all non-believers have adopted such a perspective, mind you…).<br /><br />Anyway, let’s stay tuned. Warden has an intellectual death wish, so he’ll likely come back at some point throwing himself on his sword again.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-8450947347996065802014-01-02T19:54:27.813-05:002014-01-02T19:54:27.813-05:00Dawson,
Great post.
Rick Warden still hasn't...Dawson,<br /><br />Great post.<br /><br />Rick Warden still hasn't published the comments I left over on his blog a week or so ago. Perhaps he's decided not to publish them at all. Who knows? I'm guessing he at least reads them. If so, I think I'll drop him another line and let him know what's waiting for him over here. <br /><br />Based upon that Thomas Paine quote, perhaps people like Sye, Dan and others of their ilk ought to revise their worn out slogan from, "God has revealed it such that I can be certain of it," to "Other human beings have informed me about it such that it's complete hearsay that I can repeat it and feel good in pretending that I'm certain about." <br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.com