tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post946152279968979697..comments2024-03-29T07:36:41.429-04:00Comments on Incinerating Presuppositionalism: A Lesson on Presuppositional GimmickryBahnsen Burnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-83524149879768269322013-05-30T16:36:11.109-04:002013-05-30T16:36:11.109-04:00http://www.jasonlisle.com/ hey Dawson I think you ...http://www.jasonlisle.com/ hey Dawson I think you might want to take a look on this website and make a few posts..wakawakwakahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15264808613704582683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-27593184742682574772013-04-15T12:54:31.236-04:002013-04-15T12:54:31.236-04:00Dawson,
You wrote: "Meanwhile, I just posted...Dawson,<br /><br />You wrote: "Meanwhile, I just posted a new entry on my blog:<br /><br />'Dear Apologist: Can You Demonstrate that You’re the Real McCoy?'"<br /><br />Very nice!<br /><br />And with this being a day off from work, I'm looking forward to settling in and giving it a good read! <br /><br />With the little extrime time I have today, I also plan on responding to an apologist named "DanOhBrian" who, over on Debunking Christianity, wrote: "“Not one person gave evidence that there was no such thing as God.”<br /><br />Using a couple of your quotes, I've already provided him with a little instruction on why it is not the atheist who must shoulder this burden. But I don't think it sunk in.<br /><br />Next, I plan to explain to him that in the act of making his truth claim (or any truth claim), he himself is providing evidence that there is no such thing as god. <br /><br />Then I plan to direct him to your two blog entries: <br /><br />A Proof that the Christian God Does Not Exist<br /><br />http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2011/07/proof-that-christian-god-does-not-exist.html <br /><br />And:<br /><br />The Imaginitive Nature of Christian Theism<br /><br />http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2010/05/imaginative-nature-of-christian-theism.html<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-85260939457891661952013-04-15T11:25:19.946-04:002013-04-15T11:25:19.946-04:00Below is the comment I submitted this evening to D...Below is the comment I submitted this evening to <a href="" rel="nofollow">D.A.N.’s blog</a>:<br /><br /><i>Freddies wrote: “I thought you professed to believe in a God who doesn't like lying? Or is it all OK because you're only lying to a non-believer so it doesn't count?”<br /><br />Surely any moral indiscretion on the part of the believer when a non-believer is involved does not count against the believer. But we also have to keep in mind that D.A.N. worships a god which is said to have “a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists” (Greg Bahnsen, “The Problem of Evil,” <i>Always Ready</i>, p. 172). This not only means that the Christian god is on cozy terms with evil, it also means that it makes use of evil to achieve its aims. With faith, the ends always justify the means. Plus we’ve already seen that it is indifferent to values.<br /><br />Now, it is most curious to me that Christian apologists fire off all these questions about epistemology for non-believers to respond to, and then complain when the answers given to those questions are a few paragraphs long (as opposed to a 700-plus page book or simply a hyperlink to a whole website with the instruction “see here”). It’s clear that D.A.N. has never done a full study on epistemology – the literature on the topic is virtually endless, and yet attempts have been made here to feed D.A.N. bite-sized nuggets of knowledge so that even with his wavering attention span, he’d at least recognize that there are answers to the questions his apologetic program has him ask. He shows neither interest in increasing his knowledge and understanding nor gratitude for the attention that has been given to his oh-so pressing questions (which his own worldview cannot answer in the first place!).<br /><br />I’m glad these aren’t my problems!<br /><br />Regards,<br />Dawson</i>Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-69258236657361118862013-04-15T11:24:55.360-04:002013-04-15T11:24:55.360-04:00All,
I suspect that D.A.N. has now decided to mod...All,<br /><br />I suspect that D.A.N. has now decided to moderate my comments (or, at any rate, prevent them from immediately appearing on his blog once I’ve submitted them). I submitted a comment on <a href="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2013/04/atheist-day.html" rel="nofollow">D.A.N.’s blog</a> responding to a comment by freddies_dead this evening, and even though I received an auto-generated e-mail from D.A.N.’s blog containing my comment (perhaps others may have also?), it has not shown up on D.A.N.’s blog. I have refreshed the page, but it still is not showing up.<br /><br />If D.A.N. is indeed moderating my comments (or however he may otherwise characterize his action), I would wholly agree that he has complete right to do so. However, given a statement he made about comment moderation on my blog recently, it does not seem that his action was intended as a form of flattery. In the comments of my <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2013/03/incinerating-presuppositionalism-year.html" rel="nofollow">Year Eight anniversary post</a>, D.A.N. wrote the following (March 30, 2013 1:16 PM):<br /><br /><< <i>if anyone moderates me and does not allow my comments, like many of the Atheist blogs do and have done, then I do not return to that blog ever again. It is such a slap in the face, I take it to heart</i> >><br /><br />Later, D.A.N. wrote (April 01, 2013 4:16 PM):<br /><br /><< <i> I do not moderate (do unto others…)</i> >><br /><br />Now, it may be that D.A.N. is not putting a hold on my comment and that I am somehow mistaken in suspecting that he has done so. Perhaps my comment is not showing up for some reason other than D.A.N.’s intervention somehow. But it still seems strange that my comment would arrive in my inbox as an e-mail (I have subscribed to D.A.N.’s blog entry for updates in the comments) but my comment does not show up in the comments of D.A.N.’s blog entry as such.<br /><br />I will post my comment here so that readers can see what I wrote.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I just posted a new entry on my blog:<br /><br /><a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2013/04/dear-apologist-can-you-demonstrate-that.html" rel="nofollow">Dear Apologist: Can You Demonstrate that You’re the Real McCoy?</a><br /><br />I would really like D.A.N. and other apologists to read this, and return with their reaction to it.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-34424813812132377612013-04-15T11:24:51.229-04:002013-04-15T11:24:51.229-04:00@Robert
Yup, quantum mechanics is not metaphysica...@Robert<br /><br />Yup, quantum mechanics is not metaphysically subjective. If you want experimental result x you just do y, just like every other damn thing in reality. The thing that is trippy however is that in certain circumstances a particle can have multiple values for say energy, position or momentum all at once. However validate mysticism this does not. Justin Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17804641315202800289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-42365790221613438562013-04-15T10:32:34.780-04:002013-04-15T10:32:34.780-04:00Hello friends: After briefly scanning the thread, ...Hello friends: After briefly scanning the thread, I see that Br. Edward invoked the false notion that conscious observers cause wave function collapse in some unnamed quantum experiment in an attempt to validate his claim that subatomic particles are made from "consciousness". Setting aside Doctor X's correct statement posted in the Skeptic Community Forum thread that "Consciousness is not a substance.", Br. Edwards attempt at validation fails because it is known that the results of double slit experiments are consistently the same whether a living person is present to observe or not. If the experiment is run in a sealed room without observers or recording devices, the characteristic interference pattern manifests on the experiment's phosperesent screen if particle detectors mounted on the slits are turned off, and if detectors are turned on then the resultant particle scattering centered on a straight flight path through the slits develops on the screen. This happens if there is not any observer present. Wave function collapse is due to particle interaction with the instrument detectors and not due to the presence of a conscious observer. <br />Other than that, I do not find any defense mounted by Br. Edward of his claim that subatomic particles are made of consciousness.<br /><br />Over on Youtube, Dhorpatan has once again refuted monistic idealist, Johanan Raatz's latest argument that only some super-cosmic-God consciousness exists. <br /><br />http://youtu.be/mmRd5HFQjx8<br /><br />Nothing, I've written should be construed as a personal attack or insult. I do not conflate prudential excuses to believe that Objectivism is true with fact based reasons to think Objectivism is true contrary to the practice of most religious adherents. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-46913644925837730602013-04-12T21:36:26.922-04:002013-04-12T21:36:26.922-04:00Dawson,
You wrote: "Sye & Co. go on and ...Dawson,<br /><br />You wrote: "Sye & Co. go on and on accusing non-believers of being unable to justify their knowledge of the most mundane things (e.g., one’s own existence, the existence of a backyard, the existence of tree in one’s backyard, etc.).And yet, they then turn around and tell us that we “know” their god exists. If we put these two sets of claims together, they could only mean that on the one hand, we know that Sye’s god is real, and on the other, we could not justify this alleged knowledge. The whole thing is utterly self-refuting."<br /><br />Great point! And here's something else, which you wrote earlier over on D.A.N.'s: "Meanwhile, since we do have an objective starting point which is conceptually irreducible and whose truth is perceptually self-evident, we are not the ones faced with the false dichotomy of either (a) arguing in a circle, or (b) chasing the tail of an infinite regress."<br /><br />And this made me think: Not only are they without a starting point that is conceptually irreducible and perceptually self-evident, but they actually champion what amounts to the "imperceptibly self-evident" -- clear contradiction in terms -- whenever they resort to Romans 1:20. I know you've commented many times on this, but I don't think theists can be reminded too many times how incoherent this is!<br /><br />How absurd!<br /><br />Ydemoc Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-25827084889808266862013-04-12T21:29:53.911-04:002013-04-12T21:29:53.911-04:00(I bet that all you will have is deflexion and red...<i>(I bet that all you will have is deflexion and red-herrings.)</i><br /><br />I meant that all you will have from D.A.N. is deflexion and red-herrings (if anything) ... I know you know, but with dishonest imbecilic presuppers lurking around I rather clarify.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-63419652729608672242013-04-12T21:16:37.044-04:002013-04-12T21:16:37.044-04:00Yes Dawson, and there's more to the inconsiste...Yes Dawson, and there's more to the inconsistencies between what presuppos affirm and Christianity affirms. If logic was how "God" thinks, we would have to ask: what's this god's problem that needs thinking? This god knows everything, therefore it would have no use for thinking since there's nothing to solve in the first place. Why would this god need any intelligence if it knows everything therefore there's nothing to solve? Hell, how could this god know if it's intelligent if it has nothing to solve? Long et cetera ...<br /><br />Christianity and presuppositionalism are sicknesses. No question about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-90390624715419213012013-04-12T21:06:36.720-04:002013-04-12T21:06:36.720-04:00Hi photo,
I'm back!
You wrote: "... but...Hi photo,<br /><br />I'm back!<br /><br />You wrote: "... but you are missing a very important issue with the presuppositionalist set-up. They do not contest that we can know right from wrong, they assert that we know because their god told us, we just "deny such truth in unrighteousness." So what they "want" is to "show" that we do such thing, not that we do not have those faculties/knowledge."<br /><br />Yes, I happened to be considering what I think was the very point you raise while I was on my walk up to the grocery store, just a few moments ago.<br /><br />I recall a while back I posted a series of comments over on D.A.N.'s blog, which attempted to deal with the issue you raise. But of course, my words have obviously fallen on deaf ears, i.e., D.A.N's. <br /><br />But something good did come out of it, for in crafting my comments at the time, I was inspired to write this absurd one-liner: "“Man is fallible. But, hey, I could be wrong.”<br /><br />If you're interested, here are the links to those comments:<br /><br />http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2012/06/irrational-exuberance.html?showComment=1341085838091#c5046782545927406557<br /><br />http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2012/06/irrational-exuberance.html?showComment=1341086126662#c4839760469751743353<br /><br />http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2012/06/irrational-exuberance.html?showComment=1341086607551#c4794955036320659972<br /><br />And those are just the first three comments. There's plenty more after that in the thread, but I don't want to take up space by posting them here. They're easy enough to find over there, simply by searching or scrolling down.<br /><br />And feedback is always welcome!<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-67371466329080985502013-04-12T21:04:44.345-04:002013-04-12T21:04:44.345-04:00You're up to much more fun Dawson. Hughes pres...You're up to much more fun Dawson. Hughes present a sub version of presuppositionalism I didn't know about (his definition of "virtuously" circular, which is incredibly obviously stupid and fallacious, and which I think Alex did not have enough of an opportunity to exploit and expose). But was honest enough that Alex was able to show that he (Hughes) was able to agree with horrid stuff, like the allowing a child to be tortured and such that you pointed out so clearly and devastatingly to D.A.N. (I bet that all you will have is deflexion and red-herrings.) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-32919388252477117712013-04-12T21:02:17.162-04:002013-04-12T21:02:17.162-04:00Between 18:00 and 18:10, Hughes affirms that “know...Between 18:00 and 18:10, Hughes affirms that “knowledge is justified true belief.”<br /><br />Now, many thinkers accept this view, but I do not. But before getting into the reasons why I reject this view, let’s ask: Is this the <i>biblical</i> view of knowledge?<br /><br />I don’t see how it could be.<br /><br />For one, I’ve never read anywhere in the bible that “knowledge is justified true belief.” Unless someone can show me that this definition of knowledge can be found explicitly laid out somewhere in the bible, this seems to be an instance of interpolated borrowing from some secular source. <br /><br />Also, how would this apply to the Christian god itself? The Christian god is said to “know” things. Is the Christian god’s “knowledge” really just a special form of “belief” at its core? It seems odd to suppose that Christians would hold that it is. And if “knowledge is justified true belief,” this suggests a sequential process is involved: first you formulate the belief, then you determine that it is true, then you justify it somehow. But this implies both non-omniscience and non-infallibility. By contrast, an omniscient mind would have all knowledge already canned into its mind for all eternity; it would not need to go out and acquire knowledge through some process. Similarly, an infallible being would not need to apply any process to safeguard against error. <br /><br />So this whole view seems at odds with what we know Christianity to affirm.<br /><br />As for my view, I reject the JTB analysis of knowledge since it ignores the conceptual nature of knowledge. Take any example that a Christian would call a belief (even a JTB), such as: there’s a tree in my backyard. As you can see, this belief is propositional in nature: it strings a number of concepts together to form a specific proposition about something. But on the JTB model, where did these concepts, which are clearly constituents of any belief, come from? Indeed, to affirm the belief “there’s a tree in my backyard,” one would first have to know what a tree is. So how would this more fundamental knowledge look like as a belief? Perhaps it would be: “a tree is an organism of the XYZ order.” But then again we’re faced with the same issue: we have a belief which is propositional in nature, and as such, it is composed of concepts. We need to know what these concepts mean before we can even formulate any belief which incorporates them.<br /><br />So one of the problems that I see with JTB is that it fails to identify the actual fundamental elements of knowledge, and this in turn simply enables the persistence of one of the Christian worldview’s most damning epistemological oversight – namely the failure to offer an account of concepts as such.<br /><br />Okay, I’m going to back to listening to more.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-77133567064958605882013-04-12T20:39:49.464-04:002013-04-12T20:39:49.464-04:00Okay, Photo, I couldn’t wait. I downloaded the FF ...Okay, Photo, I couldn’t wait. I downloaded the FF podcast you liked to and started listening to it. So far I’m enjoying it quite a bit. I’m not quite 18 minutes in, so there’s still much to come. But so far I’m gratified to hear Alex arguing from the primacy of existence. Kudos to him for that! I’m eager to see how that plays out with Mr. Hughes<br /><br />At one point, Rob Hughes states (17:11 – 17:16)”<br /><br /><< There’s a difference between real knowledge, and knowledge that cannot be accounted for. >><br /><br />Now, this is the from a guy who affirms the presuppositionalist approach to apologetics. And earlier in the podcast, he seemed unable to present a consistent policy on whether or not we should test claims. (That in itself was an interesting labyrinth that Hughes tried to take Alex down… But Alex seems quite prepared for this guy!)<br /><br />But let’s grant that this difference which Hughes identifies is real and apply it to the presuppositionalist claim that we non-believers “know” the Christian god exists. Okay, so let’s say for argument’s sake that I know that the Christian god exists. So the task is to determine if this alleged “knowledge” is “real knowledge” or “knowledge that cannot be accounted for.” So, how do I account for this alleged “knowledge that the Christian god exists”? I’m supposing that presuppositionalists would say that this has been “revealed” to me somehow by the Christian god itself (mind you, the very god which, as a parent, allowed its own son to be tortured and executed by evil people). So the “account for” *how* I know that the Christian god exists itself depends on the premises that this god is real; in fact, now the claims are multiplied: not only do we have the claim that this god exists, we now have the additional (and causally subsequent) claim that it “revealed” knowledge to me. So this method of “accounting for” this “knowledge” I’m told I have is indeed viciously circular. And we can know this because, as Segers would put it, the “circle” does not go beyond itself – it’s entirely self-referential in an internal manner. There’s no “going outside the circle” here, so even on Segers’ own “test” for circularity, this seems to fail in a most textbook fashion.<br /><br />But how else could I “account for” this alleged “knowledge” that the Christian god exists? Well, can I account for it in any <i>objective</i> manner? Not from what I can tell. Objectivity is the systematic and wholly consistent application of the primacy of existence to the realm of knowledge. But Christian god-belief assumes the primacy of consciousness, which is in diametric conflict with (i.e., contradictory to) the primacy of existence. An objective method will never be able to be applied consistently <i>and</i> validate a presupposition that is contradictory to itself. So while Hughes does not mention that the “account” one provides for his knowledge should be objective in nature, I don’t know what rational objection he would have against this requirement. But if we do accept this requirement, it turns out that this “knowledge” he wants us to accept cannot be accounted for in an objective manner. It has its basis in metaphysical subjectivism, which would seem to disqualify it entirely from the “real knowledge” category he listed.<br /><br />Where is Hughes? I’d love to get his reaction to this.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-41412382107445219062013-04-12T19:25:39.566-04:002013-04-12T19:25:39.566-04:00Yes, you're right, Photo. They have a number o...Yes, you're right, Photo. They have a number of tactics, and we should be familiar with all of them and expose their "folly," as they themselves like to put it. If our responses do ever cause them to stop and wonder, or consult other sources, however, it's only so that they could have some way of deflecting what has been taught to them. They don't want to learn. They want others to submit. These are two very different goals.<br /><br />I have not heard the FF podcast. Thanks for recommending it. I will put it line with some other things I want to listen to this weekend. <br /><br />It's Saturday AM here, and already I've had a busy day! Much more ahead as I dive into my weekend. An FF podcast will make a fine dessert!<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-33680675725051332772013-04-12T19:18:16.462-04:002013-04-12T19:18:16.462-04:00Dawson,
I agree. And this very contradiction, den...Dawson,<br /><br />I agree. And this very contradiction, denying but implicitly acknowledging such and such (that our reasoning and senses are valid, et cetera), when pointed out to most of them will stop them to think for a while. It took D.A.N. to consult with Sye before he could post an "answer" to that. All I was pointing to is that we should know the many forms of their bullshit.<br /><br />Talking about gruesome beliefs, did you hear <a href="http://fundamentally-flawed.com/2013/02/07/fundamentally-flawed-59-discussion-with-rob-hughes/" rel="nofollow">this</a> fundamentally flawed podcast?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-55610690904487492452013-04-12T19:04:36.700-04:002013-04-12T19:04:36.700-04:00Yes, Photo, they do say such things, but yet they ...Yes, Photo, they do say such things, but yet they continually try to undermine our conscious faculties by calling their validity into question. So if they say on the one hand that we can know right from wrong, that their god is real, that their worldview is true, etc., and yet on the other say that we can never know if our knowing and reasoning are valid, we would have no way of validating our own acceptance of what they claim as knowledge. And yet, at the same time, when they ask us these questions, they expect us to understand what they're asking: we're supposed to understand what knowledge is, what reasoning is, what validity is, etc. None of this knowledge which they grant us is being called into question, and yet if the question were premised in a consistent analysis of the human mind, none of these points should be granted. Indeed, they should not even be asking us any questions to begin with.<br /><br />But the broader point that should not be missed is that their whole apologetic involves the rapid-fire of all these clumsily assembled questions that we are supposed to answer, and yet they habitually evade the questions that have been posed to them. And yet (again), it is their worldview which claims to have “knowledge” supernaturally revealed to them from an infallible and omniscient source. It seems that if this were the case, they wouldn’t be asking so many questions, and they’d be more than happy to share their pearls of wisdom in response to our questions. This never happens. They run from questions, they run from knowledge, they run from reason. It’s all bullshit, flat and simple. And look at what they end up endorsing: a parent which willingly allows his child to be tormented and executed by evil people. That’s “love”? That’s “moral”? Who acts this way other than an utter monster?<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-58765653751089803612013-04-12T18:45:10.539-04:002013-04-12T18:45:10.539-04:00Oh Ydemoc, but you are missing a very important is...Oh Ydemoc, but you are missing a very important issue with the presuppositionalist set-up. They do not contest that we can know right from wrong, they assert that we know because their god told us, we just "deny such truth in unrighteousness." So what they "want" is to "show" that we do such thing, not that we do not have those faculties/knowledge.<br /><br />See ya.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-38339933781859129322013-04-12T18:38:23.755-04:002013-04-12T18:38:23.755-04:00Dawson,
By the way, a great read over on Dan'...Dawson,<br /><br />By the way, a great read over on Dan's blog! <br /><br />FYI, I'll be away from the keyboard for about an hour, so I'll have to catch up on any forthcoming comments a little later.<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-56794477620046351172013-04-12T18:38:07.654-04:002013-04-12T18:38:07.654-04:00Exactly. It never occurs to D.A.N. and other presu...Exactly. It never occurs to D.A.N. and other presuppositionalists are committing yet another insidious performative inconsistency in their apologetic scheme.<br /><br />But consider: Sye & Co. go on and on accusing non-believers of being unable to justify their knowledge of the most mundane things (e.g., one’s own existence, the existence of a backyard, the existence of tree in one’s backyard, etc.). And yet, they then turn around and tell us that we “know” their god exists. If we put these two sets of claims together, they could only mean that on the one hand, we know that Sye’s god is real, and on the other, we could not justify this alleged knowledge. The whole thing is utterly self-refuting.<br /><br />And these guys keep asking us how we know that our reasoning is valid?<br /><br />Amazing!<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-59307580111120660882013-04-12T18:32:00.300-04:002013-04-12T18:32:00.300-04:00Dawson,
While D.A.N insists going on and on, aski...Dawson,<br /><br />While D.A.N insists going on and on, asking over and over if we are "wrong" about this, that, or the other, it seems to me that he completely takes for granted (indeed, his very question assumes) that our faculties are just fine and dandy when it comes to such knowledge as the very concept "wrong"!<br /><br />Amazing!<br /><br />Ydemoc<br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-80232455016004935652013-04-12T18:25:28.977-04:002013-04-12T18:25:28.977-04:00Oh, yes, great quote, Ydemoc!
Yeah, D.A.N. won...Oh, yes, great quote, Ydemoc!<br /><br />Yeah, D.A.N. won't have a problem with the length of Bahnsen's <i>Van Til's Apologetic</i>, the bible, or any other Christian source. In fact, the bigger, the better, so far as they're concerned. And not so that they can learn something from it, but only so that they can use it in a way that clearly overwhelms themselves when they are confronted with something more than half a page. It's more projection and hypocrisy.<br /><br />The underlying fact is that D.A.N. wants nothing to with actually understanding the issues that his apologetic brings up. He doesn't want people who understand, just as he doesn't care to understand either. He wants people to be immediately stupefied, "slayed in the spirit" by a mere few words carefully chosen to entrap. That’s what presuppositionalism is all about. Sye has simply made it much more concentrated exclusively on this strategy. That’s why he wants it always to be an oral exchange. He doesn’t want to interact with people who take their time to carefully examine the issues, to investigate the apologist’s claims, to do research, to pull resources together and strive for understanding. They shun these things like a vampire is supposed to shun the sign of the cross. When D.A.N. asks how one knows whether his reasoning is valid, the proper thing to do is to ask what he means by each of these key terms. Most likely he won’t explain himself, in which case this only means he doesn’t take his own question seriously, so why should we. He certainly will not take anyone’s answer to them seriously. He just wants people to fall over and renounce their minds the moment he poses such questions. Pointing all this out is calling his bluff. It completely deflates his apologetic into an empty vapor.<br /><br />Anyway, let’s see if he comes back.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-62277473907008932982013-04-12T18:02:59.357-04:002013-04-12T18:02:59.357-04:00Dawson,
I'm currently about to read your late...Dawson,<br /><br />I'm currently about to read your latest replies to D.A.N. over on his blog. <br /><br />I notice that rather providing a thoughtful summation of the material presented, he whines: "So, I finally got the answer to my simple question. That is, after the entire proof by verbosity blathering... Now, I am exhausted from the sheer volume of the answer. You wonder why people drop off your blog, and not comment anymore?"<br /><br />And yet not a peep from D.A.N about Bahnsen’s 700-page "Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis," let alone any complaints about the length of the bible.<br /><br />Perhaps you've already brought this to D.A.N.'s attention in the replies, but as you've rightly pointed out in the past when faced with such grousing: <br /><br />"That’s the problem with arbitrary standards: you end up wiping out much more than you first intended."<br /><br />( http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2010/08/critique-of-sye-ten-bruggencates.html )<br /><br />Ydemoc<br />Ydemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-73973465198734125542013-04-12T12:32:16.150-04:002013-04-12T12:32:16.150-04:00For some reason, Blogger did not recognize this as...<i>For some reason, Blogger did not recognize this as a quote.</i><br /><br />That's because blogger also shares the universal consciousness named god, which is monistic in nature, yet fails differently in different entities, can be trained to our liking in some entities, not in others, all of which is contradictory, but who cares! Got ya evil atheist!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-67874588116525594012013-04-12T11:30:13.850-04:002013-04-12T11:30:13.850-04:00NAL, how dare you introduce facts and evidence int...NAL, how dare you introduce facts and evidence into proceedings?!? Don't you know they only make you look silly?freddies_deadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09688196534481642740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714522.post-88242783466652015772013-04-12T09:43:41.755-04:002013-04-12T09:43:41.755-04:00Ladies and Gentleman,
Notice that Br Edward did n...Ladies and Gentleman,<br /><br />Notice that Br Edward did not even try to deal with my comment. I suspect because demystifying consciousness is not something he would like to happen, as evidenced by his answer to NAL:<br /><br /><i>No, it doesn’t. The cytoskeleton is for cell structure; it is not a neurological network.</i><br /><br />Well, when I studied cell biology about 20 years ago, it was already known that the cytoskeleton had functions beyond cell structure. So, I checked around and read a few abstracts, and found that there's clear evidence that the cytoskeleton is involved in how paramecia process information and learn. For example, molecules that bind to certain places in the cytoskeleton render the paramecia "unconscious." Quite similar to experiments showing changes in neuronal structure when animals learn something, from the simpler models, like snails, to more complex organisms.<br /><br /><i>Please, don’t even go there with the quantum computing new age speculation. It makes you look silly.</i><br /><br />There's no need to go there at all. If experiments show so, then it is so: The cytoskeleton can work as a way to process information and learning mechanisms, at least in paramecia.<br /><br /><i>But even if we get silly for a moment: The mind is as unfathomable in animals with brains as animals without.</i><br /><br />Just because you say so? This looks much more like denial and shielding from the evidence, than proper knowledge about what you are talking about.<br /><br /><i>Consciousness can’t come from physical matter.</i><br /><br />Again, just because you say so? hardly convincing.<br /><br /><i>It’s two different natures entirely. That mind can come from matter is like expecting Jello to emerge from boiling water.</i><br /><br />Curious because damaging the brain certainly harms cognitive capacities in people, damaging the cytoskeleton certainly damages paramecia's ability to learn. Molecules can alter our abilities for perception. Lots of evidence for a physical reality being irremediably connected to cognition. None saying that the mind is "unfathomable." Progress is being made while brother Edward closes his eyes and turns deaf to the evidence. It has to be magic! It has to be magic!<br /><br />I think Dawson dealt with your complains much more effectively than me here. Only I wanted to point out that your attempt at an answer is merely an attempt to keep mythological views about the mind alive. Sorry Ed, your say so does not make it so. Reality has this habit of being what it is regardless of our preferences.<br /><br />(Dawson, by the way, that Rand lady was truly thinking and writing about all the important things about reality, wasn't her?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com