tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post2899455316212406638..comments2022-08-22T19:56:26.776-05:00Comments on Ben Wallis’s counter-apologetics blog: James Anderson and non-contradictionBen Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-43460679668050748462012-01-09T09:12:16.977-06:002012-01-09T09:12:16.977-06:00Jnani,
Sorry for the late reply. Anyway, I'm...Jnani,<br /><br />Sorry for the late reply. Anyway, I'm not sure what constitutes an "example" of the LNC failing to have content about the extra-linguistic world. I suppose you could look at a special case, something like:<br /><br />q = "it is not the case that Ben drinks coffee and Ben does not drink coffee"<br /><br />where q does not tell me anything about the world (apart from language). I evaluate the truth of q not by appealing to anything about the external world, but rather to my own internal mental pictures. For suppose I can form a mental picture corresponding to some statement p, and another mental picture corresponding to ~p. I can evaluate the truth of ~(p&~p) by reflection. In particular, I find that I cannot combine the mental pictures corresponding to each of p and ~p into one big picture. This tells me something about how language captures our mental pictures of the world, not about anything language-independent.<br /><br />--BenBen Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-41434171350943289432012-01-02T16:22:26.714-06:002012-01-02T16:22:26.714-06:00Hezekiah Ahaz did not remove his comments, I did, ...Hezekiah Ahaz did not remove his comments, I did, due to their inflammatory nature.<br /><br />To anyone who is tempted to call people names (like "stalker" or "creep"), I AM NOT YOUR MOM. You are supposed to learn how to behave like an adult from her, not me. So get with the program, or move along.Ben Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-28551122650726902382012-01-02T15:57:23.347-06:002012-01-02T15:57:23.347-06:00Ben,
I see that Trinity has removed what he poste...Ben,<br /><br />I see that Trinity has removed what he posted earlier:<br /><br />I no longer see his comment: <br /><br />"Ben how does one go about reporting a stalker?"<br /><br />Perhaps he removed it. If so, wise "automated" choice, I would say. Luckily, I was able to capture it before it was removed.<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-91738031223026248632012-01-02T15:50:02.268-06:002012-01-02T15:50:02.268-06:00A of couple posts ago, I wrote the a comment in re...A of couple posts ago, I wrote the a comment in response to a question Trinity addressed to Ben. It is a question that Trinity has also posed to me on a few occasions. I chose to answer it with the following comment, (which has been edited for grammar and amended for clarity): <br />------------<br />Trinity wrote to Ben: ""Is there a possibility that you may be delusional?"<br /><br />Trinity has asked similar questions of me in the past. To his question, I would ask for some clarification:<br /><br />Delusional about what? Delusional as opposed to what? What is subsumed under the concept "delusional"?<br /><br />Are you inquiring if I'm delusional about the concepts you used in your question? Might the concepts you used not really refer to anything in reality? Might the concepts you used in your sentence not really mean what I think they mean? Is this the nature of the delusion you have in mind?<br /><br />Or can we rule out that particular kind of delusion, that I am not deluded about the concepts you are using? It seems you yourself assume that this is the case -- that your inquiry into an alleged, unnamed "delusion" does not apply to the inquiry itself. Is my assumption correct?<br /><br />If my assumption is correct -- that you do not think I am delusional as to the concepts you are using in your inquiry -- then on what basis do you make such an inquiry? What evidence do you have to suggest that I am a holding a belief "in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason." (Free Dictionary)<br /><br />--------------------<br /><br />Trinity then posted the following: "Ben how does one go about reporting a stalker?"<br /><br />There is really no indication in this particular response that Trinity is referring directly to me. However, in past comments of his, he has suggested that I am stalking him by posting comments on other public blogs where he is a participant. Such suggestions fly in the face of all evidence.<br /><br />In case Trinity's most recent comment is, indeed, another example of his falsely and recklessly accusing others of actions that do not rise the level of his allegation or insinuation, I would just like to say that the evidence is piling up that it is Trinity himself who is not only deluded as to his claim that a god exists, but it also appears that he is regularly displaying this disorder in other areas of his life, i.e., holding to a belief "in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason." <br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-25419747166950373052012-01-02T14:56:57.168-06:002012-01-02T14:56:57.168-06:00Trinity wrote to Ben: ""Is there a possi...Trinity wrote to Ben: ""Is there a possibility that you may be delusional?"<br /><br />Trinity has asked similar questions of me in the past. To his question, I would ask for some clarification:<br /><br />Delusional about what? Delusional as opposed to what? What is subsumed under the concept "delusional"? <br /><br />Are you inquiring if I'm delusional about the concepts you used in your question? Might the concepts you used not really refer to anything in reality? Might the concepts you used in your sentence not really mean what I think they mean? Is this the nature of the delusion you have in mind? <br /><br />Or can we rule that out that particular delusion, that I am not deluded about the concepts you are using? It seems you yourself assume that this is the case -- that your inquiry into an alleged, unnamed "delusion" does not apply to the inquiry itself. Is my assumption correct?<br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-53104037754090099602012-01-02T11:17:37.159-06:002012-01-02T11:17:37.159-06:00Ben,
“I'm not sure what role you have in mind...Ben,<br /><br /><i>“I'm not sure what role you have in mind for a "metaphysical principle," but if you're talking about the world independent of language/inference, then I don't see how the LNC could apply. It just doesn't have any descriptive content about the external world”</i><br /><br /><br />By metaphysical principle I mean that LNC applies to reality independent of any mind. I don’t see how LNC “doesn’t have any descriptive content about the external world”. It sure seems to me that what we know of reality is at its core described quite well by LNC. I would be curious if you can give an example where LNC does not hold metaphysically?<br /><br /><br />ThanksTheRealJnanihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15941926446934523633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-53560403734273049862012-01-02T03:53:15.288-06:002012-01-02T03:53:15.288-06:00Dawson,
Thanks, and I did read your post about An...Dawson,<br /><br />Thanks, and I did read your post about Anderson's/Welty's argument. As you can see, you and I differ dramatically in our approaches. For instance, I (tentatively) regard the necessary/contingent dichotomy as meaningful, and with Anderson I do want to preserve as many intuitions as I can. And of course I'm no objectivist, so I don't share your criticism regarding their lack of a "theory of concepts."<br /><br />However I did appreciate your concern about the idea of God not being "free" when his thoughts are necessarily existent. I don't think this is a problem for Anderson/Welty, who are likely to reject (along with myself) the notion of libertarian freedom. However it is a handy criticism for the naive evidentialist who thinks he can casually pick up a stray presuppositionalist argument!<br /><br />--BenBen Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-75342263106445719012012-01-02T02:37:40.212-06:002012-01-02T02:37:40.212-06:00Trinity wrote: "For the most part cognitive f...Trinity wrote: "For the most part cognitive functions are automatic."<br /><br />What do you mean, "for the most part"? This seems to imply that not all "cognitive functions" are automatic -- care to elaborate on this for us? In your view, which part of "cognitive functions" are automatic and which ones aren't? And how did you find this out? When you were contemplating writing what you wrote in the above sentence, was that contemplation automatic? How about all your deleted posts -- was there any thinking involved in this, or did it just happen for you without thinking? <br /><br />If you respond to my questions or not, was this choice "automatic"? Or did it require thought? If it required thought, what were the thoughts about? Were they thoughts about something as opposed to something else? <br /><br />Trinity writes: "Rand's "Theory of Concepts" is a bunch of loaded rhetoric that really is worse than useless."<br /><br />Is your use of concepts in what you've written here an example of an automatic "cognitive function"? If it is such an example, how do you know you're right or wrong as to your assessment of Rand's book? Have you read this particular book in its entirety? If you did, did you understand it? <br /><br />Trinity concluded: "We don't need it. The Good Lord above keeps things 'regular' and hence I need not worry about a 'Theory of Concepts.'"<br /><br />"Regular"? By "regular" do you mean such things as Conversational Asses, Chit-Chatty Snakes, City-Strolling Dead People, Water Turning Into Wine, A Morally Pure Being Creating Concepts, Including The Concept "Death," Knowledge With Nothing to be Knowledgeable Of, Awareness With Nothing To Be Aware Of and No Means Of Awareness, Objects of Consciousness Conforming To Consciousness?<br /><br />Are these the types of things you mean when you speak of "regular"? Or is this "regularity," in your view, not absolute? <br /><br />YdemocYdemochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498165330193613762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-58628732559807052842012-01-02T00:19:01.370-06:002012-01-02T00:19:01.370-06:00As usual poison the well then proceed.
How about ...As usual poison the well then proceed.<br /><br />How about it Reynold why is counting possible?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-41789341146744745322012-01-02T00:15:32.637-06:002012-01-02T00:15:32.637-06:00Hezekiah Ahaz
That doesn't account for countin...<b>Hezekiah Ahaz</b><br /><i>That doesn't account for counting it's actually quite simple God knows how to count see the "Proof"?</i><br />Are you nuts? With all the <a href="http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/math.html" rel="nofollow">simple mathematical errors</a> in the bible, you're claiming that he's the one responsible for the ability to count???Reynoldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316048340050664487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-23596384784302471112012-01-01T21:16:54.379-06:002012-01-01T21:16:54.379-06:00By the way Dawson as I was telling your admirers &...By the way Dawson as I was telling your admirers "Ydemoc" and Jhall. <br /><br />For the most part cognitive functions are automatic. Rand's "Theory of Concepts" is a bunch of loaded rhetoric that really is worse than useless.<br /><br />We don't need it. The Good Lord above keeps things "regular" and hence I need not worry about a "Theory of Concepts".<br /><br />Thanks Bud.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-3249233323227634192012-01-01T21:15:35.670-06:002012-01-01T21:15:35.670-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-13480243754869423382012-01-01T20:41:17.498-06:002012-01-01T20:41:17.498-06:00Blah blah blah is the same junk I've had to su...Blah blah blah is the same junk I've had to subject myself to for the last 7 months or so.<br /><br />That doesn't account for counting it's actually quite simple God knows how to count see the "Proof"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-57307026361698618712012-01-01T20:27:59.224-06:002012-01-01T20:27:59.224-06:00Nide wrote: “love in Christ”
Is this the kind of ...Nide wrote: “love in Christ”<br /><br />Is this the kind of “love” which biblegod had for its “only begotten” son – the son it allowed a ruthless mob of unjust reprobates torture and execute? If so, I have a much better love already, thank you. I would never allow my daughter to be tortured and executed if I had any way of preventing it, that’s for sure. Go enjoy your god’s “love.” <br /><br />Now the question “why is counting possible?” came up in the foregoing discussion.<br /><br />Human beings have the ability to count because: <br /><br />a) there is a reality (i.e., existence exists);<br />b) the concretes which exist in reality have specific identity – they are what they are; <br />c) human beings possess the faculty of consciousness;<br />d) the nature of human consciousness includes the ability to form concepts.<br /><br />Counting is a function of measurement, and measurement is epistemological, not metaphysical. *What* we measure – what we count – is metaphysical (e.g., how many balls is the child playing with, how big are they in relation to each other and other objects, etc.). The process of measurement begins at the perceptual level of cognition: one can see directly, for instance, that a tennis ball is bigger than a ping pong ball. Our awareness of such similarities and differences is immediate, firsthand, and perceptual in nature. The process of measurement continues into the conceptual realm of cognition as the similarities and differences perceived among various objects are explicitly identified by means of concepts. We have the concept of comparative adjectives, for instance: this ball is <i>bigger</i> than that one; that one is <i>smaller</i> than this one. We also form the concepts of numbers; numbers are in fact concepts, not free-floating metaphysical concretes existing in some Platonic netherworld which we can only access by means of imagination. Once we have numbers and other concepts, we can start to apply them to formalize the measurement process. We identify a unit as a standard of length, for instance, and use it to measure size, distance, area, etc., by multiplying or dividing it. This is all a conceptual process. For specifics, see Rand’s <i>Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology</i>, which lays out the essentials of her theory of concepts. The first chapter is titled “Cognition and Measurement” and provides an analysis of the perceptual basis of measurement. It is the gateway to abstraction. She shows, for instance, how algebraic formulas are essentially conceptual in nature. She writes:<br /><br />“The basic principle of concept-formation (which states that the omitted measurements must exist in <i>some</i> quantity, but may exist in <i>any</i> quantity) is the equivalent of the basic principle of algebra, which states that algebraic symbols must be given <i>some</i> numerical value, but may be given <i>any</i> value. In this sense and respect, perceptual awareness is the arithmetic, but <i>conceptual awareness is the algebra of cognition</i>.” (p. 18)<br /><br />You won’t learn any of this from Christianity. It has no theory of concepts to begin with.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-48236731736543173872012-01-01T19:55:19.060-06:002012-01-01T19:55:19.060-06:00Dawwsonnnnn you're alive!!!!!!
Of course a fa...Dawwsonnnnn you're alive!!!!!!<br /><br />Of course a favorite tactic of "atheist" is to begin by poising the well.<br /><br />You got a new post??? Greatttt!!!<br /><br />Be there soon.<br /><br />love in christ,<br />HAAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-41017709863808023982012-01-01T19:45:24.204-06:002012-01-01T19:45:24.204-06:00Hello Ben,
I’m glad you posted an entry on Anders...Hello Ben,<br /><br />I’m glad you posted an entry on Anderson & Welty’s paper. I have posted some initial thoughts in response to it as well over on my blog, here: <a href="http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2012/01/are-laws-of-logic-thoughts-of-christian.html" rel="nofollow">Are the Laws of Logic “Thoughts” of the Christian God?</a><br /><br />I listed two additional concerns in a comment that I posted to the blog as well. You might find it of interest.<br /><br />I see that “Hezekiah Ahaz” – a blog troll – has found his way to your site. He’s been quite active on my blog since the summer. He posted the following argument:<br /><br /><i>1. Atheists lack belief in God.<br />2. God is life.<br />3. Atheists believe in life.<br />4. Atheists believe in God Inference from 2 and 3<br />5. Contradiction From 1 and 4 <br />C. Atheists don't have a lack of belief about God. Negation Intro via 5.</i><br /><br />Premise 1 is certainly true: atheists do in fact lack god-belief. But Premise 2 commits the fallacy of the stolen concept, and should be rejected. Life is <i>biological</i>, and folks who do not subscribe to supernaturalism (e.g., atheists) hold that life is the domain of <i>biological organisms</i>. With respect to Premise 3, atheists like myself hold that the essential nature of life is biological. But the Christian god is said to be immaterial and incorporeal, thus it could not be a biological organism. It has no body, it does not bleed, it does not need to eat, it does not need to breathe, it does not need a doctor, it can have no health problems, it does not face the alternative of life vs. death. Thus the concept ‘life’ as it is used in Premise 2 here, by equating it with ‘God’, denies the biological nature of life, and thus makes use of the concept while denying its genetic roots. I.e., a stolen concept. It is an attempt to hijack a genuine metaphysical phenomenon (life) in an attempt to construe a contradiction that does not exist. There is no contradiction in affirming the reality of living organisms and rejecting any form of supernaturalism, including theism.<br /><br />Case closed.<br /><br />Regards,<br />DawsonBahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-85545776514680239132012-01-01T18:45:29.126-06:002012-01-01T18:45:29.126-06:00C'mon Ben is not that hard.
It's a simpl...C'mon Ben is not that hard. <br /><br />It's a simple a question how do you as an "atheist" account for something as simple as counting.<br /><br />You can't just assert anything you want especially something like evolution that you know Christians reject.<br /><br />You can't run all your life Ben sometime you gotta face the truth.<br /><br /><br />So, Ben if I can show you that your reasoning is fallacious will you recant and admit you really have no explanation for anything at all? <br /><br />If you choose otherwise I understand no hard feelings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-47927980297424031302012-01-01T18:33:57.837-06:002012-01-01T18:33:57.837-06:00Hezekiah Ahaz,
What "conclusion"?
I...Hezekiah Ahaz,<br /><br />What "conclusion"?<br /><br />I'm having trouble making sense of your posts here. You accuse me of misrepresenting you when I have not done anything of the sort, and then of begging the question when I haven't even made an argument. Then you ask me to give an argument, but you don't specify what it is you expect me to argue. Nor am I clear on how this line of questioning is in any way relevant to the topic in the first place.<br /><br />Anyway, I answered your last question, and as anticipated you did not find it satisfactory. I'm not sure what point there would be to pursuing the matter further.<br /><br />--BenBen Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-74932152542891508712012-01-01T18:22:43.934-06:002012-01-01T18:22:43.934-06:00Ben,
ok let's do this in its strictest sense ...Ben,<br /><br />ok let's do this in its strictest sense even though if you read the whole wiki entry you will see that my use of begging the question is actually legitimate.<br /><br />Anyway in the mean time<br /><br />Can you put it in the form of an argument i.e. can you provide two premises to support your conclusion?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-45899595205870885992012-01-01T17:48:07.179-06:002012-01-01T17:48:07.179-06:00Hezekiah Ahaz,
What straw men? What position did...Hezekiah Ahaz,<br /><br />What straw men? What position did I attribute to you which you do not actually hold?<br /><br />Also, you appear to be misusing the term <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question" rel="nofollow">begging the question</a>, which refers to a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is assumed in a premise of an argument. In contrast, I did not even make an argument in my last post---I simply answered your question.<br /><br />Presumably you mean to criticize my answer on the grounds that what is explained by the evolution of large brains is not what you wish to have explained. In that case, it might help to be more specific. The evolution of brains capable of counting seems a very satisfying explanation for the reality of our abilities to count. So if that's not what you're after, then what?<br /><br />--BenBen Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-67437932435400038532012-01-01T17:15:07.477-06:002012-01-01T17:15:07.477-06:00C'mon Ben there is no need for the straw men b...C'mon Ben there is no need for the straw men but I'll deal with those later.<br /><br />You said: "I should add that the obvious reason counting is possible is because we have evolved large brains capable of doing so."<br /><br />Well, Ben now your begging the question. So, without question begging or circular reasoning why is counting possible?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-77780796275260491742012-01-01T09:39:41.696-06:002012-01-01T09:39:41.696-06:00I should add that the obvious reason counting is p...I should add that the obvious reason counting is possible is because we have evolved large brains capable of doing so.Ben Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-59100125205931003492012-01-01T09:37:10.473-06:002012-01-01T09:37:10.473-06:00Hezekiah Ahaz,
Any answer I give is unlikely to s...Hezekiah Ahaz,<br /><br />Any answer I give is unlikely to satisfy you, so instead let's suppose for the sake of argument that I do not know why it is that counting is possible. What argument gets us from there to the existence of God, or to nontheists being delusional, etc. ?<br /><br />In other words, what premise (2) will deliver a compelling argument of this form:<br /><br />(1) Nontheists do not know how counting is possible.<br />(2) ???<br />(3) Therefore, God exists.<br /><br />or<br /><br />(1) Nontheists do not know how counting is possible.<br />(2) ???<br />(3') Therefore, nontheists are delusional.<br /><br />--BenBen Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-37129646821405977812012-01-01T09:20:06.191-06:002012-01-01T09:20:06.191-06:00Ben,
Christian arguments.
For example Dr. Van T...Ben,<br /><br />Christian arguments. <br /><br />For example Dr. Van Til says:<br /><br />The atheist can't account for counting or generally the sciences now I know your a math teacher.<br /><br />So, Ben why is counting possible?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-11163283304584446262011-12-31T15:52:54.886-06:002011-12-31T15:52:54.886-06:00Hezekiah Ahaz,
I have changed my mind occasionall...Hezekiah Ahaz,<br /><br />I have changed my mind occasionally as the result of encountering persuasive arguments and evidence. Others report similar experiences.<br /><br />If you think I am delusional in this particular respect (i.e. in regards to Christianity) then I don't know what to tell you. I don't have any reason to think I'm delusional, but then if I was delusional perhaps I would not recognize such reasons. In any case, I can only work with the cognitive tools available to me. If I happen to be delusional, that's rotten luck. But there's not much I can do about it, beyond doing my best to be reasonable.<br /><br />So if you have any reasons to think I am delusional, feel free to let me know. But otherwise it remains one of those "anything is possible" scenarios which I haven't any inclination to worry about.<br /><br />--BenBen Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.com