tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post588489550016700857..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Certainty is Unattainable Through Science and Reason? So What?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61960724794435125372009-04-17T00:08:00.000-04:002009-04-17T00:08:00.000-04:00“Doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous.”...“Doubt is uncomfortable, certainty is ridiculous.”<br />-VoltaireUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03738839057479381658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58687978640957390962009-04-11T16:18:00.000-04:002009-04-11T16:18:00.000-04:00Robert, let's look at the three points I made and ...Robert, let's look at the three points I made and see where we are after your response.<BR/><BR/>Eric: "First, it's no attack on X to point out its limits. My computer can't juggle -- is this an attack on my computer?"<BR/><BR/>You said nothing whatsoever in response to this rather obvious point of mine, so I'm assuming that you'll concede that you misspoke, and that my remarks could not be accurately characterized as an 'attack.' <BR/><BR/>I'll take your response to my third point next, since it too is easily dispatched.<BR/><BR/>Eric: "Third, since 'human cognition' comprises much more than 'science and reason,' your criticism (i.e. that by arguing for limits on science and reason I'm targeting human cognition as such) targets a strawman."<BR/><BR/>Here's what you wrote about the subject of this thread (viz., that every proposition cannot be justified with science and reason):<BR/><BR/>Robert: "This statement presupposes that *human cognition* is founded upon an a priori regress of premising to incoherency. This is simply ludicrous and is a product of your primacy of consciousness delusions. Your position falsifies how knowledge is formed or acquired. So it it you that lied and argued against a straw-man."<BR/><BR/>Really? Note the emphasis I added to your remarks above (around *human cognition*). My third point is that I wasn't targeting human cognition as such, but science and reason, from which it follows that I don't take it to be the case that 'human cognition' can be identified with 'science and reason.' Now, do you agree or disagree with me? We can infer from your response above that you think you disagree with me, however, what did you actually go on to say? <BR/><BR/>Robert: "Regarding your recent comment directed to me, the concept cognition means The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment."<BR/><BR/>Ah, so you *do* agree with me after all, eh? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that I agree with your understanding of 'human cognition.' Note, it comprises awareness and perception: Can we reduce 'awareness' to science or reason? What about perception? Think hard, Robert. Science may make use of perception, but it doesn't follow that science can be reduced to perception; it's the same with reason. My computer uses electricity, but cannot be identified with electricity. Now that I've shown that my third point still stands completely unscathed by your fumbling attempts at 'doing philosophy,' let's look at my second point:<BR/><BR/>Eric: "Second, I was only criticizing the naive idea that everything we believe can be justified with 'science and reason.' Honestly, this point isn't even controversial; it's philo 101 stuff."<BR/><BR/>First, we agree, as I've shown above, that 'cognition' cannot be reduced to 'science and reason.' You yourself say:<BR/><BR/>Robert: "Knowledge is derived from our direct perceptional apprehension of sensory information gleaned from actual existence."<BR/><BR/>Ah, so what about our 'direct perceptional apprehension of sensory information'? Can we use 'science and reason' to justify it? I hope the answer is obvious, but, just in case it's not, let me help you out. Science obviously presupposes it, insofar as it begins (for the most part) with observations (either our own or those of others). Reason is a much broader category, and it's not one we're going to agree about at all, so let's just stick with your Objectivist conception. Do we need to justify an immediate sense experience with reason? Of course not. Objectivists are empiricists in the Aristotelian sense of the term: all knowledge begins with perception, but is not therefore merely perceptual. Reason, as a faculty, uses sensory information. So again, even given an Objectivist conception of reason, we find that everything isn't justified by reason. So my second point, which I just defended last of all, still stands untouched by all of your Randian incantations (that's what they are, right? You guys all repeat them verbatim whenever discussing philosophy, almost as if you can't think for yourselves and need to summon the spirit of the Great Rand to speak for you...) -- indeed, your Randian incantations *support it*.<BR/><BR/>Now that I've defended my three points, and have shown decisively that your responses fail completely, let's look at your 'argument' against god's existence one more time.<BR/><BR/>"1.To be GOD, Theos-Yahweh must be an ontological person that is infinite in scope.<BR/>2.To be an ontological person is to have a specific identity.<BR/>3.To have a specific identity is to necessarily be finite.<BR/>4. Theos-Yahweh has a specific identity.<BR/>5. Theos-Yahweh therefore is necessarily finite and cannot be infinite.<BR/>6.By modus tollens from 1 and 5, Theos-Yahweh cannot be GOD as it cannot both be infinite and finite. <BR/>7. If it cannot be GOD, then it is not a necessary being and evidentiary arguments against it are self-validating by virtue of forming a comprehensive cumulative case to the best explanation." <BR/><BR/>Do you even know what theists mean when they say that god is a 'person' or a 'personal god'? It's not what you seem to think. The term 'person' isn't used univocally there, but analogically; the usual way of putting it is this: to say that god is a person is to say only that he's not less than a person. You've similarly made a mess of the word 'infinite' <A HREF="http://www.diafrica.org/kenny/CDtexts/ContraGentiles1.htm#43" REL="nofollow">when applied to god</A> (honestly, you must research how theists use terms before you criticize them). Your muddles with respect to the terms 'infinite' and 'person' render your argument useless for its intended purpose, i.e. to refute the possibility that the Christian god exists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17315873583869167762009-04-11T10:11:00.000-04:002009-04-11T10:11:00.000-04:00Eric: You replied to me by typing:"But since Eric ...Eric: <BR/><BR/>You replied to me by typing:<BR/><BR/><I>"But since Eric made the gross error of attacking human cognition in the subject quote of this thread..."<BR/><BR/>I did nothing of the sort. First, it's no attack on X to point out its limits. My computer can't juggle -- is this an attack on my computer?<BR/><BR/>Second, I was only criticizing the naive idea that everything we believe can be justified with 'science and reason.' Honestly, this point isn't even controversial; it's philo 101 stuff.<BR/><BR/>Third, since 'human cognition' comprises much more than 'science and reason,' your criticism targets a strawman.</I><BR/><BR/>This thread's header quotes you as typing: <BR/><BR/><I>Eric commented ...take any proposition you believe to be supported by 'science and reason,' and proceed to provide the premises that support it. Take any one of these premises and support it. Continue. It won't take long at all before you reach a premise that you can't justify scientifically, and a short time after that you'll find a premise you can't justify with 'reason.' What then?</I><BR/><BR/>This statement presupposes that human cognition is founded upon an a priori regress of premising to incoherency. This is simply ludicrous and is a product of your primacy of consciousness delusions. Your position falsifies how knowledge is formed or acquired. So it it you that lied and argued against a straw-man.<BR/><BR/>Knowledge is derived from our direct perceptional apprehension of sensory information gleaned from actual existence. It is as Rand wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>“Knowledge” is ... a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation. </I><BR/><BR/>I have previously observed that your religious delusions of a god are founded upon the false doctrine and fallacy of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy.<BR/><BR/><I>An analytic proposition is defined as one which can be validated merely by an analysis of the meaning of its constituent concepts. The critical question is: What is included in “the meaning of a concept”? Does a concept mean the existents which it subsumes, including all their characteristics? Or does it mean only certain aspects of these existents, designating some of their characteristics but excluding others?<BR/>The latter viewpoint is fundamental to every version of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. The advocates of this dichotomy divide the characteristics of the existents subsumed under a concept into two groups: those which are included in the meaning of the concept, and those—the great majority—which, they claim, are excluded from its meaning. The dichotomy among propositions follows directly. If a proposition links the “included” characteristics with the concept, it can be validated merely by an “analysis” of the concept; if it links the “excluded” characteristics with the concept, it represents an act of “synthesis.”</I> - ITOE, p.127 Peikoff<BR/><BR/><I>The Objectivist theory of concepts undercuts the theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy at its root .... Since a concept is an integration of units, it has no content or meaning apart from its units. The meaning of a concept consists of the units—the existents—which it integrates, including all the characteristics of these units. Observe that concepts mean existents, not arbitrarily selected portions of existents. There is no basis whatever—neither metaphysical nor epistemological, neither in the nature of reality nor of a conceptual consciousness—for a division of the characteristics of a concept’s units into two groups, one of which is excluded from the concept’s meaning ....The fact that certain characteristics are, at a given time, unknown to man, does not indicate that these characteristics are excluded from the entity—or from the concept. A is A; existents are what they are, independent of the state of human knowledge; and a concept means the existents which it integrates. Thus, a concept subsumes and includes all the characteristics of its referents, known and not-yet-known.</I> - ITOE, p.131 Peikoff<BR/><BR/>On pages 98-101 of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Expanded 2nd Edition, Meridian Penguin Books, April 1990, Leonard Peikoff demonstrate how the Objectivist theory of concepts defangs and neuters the Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy. By a fine example of reasoning Peikoff notes the following:<BR/><BR/><I>I)Metaphysically, and entity is: all of the things which it is. Each of its characteristics has the same metaphysical status: each constitutes a part of the entity's identity.<BR/><BR/>II)Epistemologically, all the characteristics of the entities subsumed under a concept are discovered by the same basic method: by observation of these entities. <BR/><BR/>III)... a concept subsumes and includes all the characteristics of its referents, known and not-yet-known.<BR/><BR/>IV)....a concept is an open-end classification which includes the yet-to-be discovered characteristics of a given group of existents. All of man's knowledge rest on that fact.<BR/><BR/>V)Whatever is true of the entity, is meant by the concept. <BR/><BR/>VI)It follows that there are no grounds on which to distinguish “analytic” from “synthetic” propositions. Whether on state that “A man is a rational animal” or that “A man has only two eyes” - in both cases, the predicated characteristics are true of man and are, therefore, included in the concept “man”. The meaning of the first statement is: “A certain type of entity , including all its characteristics (among which are rationality and animality) is: a rational animal.” The meaning of the second is: “A certain type of entity, including all of its characteristics (among which is the possession of only two eyes) has: only two eyes.” Each of these statements is an instance of the Law of Identity; each is a “tautology”: to deny either is to contradict the meaning of the concept “man,” and thus to endorse a self-contradiction.</I><BR/><BR/>Knowledge is a direct perceptional apprehension of sensory information from actual reality and is not a regress of premising to incoherency.<BR/><BR/>Regarding your recent comment directed to me, the concept <I>cognition</I> means <I>The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.</I><BR/><BR/>Knowledge is held in conceptional form and concepts:<BR/><BR/><I>represent classifications of observed existents according to their relationships to other observed existents. ... To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units), on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes (similarity is “the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree”); then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one integrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it. “A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.” </I> (Rand, ITOE, 131)<BR/><BR/>Consciousness is awareness of existence; it is the faculty of awareness—the faculty of perceiving that which exists. If nothing actually exists, then there can be no awareness and consequently no consciousness. Your vile and evil religion of Christianity presupposes that existence is not real and that we can not actually know anything because Christianity asserts all is the product of and resultant from an imaginary ruling consciousness you refer to a God. But consciousness is the awareness of existence and cannot make or cause existence. We know this because of direct sensory perception.<BR/><BR/><I>Reasoning is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. It integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. Reason is man’s only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge—and, therefore, the rejection of reason means that men should act regardless of and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality. </I> (Rand, VOS, PWNI, ROTP) <BR/><BR/>Thus your assertion that human knowledge, reason, awareness are based on a regress of premising to incoherency does constituent an attack on the mental attributes of your own species. This renders you a vile contemptible criminal relative to humanity qua humanity but more to the point of this thread is that your position as an advocate of anti-cognition and pro-mysticism is that by posturing as such you surrender you early February defense of your disgusting religion from Cantorian Set Theory.<BR/><BR/>Thus my version of George H Smith's argument against the possibility of existence of Theos-Yahweh still works to prove your faith false and impossible.<BR/><BR/>1.To be GOD, Theos-Yahweh must be an ontological person that is infinite in scope.<BR/><BR/>2.To be an ontological person is to have a specific identity.<BR/><BR/>3.To have a specific identity is to necessarily be finite.<BR/><BR/>4. Theos-Yahweh has a specific identity.<BR/><BR/>5. Theos-Yahweh therefore is necessarily finite and cannot be infinite.<BR/><BR/>6.By modus tollens from 1 and 5, Theos-Yahweh cannot be GOD as it cannot both be infinite and finite. <BR/><BR/>7. If it cannot be GOD, then it is not a necessary being and evidentiary arguments against it are self-validating by virtue of forming a comprehensive cumulative case to the best explanation. <BR/><BR/>I mentioned the following during our discussion back in February; because of your religious holiday this weekend, it is worth it to me to mention it again.<BR/><BR/><I>The vile filth of Christianity and the vast evil it has wrought on western civilization sickens and disgusts rational reasoning people. If Yahweh does exist, I certainly would not want to continue with whatever this that we take for reality may then be, for if Yahweh exists the primacy of existence is false. In that case there is no fixed reality and this is some sort of sick illusion such as postulated by Descartes and the primacy of consciousness mystics. Nothingness or Hell would be preferable to being a slave to the monster before which you crawl on your belly, prostrating yourself, and worshiping what is arguably the most evil character in all of fictional literature while surrendering your moral autonomy. Shame on you for crouching down and licking the imaginary hand of a heinous delusion. But luckily it is such a remote impossibility that Yahweh might exist that I need not be concerned, for your god is a lie, and your religion is contemptible nonsense. </I><BR/><BR/>May you get what you deserve.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1827217242721061702009-04-10T18:30:00.000-04:002009-04-10T18:30:00.000-04:00"But since Eric made the gross error of attacking ..."But since Eric made the gross error of attacking human cognition in the subject quote of this thread..."<BR/><BR/>I did nothing of the sort. First, it's no attack on X to point out its limits. My computer can't juggle -- is this an attack on my computer? <BR/><BR/>Second, I was only criticizing the naive idea that everything we believe can be justified with 'science and reason.' Honestly, this point isn't even controversial; it's philo 101 stuff.<BR/><BR/>Third, since 'human cognition' comprises much more than 'science and reason,' your criticism targets a strawman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49971794027184038012009-04-08T19:15:00.000-04:002009-04-08T19:15:00.000-04:00JL wrote that means Rand would think zen is evil.w...JL wrote <B>that means Rand would think zen is evil.<BR/><BR/>what an idiot. She had no understanding of any kind.</B><BR/><BR/>If you think "unfocusing your mind" or "suspension of consciousness" has anything to do with Zen, then it appears you're the one who lacks understanding.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-59135691376557703522009-04-08T13:15:00.000-04:002009-04-08T13:15:00.000-04:00Hello Mr. Hinman: I hope your feeling well today. ...Hello Mr. Hinman: I hope your feeling well today. I do enjoy these philosophy of religion discussions. Its always an honor to communicate with my distant cousins despite our differing opinions. Your educational accomplishments are worthy of pride and far exceed mine. While I do have an Associates diploma from the local community college in a now obsolete technical subject, I have busied myself with learning this and that. Nevertheless be assured, I bear you no ill will and have no intention of insulting or hurting your feelings.<BR/><BR/>That said, could you post an executive summary of your belief system including your views on metaphysics, epistemology, morality, politics, and aesthetics? I'd be keen on learning what you believe god to be and what reason you have for such a belief.<BR/><BR/>I do not have time right now to wade through this long thread, but over the next few days as time permits I'll visit. Now I need to figure out where the Euro/Yen is headed tonight.<BR/><BR/>Best Regards and WishesAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42142726412391364982009-04-08T09:10:00.000-04:002009-04-08T09:10:00.000-04:00Geez, Hinman, be nice to the guy.I think his argum...Geez, Hinman, be nice to the guy.<BR/><BR/>I think his argument is as follows:<BR/><BR/>Is God infinite?<BR/><BR/>"Yes."<BR/><BR/>Is this dog turd with the green flies part of God?<BR/><BR/>"No."<BR/><BR/>Aha, if God *were* infinite, you would have said yes to that.<BR/><BR/>Or lots of big words to that effect.<BR/><BR/>I guess you can counter that by saying God only *seems* infinite, that he's "practically" infinite in relation to anything else, that Christians have always of course preached a creator/creation distinction, etc.<BR/><BR/>Sheesh, is it that complicated?<BR/><BR/>And his blog praises Mises.org. There should be a special place in heaven for people like that anyway.ismellarathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798650524118603772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6486337564159226022009-04-08T06:54:00.000-04:002009-04-08T06:54:00.000-04:00Great reply Robert! Thanks. The god Yahweh was no...Great reply Robert! Thanks.<BR/> <BR/>The god Yahweh was nothing but a simple local cultic god of the Israelites who disappears after the destruction of the first Temple.<BR/> <BR/>The New Testament NEVER mentions this local cultic god Yahweh, but uses a much broader and accepted Greek term / concept: Theos.<BR/> <BR/>In short, the local Hebrew god Yahweh is as far away form the Neo-Platonic god of the later Church Fathers as one can get. And, as you proved in your article, this metamorphosis of the local cultic god with a personal name to an universal Neo-Platonic God / Theos, died in its cocoon of transformation.Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-86615674498327492582009-04-07T23:09:00.000-04:002009-04-07T23:09:00.000-04:00Mr. Hinman. Whatever you fantasize as God cannot a...Mr. Hinman. Whatever you fantasize as God cannot actually exist in objective reality because it is impossible. The many incompatible properties inherent to the wide variety of God notions renders all versions of God unbelievable by any rational person. Take Reed's article, "The Ontology of Information, and Hard Atheism" for instance. <BR/><BR/>He correctly points out that information can only obtain in material existence. This is fatal to all forms of God belief for the reason he mentioned. That being:<BR/><BR/><I>On the one hand, the concept of a God includes the idea that God is consciously aware. But awareness is necessarily awareness of something, and therefore information identifying that of which one is aware is indispensable for consciousness. On the other hand, the concept of a God includes the ability to exist independently of matter or energy, and at the same time, to exist throughout space and across time. But to get information through space or time requires matter or energy. This is a contradiction, and contradictions do not exist. It is simply not possible for the same entity to be conscious and, simultaneously, independent of matter and energy, because information cannot exist except as attributes of entities composed of energy and matter. Our current knowledge makes the assumption of existence of a God or Gods not merely unnecessary—as in the "soft atheism" of Laplace and Rand—but untenable.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Reed is good on this point, but <A HREF="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2008/07/before-beginning-problem-of-divine.html" REL="nofollow">Dawson Bethrick at Incinerating Presuppositionalism is better</A>.<BR/><BR/>I cordially invite you to read Dawson's piece and comment. He truly enjoys interacting with true believers.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20316482576535350192009-04-07T22:55:00.000-04:002009-04-07T22:55:00.000-04:00The Ontology of Information, and Hard Atheism by A...<A HREF="http://solohq.solopassion.com/Articles/Reed/The_Ontology_of_Information,_and_Hard_Atheism.shtml" REL="nofollow">The Ontology of Information, and Hard Atheism by Adam Reed</A><BR/><BR/>When Napoleon asked Pierre-Simon Marquis de Laplace why there was no mention of God in Laplace's work, Laplace relied that he didn't "need that hypothesis." Laplace's answer is the canonical statement of "soft atheism." The rational man only believes in what he perceives by the evidence of his senses, or in what he needs to explain the evidence. By this criterion, there is no more need to believe in a God than to believe in the existence of an invisible unicorn looking over one's shoulder.<BR/><BR/>Laplace's "soft atheism" was the only atheism that could be reasonably asserted in the early 1950s, when Ayn Rand, in the course of writing Atlas Shrugged, began to set down her philosophical system. For a stronger atheism—"hard atheism," the assertion that the existence of a God is not merely unnecessary, but actually impossible—there was no conclusive evidence at the time. If "Objectivism" were simply what Ayn Rand believed and wrote down, "soft atheism" would be the end of it, and that would be that.<BR/><BR/>But, given what Rand determined about the relation of knowledge to the evidence of the senses, that is not the end of it. All knowledge, even knowledge of philosophy, is ours by induction from the facts we perceive and deduce from our perceptions. With new observations the scope of knowledge grows; the most important fact that Ayn Rand taught us about human knowledge is that there will never be a point at which a man might rightly say, "Stop, there is no additional knowledge to be had any more." Ayn Rand's Objectivism does not contain knowledge compelled by observations that were not available to her in her time, but it does compel the integration of knowledge induced from later discoveries with whatever was known beforehand. There is hardly anything more contrary to Ayn Rand's philosophy, than to deny a fact merely because it was not known in Ayn Rand's time.<BR/><BR/>In 1948, just about the time Ayn Rand began to realize that she would need to write down an explicit philosophical system, Claude Shannon discovered, and published in the Bell System Technical Journal, a procedure for measuring information. Ayn Rand's eventual link between metaphysics and epistemology hinges on measurement: existence is identity, and the identity of an existent consists of the measurements of its attributes. If information can be measured, then it has measurements; it has identity; it is an existent, as real as existents composed of energy and matter. Identification is knowledge; with Shannon's discovery of methods to measure it, information became a category of what can be identified and known.<BR/><BR/>One property persistently observed of information is that it never exists without a material substrate of energy or matter. The same melody might exist as sound waves or as radio waves or as electrical currents; as grooves in a phonograph record or as magnetic domains on tape or as laser holes in plastic; as ink on paper or silver chloride on film or as nerve impulses in the brain—but no one ever found information without some kind of matter or energy carrying it. Not that people haven't looked. Using matter to store information across time is expensive, and so is using energy to send information from place to place. Finding ways to do it with less has kept a large fraction of the world's scientists and inventors busy for the last half century, and nothing was as big a prize as finding a way to store or transmit information without any matter or energy at all. If no way to store or communicate information without mattergy was ever found, it was not for lack of trying. If those five decades have taught information scientists anything, it is that information exists but does not exist independently. To get information across space or time, energy or matter are unconditionally indispensable. Information cannot exist without matter or energy for it to exist by means of.<BR/><BR/>What, then, of the possibility of God?<BR/><BR/>On the one hand, the concept of a God includes the idea that God is consciously aware. But awareness is necessarily awareness of something, and therefore information identifying that of which one is aware is indispensable for consciousness. On the other hand, the concept of a God includes the ability to exist independently of matter or energy, and at the same time, to exist throughout space and across time. But to get information through space or time requires matter or energy. This is a contradiction, and contradictions do not exist. It is simply not possible for the same entity to be conscious and, simultaneously, independent of matter and energy, because information cannot exist except as attributes of entities composed of energy and matter. Our current knowledge makes the assumption of existence of a God or Gods not merely unnecessary—as in the "soft atheism" of Laplace and Rand—but untenable.<BR/><BR/>"Soft atheism," then, in view of the new knowledge acquired since the time when Ayn Rand wrote on the subject, is obsolete. We humans now know, in the same sense in which we know anything at all, that an entity with the attributes traditionally ascribed to a God cannot exist in reality. Thanks in part to Ayn Rand's epistemology, current knowledge of the relation of mattergy to information implies "hard atheism"—the positive knowledge that an entity with the attributes traditionally ascribed to a God or Gods cannot exist.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91267983943409127172009-04-07T22:41:00.000-04:002009-04-07T22:41:00.000-04:00part one of my answer to this argument is up.Metac...part one of my answer to this argument is up.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Metacorck's Blog</A><BR/><BR/>part 2 tomarrowJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90000060292206904582009-04-07T18:58:00.000-04:002009-04-07T18:58:00.000-04:00I can't say it enough, Rand was a total idiot. eve...I can't say it enough, Rand was a total idiot. everything you say in that long quote is just stupid.<BR/><BR/>mysticism is not confusing finite with finite, it's triggered by awareness of the difference, and so on.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45207079698729971842009-04-07T18:56:00.000-04:002009-04-07T18:56:00.000-04:00Ayn Rand wrote: “Rationality is man’s basic virtue...Ayn Rand wrote: “Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>that means Rand would think zen is evil.<BR/><BR/>what an idiot. She had no understanding of any kind.</B>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66216660399746966122009-04-07T18:34:00.000-04:002009-04-07T18:34:00.000-04:00The opposite of a necessary proposition is an impo...The opposite of a necessary proposition is an impossible proposition. Necessary and impossible form an exclusive dichotomy that is described by the Law of the Excluded Middle, ("P or not-P"). <BR/><BR/><B>I have tried to explain that to atheists about a thousand times. they don't get it. I'm glad you do, congratulations! that validates the major arguments I made fro God.<BR/><BR/>now that my proofs for God have ben vindicated....</B><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Thus is it plain that in your view neither Yahweh nor GTC can exist and are in fact impossible because they are alleged to necessarily be Creator, but you fantasize God as existence itself. <BR/><BR/><B>what does that mean? what makes you think you can tell me how I view God? I say myself that God is beyond our understanding. If I don't have image of God that try to impose upon reality, how can you decide what my idea is? I myself don't have one.<BR/><BR/>Go beyond that you are merely attempting a cheap trick. you are just trying to say we can only have ideas of God that analogs to a big man in the sky. A big human man could not do what God does, therefore, there can't be a God.<BR/><BR/>that's silly.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>If Yahweh/GTC does not exist, then it is impossible. To exist, Yahweh/GTC must necessarily be Creator of existence. <BR/><BR/><B>Not if he's a metaphor for the God beyond God.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>But if Yahweh/GTC is existence, then it cannot be Creator of existence because it could not have caused itself or come about from nothingness uncaused.<BR/><BR/><B>right. But no one thinks God caused himself. He's not caused he's always there. He's fomenting "the being" smaller aspects. That's not the same thing.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/> It could not have always existed because in that case there would be no necessary Creation or metaphysical primacy of non-existence.<BR/><BR/><B>who says there has to b? "creation" refers to the physical world. it refers to contingencies not necessity. The world is fomented by God's thought. We are thoughts in the mind of God.<BR/><BR/>your gimmick is totally oblivious to this possibility. nothing you have said applies to it.</B><BR/><BR/>Your belief, it seems to me, does not qualify as theism, for a theistic or deistic god must be an ontological person.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Tillich didn't use the phrase "panENtheism" for nothing. one would that would be less provocative to atheist, but I know from experince you will hate it even more because you can't belittle it.<BR/><BR/>you would hate me if I was a tehsit, but being a funcky brand of theist or something other than theist will make you hate me even more because it takes away your ability to mock my views.<BR/><BR/>and it threatens you further with the possibility that there really be some kind god which is your ultimate nightmare.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/> If you believe existence is God, then you are a pantheist * and a heretic relative to what is defined as nominal Christianity or the Abrahamic religions.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>first, its not 'existence is God' its' that God is being itself. there's a big difference. well a difference in Tillicism. I think you guys might see it as hair splitting actually.<BR/><BR/>secondly, not pantheist but "panENtheist." According to Paul Tillich.<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, not a conventional christian, big whoopie do do!<BR/><BR/>why should that bother you? I know it will. I find that that atheists to the thug thing against funcky off brands more then they do agisnt fundies. but I don't really see why.</B><BR/><BR/>Back to the issue of infinite verses finite. Infinite in scope can have no particular identity because: “An infinite amount or infinite size is a contradiction in terms: infinity is no particular amount, no particular size—infinities are abstract potentials, not existing concretes. To describe God as actually infinite in any way violates Identity and thereby removes the possibility of His existence”. - Greg Perkins, "God, Faith, and the Supernatural: The Objectivist Perspective", p.17 footnote 4<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>you fail to answer my argument. God is the source of consciousness, taht doesn't mean he has a conventional identity like Clark Kent. But one can be presented in literature as a place holder in lue of real mystical union. ITs' that concept you do not answer.</B><BR/><BR/>RB: 6.By modus tollens from 1 and 5, YAHWEH cannot be GOD as it cannot both be infinite and finite.<BR/><BR/>JHL: question begging: all this proves is that if we accept you premise about identity having to be finite, and you have no proved that, then the litrary place hold (metaphor) used to represent God in the Bible would be impossible as an actual entity, but so what?<BR/><BR/>The logic is sound and the premises are true. Smith got it right. My argument is not question begging, but your delusion is nothing more that a rather silly special pleading.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Yes I'm afraid it is because you have not sorted out what sort of Identity God actually has, or what sort of function the allegiance of identity in the Bible plays in the overall scheme of things.<BR/><BR/>If you assume the head on Bible Thumper notion of God then you might have a point. But you are not even dealing with the kind of argument I'm making.</B><BR/><BR/>* (Pantheism is the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.)<BR/><BR/><B>yes, borvo, good boy. you know what pantheism is. good boy. but that does not mean that I'm a pantheist. there are other aspects of and understings of God that you are either not aware of or just leaving out.<BR/><BR/>My view is called PanENtheism and it's based upon the notions of theologian Paul Tillich.<BR/><BR/>It's not pantheism.<BR/><BR/>the problem here is you seem to confuses the concepts of consciousness and identity. You don't seem to understand the distinction. You also have a very limited (no offense) understanding of that identity is.<BR/><BR/>I am going to try to do a more complete article on this for my blog in the next couple of days, maybe nonight even. So please wtch for it.</B><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">my blog is here</A>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75501408230426568032009-04-07T18:11:00.000-04:002009-04-07T18:11:00.000-04:00Hello Mr. Hinman: Thank you for your response. I h...Hello Mr. Hinman: Thank you for your response. I hope you will learn something from communicating with me.<BR/><BR/><B>you are no Schubert M. Ogden. Schuber M. Ogden was a professor of mine. you sir, are no Schuber M. Ogden.<BR/><BR/>the last thing he said to me: I went in to say goodby, he didn't even lok up from is desk. I said "I learned a lot from you" he said "I should hope so...."<BR/><BR/>you can only pull that off if you are the big academic cheese.I don't think you are it.</B>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67898516273969426822009-04-07T16:02:00.000-04:002009-04-07T16:02:00.000-04:00Hello Mr. Hinman: Thank you for your response. I h...Hello Mr. Hinman: Thank you for your response. I hope you will learn something from communicating with me.<BR/><BR/>By way of defense of the very ancient argument against personal theistic gods that are imagined as being infinite in scope, I will address your points.<BR/><BR/>RB: <I>But it is quite easy to prove gods alleged to be both personal beings and infinite in scope cannot exist. That which is self contradictory can no more exist or occur than can a square circle. Consider this very ancient (and true) argument against the Abrahamic theistic GOD.</I><BR/><BR/>JLH: <I>that is so irrational. what's contradictory about it? Just your arbitrary notion.</I><BR/><BR/>Ayn Rand wrote: “Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life.<BR/><BR/>The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action. It means one’s total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one’s waking hours. It means a commitment to the fullest perception of reality within one’s power and to the constant, active expansion of one’s perception, i.e., of one’s knowledge. It means a commitment to the reality of one’s own existence, i.e., to the principle that all of one’s goals, values and actions take place in reality and, therefore, that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one’s perception of reality. It means a commitment to the principle that all of one’s convictions, values, goals, desires and actions must be based on, derived from, chosen and validated by a process of thought—as precise and scrupulous a process of thought, directed by as ruthlessly strict an application of logic, as one’s fullest capacity permits. It means one’s acceptance of the responsibility of forming one’s own judgments and of living by the work of one’s own mind (which is the virtue of Independence). It means that one must never sacrifice one’s convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity)—that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)—that one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit (which is the virtue of Justice). It means that one must never desire effects without causes, and that one must never enact a cause without assuming full responsibility for its effects—that one must never act like a zombie, i.e., without knowing one’s own purposes and motives—that one must never make any decisions, form any convictions or seek any values out of context, i.e., apart from or against the total, integrated sum of one’s knowledge—and, above all, that one must never seek to get away with contradictions. It means the rejection of any form of mysticism, i.e., any claim to some nonsensory, nonrational, nondefinable, supernatural source of knowledge. It means a commitment to reason, not in sporadic fits or on selected issues or in special emergencies, but as a permanent way of life.” - The Virtue of Selfishness “The Objectivist Ethics,” p.440.<BR/><BR/>Since rationality entails rejection of mysticism and mysticism includes equating infinity with finitude, to be rational then precludes accepting the dishonest notion that infinite quantity or scope can be finite and have identity. The reason why it is contradictory for a personal being to occur as infinite in scope is as Leonard Peikoff wrote.<BR/><BR/>“‘Infinite’ do not mean large; it means larger than any specific quantity, i.e.: of no specific quantity. An infinite quantity would be a quantity without identity. But A is A. Every entity, accordingly, is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and in their extent; this applies to the universe as well. As Aristotle was the first to observe, the concept of ‘infinity’ denotes merely a potentiality of indefinite addition or subdivision. For example, one can continually subdivide a line; but however many segments one has reached at a given point, there are only that many and no more. The actual is always finite.”- “Objectivism: The Philosphy of Ayn Rand”, p.31, by Leonard Peikoff <BR/><BR/>This view was further buttressed by George H. Smith . The following is paraphrased from his book.<BR/><BR/>[To exist is to exist as something. To be something is to have a specific nature. That is to have a particular identity. The Laws of Identity A=A and Non-Contradiction A =/= A entail that any ontological being must posses specific determinate characteristics. To have such characteristics is a consequence of being part of nature ..... Having specific determinate characteristics imposes limits, and those limits would restrict the capacities of the .... being. Such restriction then renders the .... being subject to the causal relationships that denote the uniformity of nature in actual existence ....] - “Atheism: The Case Against God.”, p.41 (paraphrasing), by George H. Smith<BR/><BR/>Thus existence necessitates harmony and consonance with the uniformity of nature. To be subject to causality is to operate in harmony with the nature of existence. Causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature. But to occur infinitely in scope negates the necessity of the Law of Identity. Consequently, the notion of God is self-contradictory. This is true in Objective reality and hence is in no way arbitrary. <BR/><BR/>RB: <I>1.To be GOD, YAHWEH must be an ontological person that is infinite in scope.</I><BR/><BR/>JLH: <I>what is an ontological person?</I><BR/><BR/>Ontological means of or relating to essence or the nature of existence. A person is a self-conscious or rational being. An ontological person is a self-conscious or rational being that actually exists as opposed to a non-existent person such as a corporation. (A corporation is a legal fiction that is accorded person status under color of law.)<BR/><BR/>RB: <I>2.To be an ontological person is to have a specific identity.</I><BR/><BR/>JLH: <I>how do you know that?</I> <BR/><BR/>It is axiomatically obvious that to be an ontological person must have a specific nature. Paraphrasing George H. Smith again:<BR/><BR/>[To exist is to exist as something. To be something is to have a specific nature. That is to have a particular identity. The Laws of Identity A=A and Non-Contradiction A =/= A entail that any ontological being must posses specific determinate characteristics. To have such characteristics is a consequence of being part of nature. But the theistic God is asserted to be super-natural, and that is to be exempt from the uniformity of nature. Herein lies the contradiction fatal to any claim of knowledge about God. Having specific determinate characteristics imposes limits, and those limits would restrict the capacities of the alleged super-natural being. Such restriction then renders the alleged super-natural being subject to the causal relationships that denote the uniformity of nature in actual existence and disqualify it from being God. To escape this contradiction, the religious mind proposes to somehow imagine a God lacking any definite attributes or properties. But a postulated existent devoid of properties or attributes is indistinguishable from nothingness and is incompatible with the concept of existence. For God to have characteristics necessarily means God must have definite characteristics. That is to say that God would then necessarily be limited, for to be A is to also not be A. Any being with characteristics is then subject to the uniformity of nature imposed by those capacities. For a super-natural being to differ from natural existence, it must exist without a limited identity and nature. This amounts to existing without any nature or identity at all. If humanity is to have meaningful discourse about God, we must presuppose it to have properties by which is can be identified. By asserting that God is super-natural theism stipulates existence apart from the uniformity of nature and eliminates any possibility of assigning definite characteristics to God. But by assigning definite characteristics to God, theism brings its God within the natural realm and renders it not-God. Something cannot be both A and A.]<BR/><BR/>God then cannot exist, and any claim of knowledge of God is indistinguishable from fantasy of God. <BR/><BR/>RB: <I>3.To have a specific identity is to necessarily be finite.</I><BR/><BR/>JHL: <I>assumption not in evdience. specific identity would be in contrast to us for our benefit. In other words God's "identity" is not like ours, shaped by individuality and society, but merely a construct we can relate to.</I><BR/><BR/>Your wrong. God cannot exist, and any claim of knowledge of God is indistinguishable from fantasy of God. <BR/><BR/>RB: <I>4.YAHWEH has a specific identity.</I><BR/><BR/>JHL: <I>Literary identity not necessary in an actual "ontological" sense.</I><BR/><BR/>Then your fantasy of God is a lie. If the Bible is not literally true as you implied, then the Christian religion falls apart. Charles B. Waite noted this fatal flaw. He spent years in the Library of Congress often in inaccessible rooms with the help of friends and insiders researching ancient texts to ascertain a history of Christianity up till the second century. His book is titled “History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two Hundred” and is fully and freely available on Google books. This book is considered one of the most accurate histories of Christianity with much information not found elsewhere. Waite wrote much on lost books, early Church fathers and heresy. His conclusion on page 433 of the downloadable PDF reads:<BR/><BR/>“…no evidence is found, of the existence in the first century, of either of the following doctrines; the immaculate conception – the miracles of Christ – his material resurrection. No one of these doctrines is to be found in the epistles of the New Testament, nor have we been able to find them in any other writings of the first century.<BR/><BR/>As to the four gospels, in coming to the conclusion that they were not written in the first century, we have but recorded the convictions of the more advanced scholars of the present day, irrespective of their religious views in other respects; with whom, the question as now presented is, how early in the second century were they composed?<BR/><BR/>Discarding, as inventions of the second century, having no historical foundation, the three doctrines above named, and much else which must necessarily stand or fall with them, what remains of the Christian Religion?” Waite's conclusion is a powerful evidence against Christianity.<BR/><BR/>RB: <I>5.YAHWEH therefore is necessarily finite and cannot be infinite.</I><BR/><BR/>JHL: <I>you have not demonstrated that ponit. you are assuming id has to be lmiited and finite, why? you have not proved that. Just because our identities are such does not mean all identities must be.</I><BR/><BR/>Your right. I did not demonstrate that point. However Smith and Peikoff did. <BR/><BR/>JHL: <I>God's id would be based upon being, God is identified with being itself so that's an identity, it's also unique and not analogous to ours.</I><BR/><BR/>The difference between existence and identity is that “Existence is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it—and no alternative to it. Existence exists—and only existence exists. Its existence and its nature are irreducible and unalterable.” – Leonard Peikoff “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,”(ITOE, p.148) while “The concept “identity” does not indicate the particular natures of the existents it subsumes; it merely underscores the primary fact that they are what they are.” (ITOE, p.78)<BR/><BR/>Existence cannot obtain apart from identity and visa-versa. The notion of God, however, entails it must obtain apart from identity, for to be infinite in scope is to not be limited in any. For God to exist, it must not have any specific nature. But to exist is to obtain as something specific and to necessarily be limited by specific characteristics. You may protest that your God’s identity accords with part of the definition of the “God of Classical Theism” as Creator of existence. However, you claim your fantasy of “God is identified with being itself.” If so then, it cannot be apart from and transcend existence. If your God does not transcend existence, then it cannot be Creator of existence. If it cannot be Creator then it cannot exist, for Yahweh/GCT (God of Classical Theism) is imagined as necessarily being Creator. <BR/><BR/>The opposite of a necessary proposition is an impossible proposition. Necessary and impossible form an exclusive dichotomy that is described by the Law of the Excluded Middle, ("P or not-P"). Thus is it plain that in your view neither Yahweh nor GTC can exist and are in fact impossible because they are alleged to necessarily be Creator, but you fantasize God as existence itself. If Yahweh/GTC does not exist, then it is impossible. To exist, Yahweh/GTC must necessarily be Creator of existence. But if Yahweh/GTC is existence, then it cannot be Creator of existence because it could not have caused itself or come about from nothingness uncaused. It could not have always existed because in that case there would be no necessary Creation or metaphysical primacy of non-existence. <BR/><BR/>Your belief, it seems to me, does not qualify as theism, for a theistic or deistic god must be an ontological person. If you believe existence is God, then you are a pantheist * and a heretic relative to what is defined as nominal Christianity or the Abrahamic religions. <BR/><BR/>Back to the issue of infinite verses finite. Infinite in scope can have no particular identity because: <B>“An infinite amount or infinite size is a contradiction in terms: infinity is no particular amount, no particular size—infinities are abstract potentials, not existing concretes. To describe God as actually infinite in any way violates Identity and thereby removes the possibility of His existence”.</B> - Greg Perkins, "God, Faith, and the Supernatural: The Objectivist Perspective", p.17 footnote 4<BR/><BR/>RB:<I> 6.By modus tollens from 1 and 5, YAHWEH cannot be GOD as it cannot both be infinite and finite.</I><BR/><BR/>JHL: <I>question begging: all this proves is that if we accept you premise about identity having to be finite, and you have no proved that, then the litrary place hold (metaphor) used to represent God in the Bible would be impossible as an actual entity, but so what?</I><BR/><BR/>The logic is sound and the premises are true. Smith got it right. My argument is not question begging, but your delusion is nothing more that a rather silly special pleading. <BR/><BR/>* (Pantheism is the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material universe and human beings are only manifestations: it involves a denial of God's personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-7358605115023286632009-04-07T12:39:00.000-04:002009-04-07T12:39:00.000-04:00But it is quite easy to prove gods alleged to be b...But it is quite easy to prove gods alleged to be both personal beings and infinite in scope cannot exist.<BR/><BR/>That which is self contradictory can no more exist or occur than can a square circle. Consider this very ancient (and true) argument against the Abrahamic theistic GOD.<BR/><BR/><B>tht is so irrational. what's contradictory about it? Just your arbitrary notion.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>1.To be GOD, YAHWEH must be an ontological person that is infinite in scope.<BR/><BR/><B>what is an ontological person?</B><BR/><BR/>2.To be an ontological person is to have a specific identity.<BR/><BR/><B>how do you know that?</B><BR/><BR/>3.To have a specific identity is to necessarily be finite.<BR/><BR/><B>assumption not in evdience. specific identity would be in contrast to us for our benefit. In other words God's "identity" is not like ours, shaped by individuality and society, but merely a construct we can relate to.</B><BR/><BR/>4.YAHWEH has a specific identity.<BR/><BR/><B>Literary identity not necessary in an actual "ontological" sense.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>5.YAHWEH therefore is necessarily finite and cannot be infinite.<BR/><BR/><B>you have not demonstrated that ponit. you are assuming id has to be lmiited and finite, why? you have not proved that. Just because our identities are such does not mean all identities must be.<BR/><BR/>God's id would be based upon being, God is identified with being itself so that's an identity, it's also unique and not analogous to ours.</B><BR/><BR/>6.By modus tollens from 1 and 5, YAHWEH cannot be GOD as it cannot both be infinite and finite.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B>question begging: all this proves is that if we accept you premise about identity having to be finite, and you have no proved that, then the litrary place hold (metaphor) used to represent God in the Bible would be impossible as an actual entity, but so what?</B>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76044160727616672942009-04-06T20:13:00.000-04:002009-04-06T20:13:00.000-04:00Greetings ismellarat: I hope you and yours are fee...Greetings ismellarat: I hope you and yours are feeling good and are doing well. May you live long and prosper.<BR/><BR/>Eric (the author of this thread's subject quote) argued against the simple argument from incompatible properties by saying that an infinite set of all even or<BR/>odd numbers has the identity of even or odd. I counter argued on my silly blog page <A HREF="http://robertbumbalough.blogspot.com/2009/01/replies-to-eric-helmet-a-theist-mystic.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> and <A HREF="http://robertbumbalough.blogspot.com/2009/02/additional-reply-to-eric.html" REL="nofollow">here</A><BR/>and <A HREF="http://robertbumbalough.blogspot.com/2009/02/more-on-why-there-can-be-no-recognition.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/>I think I adequately defended the argument. But since Eric made the gross error of attacking human cognition in the subject quote of this thread, he has thereby surrendered his position that a priori systems of thought (Cantorian Set Theory) by virtue of being internally self-consistent are actually real in extant existence. I note further that if internal self-consistency is sufficient to render an a priori system of thought actually real then String Theory would be true and all GODS are impossible because divine Creation could then never have obtained.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8251036415394524692009-04-06T17:11:00.000-04:002009-04-06T17:11:00.000-04:00If only Dawkins had thought of that argument.Poor ...If only Dawkins had thought of that argument.<BR/><BR/>Poor Craig would have had to have conceded defeat and gone home! ;-)ismellarathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798650524118603772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52223369835583720242009-04-06T15:37:00.000-04:002009-04-06T15:37:00.000-04:00Philip R Kreyche said... Prove it. in reply to Jef...Philip R Kreyche said... <I>Prove it.</I> in reply to Jeff Carter.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Kreyche would have been better to have asked Mr. Carter to <B>Define it.</B><BR/><BR/>Since no religious person can define what a god is, they have not the slightest will-o'-the-wisp of proving that one exists.<BR/><BR/>But it is quite easy to prove gods alleged to be both personal beings and infinite in scope cannot exist.<BR/><BR/>That which is self contradictory can no more exist or occur than can a square circle. Consider this very ancient (and true) argument against the Abrahamic theistic GOD.<BR/><BR/>1.To be GOD, YAHWEH must be an ontological person that is infinite in scope.<BR/><BR/>2.To be an ontological person is to have a specific identity.<BR/><BR/>3.To have a specific identity is to necessarily be finite.<BR/><BR/>4.YAHWEH has a specific identity.<BR/><BR/>5.YAHWEH therefore is necessarily finite and cannot be infinite.<BR/><BR/>6.By modus tollens from 1 and 5, YAHWEH cannot be GOD as it cannot both be infinite and finite.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27138517373996580072009-04-06T11:13:00.000-04:002009-04-06T11:13:00.000-04:00I thought I’d better stop before "ole Joe" blew a ...<B>I thought I’d better stop before "ole Joe" blew a gasket!</B>Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42116011053217809722009-04-05T17:38:00.000-04:002009-04-05T17:38:00.000-04:00I have in mind a Jerry Springer Special Edition: T...I have in mind a Jerry Springer Special Edition: Theology Debates Gone Wild!<BR/><BR/>The kind where he innocently sets up a banquet table and invites the guests to settle their differences over a meal. That'd make for a cool YouTube video. Everybody would later be arguing over whether the other guy's suffocating in the punch bowl was more humiliating than getting the gravy poured inside their own pants.<BR/><BR/>Seriously, each side has a golden opportunity to make the other look small-minded by simply not reciprocating.ismellarathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01798650524118603772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35402645592576752892009-04-05T16:57:00.000-04:002009-04-05T16:57:00.000-04:00Alright guys, tempers are flying high right now an...Alright guys, tempers are flying high right now and I think we've all lost track of the issues. What might have been meant as jokes or innocent remarks are being misread. The only way to win now is for someone to rise above and stop responding to the provocations. If someone is really annoying you, just ignore them. No accusations and no blame, just time to move on.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20579077789036970182009-04-05T16:44:00.000-04:002009-04-05T16:44:00.000-04:00McCall you are the kind of little vicious thug I w...McCall you are the kind of little vicious thug I was talking about making illegal. you are clearly guilty of hate speech and you need to think before you flap your gums.<BR/><BR/>hate speech is already illegal. there are laws, I just want to include more hate mongers in the laws.<BR/><BR/>trying to persecute people for their believes is not cool.<BR/><BR/>you have a very very uncool person.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89707290365597253702009-04-05T16:42:00.000-04:002009-04-05T16:42:00.000-04:00here's the legal definitionof liable or slander th...here's the legal definitionof liable or slander that I found:<BR/><BR/>"Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person."<BR/><BR/>accusing me of debauchery is certainly harmful to my reputation as a Christian. So I would think twice about doing ti again becasue I will sue you the first chance I get.<BR/><BR/>and that also goes for saying I'm a nazi.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com