Here is an argument Joe Hinman sent me, with some revisions by me.
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
2. OP's can be summed up in the TS, the transcendental signified.
3. Philosophical Naturalism rejects the transcendental signed.
4. Therefore, Philosophical Naturalism fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. Minds organize and communicate meaning
6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation
rational, coherent , and meaningful view.
The concept of the Transcendental Signified is Derridean, and requires some explanation, which is provided here.
I'm not a Derrida expert, but this seems interesting.
my explanation of Derridian background part 1
ReplyDeleteDerridian background part 2
my defense of the premises
ReplyDeleteJoe Hinman turns logic (and grammar) on its head, why not Derrida, too?
ReplyDeletemyv newt God Argument from ground being
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteBlogger Ilíon said...
Joe Hinman turns logic (and grammar) on its head, why not Derrida, too?
August 10, 2016 5:40 AM
Eric Sotnack who teaches Philosophy at Akron helped me structure the argument, So a professional philosopher who is an atheist thinks it's valid.
show me a grammatical error I'e committed. do you even know the grammar, spelling, and punctuation>?
^ I leave it to Gentle Reader to supply his own guffaws.
ReplyDeleteIlion, you are out of bounds here. However you may disagree with him, especially on politics, we all know he is dyslexic and needs help with some mechanical issues in writing. My doctoral dissertation advisor, Hugh Chandler, was the same way.
ReplyDeleteI am never "out of bounds"; I say the truth that you do not wish said. Said or unsaid, reality remain what it is -- "Joe Hinman turns logic (and grammar) on its head, why not Derrida, too?".
ReplyDeleteIt seems that you have as little respect for this particular prancing fool as I do, albeit differently grounded.
If he is dyslexic, then that is *his* problem, and it is up to him to take the care that what he posts isn't so scrambled that no one else has the faintest clue as to what he means.
And, in any event, his underlying problem isn't dyslexia, it's illogic ... and vicious leftism.
By the way, my immediate supervisor is dyslexic ... and he doesn't need anyone to run interference for him when we can't make heads nor tails of what he means to communicate to us.
this is me laughing at that assertion
ReplyDeleteJust showing up to encourage whoever came up with the argument. New arguments are always a joy to see - even unsuccessful ones can be great, given the effort.
ReplyDeleteI don't know enough Derrida to otherwise comment.
thanks Crude, Derrida is not really the point it works without him
ReplyDeleteIdion says "I am never out of bounds; I say the truth that you do not wish said. Said or unsaid, reality remain what it is -- "Joe Hinman turns logic (and grammar) on its head, why not Derrida, too?".
ReplyDeleteyou do not know the difference between grammar and spellimg. I don't see you makimng any logical arguments, you are just spouting a bunch of political ejaculations. You are out of bounds if the owner of the blog says you are.
you do not know the gospel, you preach a counterfeit gospel that's salvation by politics
August 11, 2016 4:31 AM Delete
Dyslexia or no, let's consider again the flow of the joke --
ReplyDeleteVR: "Joe Hinman turns Derrida on his head"
me: "Joe Hinman turns logic (and grammar) on its head, why not Derrida, too?"
Joe Hinman: "show me a grammatical error I'e committed. do you even know the grammar, spelling, and punctuation>?"
me: "^ I leave it to Gentle Reader to supply his own guffaws"
That is comedy gold, or at least pyrite, is it not? Especially considering VR's statement.
getting even with me is so much more important than getting people to believe in God.
ReplyDeletegetting even with me is so much more important than getting people to believe in God.
ReplyDelete"so much more important than getting people to believe in God"
ReplyDeleteThat's never going to happen on the internet.
I have gotten people to believe in God on then et., One became a priest because my we site. What probably did n't happen was they ogt spiritual growth unless the lord got through to them off line,
ReplyDeletemy answer to argument from material causation an antiGod argument,
ReplyDeleteMetacrock's blog
Joe: Have you seen this?
ReplyDeletehttp://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2016/08/hinmans-argument-from-organizing.html
^ On the theory that one good post-modernist deserves another?
ReplyDeleteIdioton doesn't know shit about Derrida. I studied with a pro who had been his student.
ReplyDelete