tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5176887319068206712..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Another version of the AFRVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger166125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72519028261791554232013-09-01T10:14:27.678-07:002013-09-01T10:14:27.678-07:00"I had to be taught how to perceive it."..."I had to be taught how to perceive it."<br /><br />It is undeniable that we can change the way we perceive or experience things. An expert critic can give us insight that we didn't have before, and we thus acquire a new perspective and a new way to experience something's beauty. But beauty is still a matter of perception.<br /><br />"it would be like me saying that Piers Plowman lacked beauty one day, but possessed it the next."<br /><br />Actually, it would be more like saying that one day you saw it and appreciated it in a different way. I mentioned the beauty of a woman (or a guy, if you are a woman). Can some "expert" teach you how to properly see the beauty? How would that affect your perception of the one you love? What if you disagree with the expert? You think something is beautiful, but the expert says it isn't, so should you then admit (and realize) that it really isn't? And what if two different experts don't agree among themselves? How do you decide which one is right? <br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48676206842262214112013-09-01T09:31:41.939-07:002013-09-01T09:31:41.939-07:00Skep,
The language here is admittedly fuzzy, and...Skep, <br /><br />The language here is admittedly fuzzy, and I appreciate your question. The simplest answer is yes, there are indeed experts who know better than other people, and who are more competent to judge what is beautiful and what isn't.<br /><br />I am perpetually amazed at the insight I find in various works of literary criticism, that reveal things about one work or another that I myself completely missed. For instance, I didn't think much of <i>Piers Plowman</i> until I read John Alford's <i>A Companion to Piers Plowman</i>, which opened my eyes to vast worlds of beauty in the work that had been completely invisible to me beforehand. I had to be taught how to perceive it. <br /><br />I see that as empirical evidence for the objective nature of beauty. Were beauty purely subjective, it would be like me saying that <i>Piers Plowman</i> lacked beauty one day, but possessed it the next. <br /><br />Imagine a mountain obscured from view on Monday by a thick bank of fog, but clearly visible on Tuesday after the fog had lifted. Would you claim that the mountain did not exist on Monday because you couldn't see it? Of course not! In the same manner, individual perception of beauty (or the lack of it) is irrelevant to its objective existence.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60258926751683298182013-09-01T08:54:02.001-07:002013-09-01T08:54:02.001-07:00"I think what it boils down to is that many h..."I think what it boils down to is that many here accept the medieval metaphysics of Aquinas and the scholastics."<br /><br />Of course it's all part of the Thomistic worldview, and as such, any denial of the objective reality of beauty represents a threat to the Thomist. And Ihaven't been trying to refute that here. <br /><br />But as I said a day ago, there is an epistemological side to this discussion, also. If you are making the claim that a particular thing is objectively beautiful, that's not an issue of the objective existence of beauty. It gets into the question of how you know what you are claiming. Different things are beautiful to different people. Who decides? Is there an expert who knows? That's what I was trying to ask about.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23644635783023749292013-09-01T06:02:44.910-07:002013-09-01T06:02:44.910-07:00@Walter:
"I think what it boils down to is t...@Walter:<br /><br />"I think what it boils down to is that many here accept the medieval metaphysics of Aquinas and the scholastics. For them Beauty has real ontological existence which is convertible with Truth, Being, Unity, and Goodness."<br /><br />I do accept such a metaphysics, and consequently my view of aesthetics is colored by it. But the objectivity of Beauty can be defended on other grounds, as a cursory look on the history of the subject shows. Whether it can be as *effectively* defended is another story; I would tentatively say no, but for the current discussion this is largely irrelevant.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32594734128878631522013-09-01T05:11:20.101-07:002013-09-01T05:11:20.101-07:00@im-skeptical
Not much of a discussion, is it? So...@im-skeptical<br /><br /><i>Not much of a discussion, is it? Sorry, Bob, I didn't ask anything impossible of you, and frankly, I think your response was pretty strange. I will remind you of the question that started all this off: "If you think beauty is objective, you should be able to define what objective means, ant put that in the context of beauty. Exactly what does objective beauty mean to you?"</i><br /><br />I think what it boils down to is that many here accept the medieval metaphysics of Aquinas and the scholastics. For them Beauty has real ontological existence which is convertible with Truth, Being, Unity, and Goodness. In other words all of these concepts ultimately refer to the same thing. If you deny the existence of objective beauty, then you are denying that objective truth or objective goodness exists.<br /><br />For those of us not well versed in scholastic metaphysics this idea sound pretty strange, mostly because we are not trained to think in this manner. Contemporary metaphysics is vastly different.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28053988380484273502013-08-31T20:07:30.568-07:002013-08-31T20:07:30.568-07:00Ilion,
Still waiting on a response to my refutati...Ilion,<br /><br />Still waiting on a response to my refutation of your "argument". Why couldn't minds have always existed alongside matter? Why can't there be a hidden property of matter that adds up to mentality? Why can't there be psychophysical laws that determine that some physical systems will give rise to certain states of consciousness? These are all valid theories of how mentality could arise without divine intervention and without being reducible to matter in motion, and you have done <b>NOTHING</b> to argue against them. If you're <i>so damn sure</i> that materialism and theism are the ONLY possible alternatives, you better be ready to DEMONSTRATE that non-materialist forms of atheism are logically incoherent - not just <i>assume</i> that they aren't worth dealing with. As far as I can tell, the propositions<br /><br />(1) The material world exists<br />(2) God does not exist<br />(3) Non-physical entities and/or irreducibly mental non-physical properties exist<br /><br />are logically consistent with each other. You assert that they are not. You have the burden of proof to <i>show</i> that they are not.<br /><br />I'm still waiting. ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80510483112844300412013-08-31T19:45:10.189-07:002013-08-31T19:45:10.189-07:00"I like that! I'm going to put it up ther..."<i>I like that! I'm going to put it up there alongside Rumsfeld's "Unknown Unknowns".</i>"<br /><br />"Unknown Unknowns" is <i>rational</i>, and in the context in which it's used, it's an important concept to keep always in mind ... doing so can prevent <i>hubris</i>. It describes-and-names the those things that we don't know and have so little clue about that we don't even know that we don't know them, in contrast to "Known Unknowns".<br /><br />But, "Unthought Thoughts" is <i>irrational</i> and, being a self-contradiction, it is illogical. Nevertheless, positing "Unthought Thoughts" is how poor little ing(énue)24, and Parbouj before him, imagines he can rescue God-denial from the smothering embrace of naturalism/materialism.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62886835401029351732013-08-31T17:30:36.248-07:002013-08-31T17:30:36.248-07:00"We are having a discussion. But I will forgi..."We are having a discussion. But I will forgive you for demanding the impossible as a prerequisite for conversation."<br /><br />Not much of a discussion, is it? Sorry, Bob, I didn't ask anything impossible of you, and frankly, I think your response was pretty strange. I will remind you of the question that started all this off: "If you think beauty is objective, you should be able to define what objective means, ant put that in the context of beauty. Exactly what does objective beauty mean to you?"<br /><br />Nothing about what's on the "other side". Nothing that couldn't be answered if you were inclined to do so. If you want to paint me as being unreasonable, fine. Have at it. It seems to be the thing to do.<br /><br />"Forget the pugilistic give-and-take of these virtual debates, forget your ego, and please, please, please forget your monomaniacal obsession with "empirical evidence" (that is not only not the only way we learn, it is not even the most important way)."<br /><br />Believe it or not, Bob, that's exactly why I come here. Have I developed a pugilistic attitude since I first started entering into these discussions? You bet.<br /><br />"You are so scared of opening up your toolbox to include things other than empiricism, that you are willing to toss overboard the concepts of truth, beauty, and morality upon the altar of subjectivity. Is that what you really desire? Are you content to live in a universe of with no beauty, no art, no good (or evil), no objective reality?"<br /><br />Yeah, I know. You have your preconceived notion of what I think, and no matter how many times I try to explain it to you, nothing changes. You keep telling me what I think. Why should you bother listening to someone who believes those things anyway?<br /><br />"Here's a thought experiment for you: Go up to a cosmologist, and demand that he explain to you in detail what occurred prior to the Inflationary Epoch, or else you cannot have a discussion with him. See how far you get with that."<br /><br />Actually, it's not unreasonable to discuss that, either. Did you ever hear of quantum loop cosmology?<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74726582111826520832013-08-31T16:48:06.400-07:002013-08-31T16:48:06.400-07:00Skep,
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm ...Skep,<br /><br />Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not trying to win some sort of debating point here. What I'm (probably inadequately) trying to say is that, confronted with the Infinite, our human language, and indeed, our very thoughts, are always going to be <i>infinitely</i> inadequate to express anything even remotely approaching the Reality of what we are trying to communicate.<br /><br />But so what? Our only alternative is to not explore these things at all. Yet that is impossible. Our inmost natures (even yours, Skep - why do you think you frequent this site?) <b>demand</b> that we do so. We cannot <i>not</i> press forward, knowing in advance that the quest is unending (at least, in this world).<br /><br />Forget the pugilistic give-and-take of these virtual debates, forget your ego, and please, please, please forget your monomaniacal obsession with "empirical evidence" (that is not only not the only way we learn, it is not even the most important way).<br /><br />Now before you triumphantly dismiss everything I've written with a "There, I have him. He want's me to take things on unproven blind faith" (which I don't), think about what you've reduced yourself to. You are so scared of opening up your toolbox to include things other than empiricism, that you are willing to toss overboard the concepts of truth, beauty, and morality upon the altar of subjectivity. Is that what you really desire? Are you content to live in a universe of with no beauty, no art, no good (or evil), no objective reality?<br /><br />Yet deny it as you will (and, unfortunately, I know you will) that is precisely where you are headed. I'm not going to say "For God's sake" but rather "For your sake", think about it (without worrying about who "wins" or "loses" an ultimately pointless internet debate. You're playing with fire here.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85647400668989069912013-08-31T16:03:26.833-07:002013-08-31T16:03:26.833-07:00"Unthought Thoughts"
I like that! I'..."<i>Unthought Thoughts</i>"<br /><br />I like that! I'm going to put it up there alongside Rumsfeld's "Unknown Unknowns".B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75162317282827272832013-08-31T16:00:58.558-07:002013-08-31T16:00:58.558-07:00"Forgive me for being so obtuse as to think t..."<i>Forgive me for being so obtuse as to think that you actually wanted to discuss that question.</i>"<br /><br />We <b>are</b> having a discussion. But I will forgive you for demanding the impossible as a prerequisite for conversation.<br /><br />Here's a thought experiment for you: Go up to a cosmologist, and demand that he explain to you in detail what occurred prior to the Inflationary Epoch, or else you cannot have a discussion with him. See how far you get with that.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-315501174640500212013-08-31T13:10:18.115-07:002013-08-31T13:10:18.115-07:00Ilion,
Since you clearly can't read, let me r...Ilion,<br /><br />Since you clearly can't read, let me repost my rebuttal to your "argument":<br /><br />"Alright Ilion, let's take a look at your argument:<br /><br /><i>1) the material/physical world of matter-space-time, and the interactions thereof, that we human beings perceive (i.e. 'nature') is real;<br />2) 'nature' is not created/sustained by any immaterial-and-unembodied mind/agent who is the logically prior transcendent "ground of all being";<br />From these two axioms of (western-style) atheism, it follows that:<br />3) human beings -- which is to say, human embodied minds -- have not always existed;<br />3a) this is true of any other embodied minds that may or may not exist in the world;</i><br /><br />Stop. Right there. What you have just done is commit a non-sequitur: it DOES NOT FOLLOW from (1) and (2) that embodied minds have not always existed. It could be true that minds have existed since the beginning of time alongside matter and energy - there is nothing logically inconsistent about believing this. You have simply assumed it to be false, and have done nothing to argue against it.<br /><br /><i>4) however it is that embodied minds did somehow "arise" in the world – and the cause/trigger must necessarily be ‘natural’, that is, must be “matter in motion” -- there was a time in the past (as there will be in the future) when there were no embodied minds;<br />4a) that is, there was a time when there were no minds at all;</i><br /><br />Again, this is assuming the truth of (3), which you have not shown to be true.<br /><br /><i>5) when there were no minds at all in the world, then all there was in the world was “matter in motion”;<br />5a) when there were no minds at all in the world, then *all* states, events, state-changes, causes and so on were only “matter in motion” and the effects thereof;</i><br /><br />This blatantly begs the question against views like panprotopsychism, neutral monism, etc. that assert that there is a hidden property of matter that logically adds up to mentality. I happen to think these views are false (they fall victim to arguments from the unity of consciousness, and they lead to epiphenomenalism and thus fall victim to the argument from reason), but you have done nothing to argue against them; you have simply assumed them to be false. Additionally, you have begged the question against the information-theoretic view (which I have called "computational dualism") that claims that information is an objective feature of reality and that minds are created by the accumulation of information within a physical system.<br /><br /><i>6) the first embodied minds were caused to “arise” by “matter in motion”;<br />6a) the thoughts of these first embodied minds were caused by “matter in motion”;<br />7) all subsequent embodied minds are likewise caused to “arise” by “matter in motion”;<br />7a) the thoughts of these subsequent embodied minds are likewise caused by “matter in motion”;</i><br /><br />Besides begging the question against views like panprotopsychism, computational dualism, and neutral monism, you have begged the question against strong emergentist versions of property dualism that assert that there are contingent psychophysical laws that determine that certain configurations of matter will be associated with certain states of consciousness. I happen to think this view is false - I have serious reservations about the whole concept of strong emergence - but you have done nothing to argue against it; you have simply assumed it to be false.<br /><br />Face it, Ilion - on its own, atheism DOES NOT entail materialism. You have to argue against views like neutral monism, panprotopsychism, panpsychism, computational dualism, strong emergence, and forms of substance dualism that claim that minds have always existed in order to establish theism and materialism as the only possible views available. And you have done nothing to argue against these views; you have simply assumed them to be false. "ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48386072113928895372013-08-31T13:08:29.755-07:002013-08-31T13:08:29.755-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83704268415763592062013-08-31T12:54:55.575-07:002013-08-31T12:54:55.575-07:00(dis)ing(enuous) liar: “Your "argument" ...<b>(dis)ing(enuous) liar:</b> “<i>Your "argument" for atheism implying materialism was full of logical fallacies, and I exposed it as such.</i>”<br /><br />He has done no such thing, no more than the “platonic atheist” Parbouj did before him. <br /><br />What he as done is assert that because he can imagine some hypothetical “<i>athe<b>ist</b></i>” who asserts-without-principle some individual proposition contrary to materialism, or even to atheism, he has thereby shown that (western-style)<i>athe<b>ism</b></i> does not imply materialism. <br /><br />To put it another way, he asserts that his deliberate refusal to address what I have actually argued, while instead asserting a <i>non sequitur</i>, refutes what I have argued.<br />Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20645781000761665842013-08-31T12:39:31.480-07:002013-08-31T12:39:31.480-07:00grodrigues: "Compare: before rational minds a...<b>grodrigues:</b> "<i>Compare: before rational minds appeared in the universe, and if all were to disappear from the universe, there was, and there would be, no one to grasp such truths as mathematical truths. But one is not thereby lead to the absurd conclusion that such truths were not, or would cease to be, or would become a "meaningless collection of ink-stained depressions on some paper".</i>"<br /><br /><b>Walter:</b> "<i>That is because logical and mathematical truths exist necessarily. But what is beauty? Is it a platonic form that necessarily exists apart from every mind? Surely not.</i>"<br /><br />Really!? Are you -- both of you -- *sure* you want to go there? Are you *sure* you want to say that it is an objective truth "logical and mathematical truths exist necessarily ... apart from <b>every</b> mind"?<br /><br />Let's see ...<br />We have matter/energy ...<br />We have the relationships through space and over time between instances of matter/energy ...<br />We have ... oh! wait! that's all we have, for "we" have denied that there is <b>a</b> Mind who is "the ground of all being", who is logically prior to matter/energy and time/space and the relationships thereto, and who, in the act of knowing truth, continuously creates all else that is.<br /><br />These "logical and mathematical truths", and all other "Platonic Forms", are not matter/energy, they are not time/space, they are not the relationships thereto. Their truth-and-reality not only has nothing to do with "rational minds [having] appeared in the universe", but also has nothing at all to do with "the universe" itself -- if there were no "universe" at all, it would still necessarily be true that "A = A" and "A != not-A" and so on.<br /><br />But, these necessary truths, these "Platonic Forms", are <i>concepts</i>, they are <i>ideas</i> -- <i>they are thoughts</i>. Thus, to assert the reality of *any* necessary truths -- <i>thoughts</i> -- while denying the fundamental reality of the Necessary Being who is thinking/knowing them, is to assert that there necessaritly exist Unthought Thoughts, and that it is these Unthought Thoughts, not any Thinking/Knowing Mind, which are fundamental to reality.<br /><br />In truth, no thought exists unless there is a thinker who thinks it. "Platonic Forms" and "necessary truths" are <i>thoughts</i>, and like any other thought, they must be thought/known in order to exist. That they exist independently of *us* thinking/knowing them does not entail the illogical conclusion that they exist independently of *all* minds.<br /><br />That there *are* "necessary truths" is proof that God is. That we *know* that there are "necessary truths" is proof that we -- every single one of us -- have no excuse for denying that God is. That we *know* that there are "necessary truths", that we *know* that the reality of "necessary truths" is proof that God is, is proof that we all know that God is, however much that some of us deny and seek to suppress that knowledge. Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18686519328341423602013-08-31T12:37:50.542-07:002013-08-31T12:37:50.542-07:00"I answered your question very precisely, and..."I answered your question very precisely, and with crystal clarity. I deliberately and purposefully brought up the relevant Medieval concept of a singularity, beyond which we can make no meaningful statement other than to affirm the existence of something, because that's all you're going to get when you demand an answer to a Reality that lies on the other side."<br /><br />OK, so it's my lack of comprehension. You are saying that for me to ask you so state your position on the concept of the objective nature of beauty, is tantamount to asking you to explain an ultimate reality that "lies on the other side", and is therefore inaccessible to explanation and understanding - something about which "no meaningful statements can be made."<br /><br />I'm glad we cleared that up. Now, going back a way in this thread I seem to recall you asking a question of your own: "- Are objects beautiful in themselves, or only because we perceive them to be so?" Forgive me for being so obtuse as to think that you actually wanted to discuss that question.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73650609632395204822013-08-31T12:29:47.554-07:002013-08-31T12:29:47.554-07:00Ah! So we agree that ing(énue)24 is irrational, fo...<i>Ah! So we agree that ing(énue)24 is irrational, for he strenuously denies the truth, openly discoverable by logical reasoning, that (western-style) atheism implies materialism, much as materialism assumes atheism; and he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that his imaginings about some hypothetical atheist who asserts-without-principle some individual proposition contrary to materialism, or even to atheism, tells us nothing at all about atheism.</i><br /><br />Your "argument" for atheism implying materialism was full of logical fallacies, and I exposed it as such. You did nothing to answer my objections, nor could you, as you simply concocted the argument post-hoc in order to rationalize your dogmatic assumption that materialism and Christian theism are the only possible worldviews. <br /><br />I think you might actually be worse than im-skeptical.ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72931425433749749662013-08-31T12:24:34.326-07:002013-08-31T12:24:34.326-07:00If you can't understand something as basic as ...<i>If you can't understand something as basic as that, then we're at the level of having to teach you the English Language before proceeding any further.</i><br /><br />Newsflash: Cult of Gnu member not as intelligent as he thinks he is; actually quite slow! In other news, water still wet, sun still bright.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51765968695031360222013-08-31T12:22:21.058-07:002013-08-31T12:22:21.058-07:00Walter,
As I stated upthread I believe there is a...Walter,<br /><br /><i>As I stated upthread I believe there is a conflation or perhaps confusion between ontology and psychology. The fact that humans collectively share certain psychological traits like an almost universal disgust for fecal discharge does not seem to be strong evidence that there is something intrinsically repulsive about feces that exists as a mind-independent fact.</i><br /><br />Who said anything about 'repulsiveness'?<br /><br />But either way, in that case - then your questions about song comparisons are a sham. Even if there was universal agreement that one song was aesthetically superior to another, you could just pawn it off as 'humans collectively sharing certain psychological traits'.<br /><br /><i>The fear among some theists like Bob seems to be that if objective aesthetic values do not exist someway somehow, then objective moral values likely don't either, and everything descends into relativistic chaos.</i><br /><br />Ugh. Psychoanalysis? Okay, fine: the fear among deists like Walter and Cultists of Gnu is that if objective aesthetic values do exist, then Christianity is true and suddenly, despite all their arguments and hopes and wishes, they're not only sinners, but sinners who will one day be exposed. That's all that keeps them from recognizing the obvious errors they embrace.<br /><br /><i>And for those who believe in the convertibility of the transcendentals,</i><br /><br />I think what's entailed by the convertibility of transcendentals is far more reasonable than the claim that the Triumphal Arch and a gang-rape pictorial are ultimately equal in terms of real aesthetic value.<br /><br />Nor do I think it's being accurately represented here. Still, I came for the aesthetic discussion, but apparently certain subjective proponents have decided a topic change and distraction is in order.<br /><br />Maybe the conversation wasn't aesthetically appealing!Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25830365929543152712013-08-31T12:18:14.496-07:002013-08-31T12:18:14.496-07:00Skep,
I answered your question very precisely, an...Skep,<br /><br />I answered your question very precisely, and with crystal clarity. I deliberately and purposefully brought up the relevant Medieval concept of a singularity, beyond which we can make no meaningful statement other than to affirm the existence of something, because that's all you're going to get when you demand an answer to a Reality that lies on the other side.<br /><br />If you can't understand something as basic as that, then we're at the level of having to teach you the English Language before proceeding any further.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74110488220435332132013-08-31T11:58:10.605-07:002013-08-31T11:58:10.605-07:00Walter: "ingx24
Exactly.
To deny mathematic...<b>Walter:</b> "<i>ingx24<br /><br />Exactly.<br /><br />To deny mathematical or logical truth is to be irrational. ...</i>"<br /><br />Ah! So we agree that ing(énue)24 is irrational, for he strenuously denies the truth, openly discoverable by logical reasoning, that (western-style) atheism implies materialism, much as materialism assumes atheism; and he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that his imaginings about some hypothetical <i>athe<b>ist</b></i> who asserts-without-principle some individual proposition contrary to materialism, or even to atheism, tells us nothing at all about <i>athe<b>ism</b></i>.<br /><br />Oh, wait! That's not where you wanted to go, is it?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64196259265080304942013-08-31T11:48:32.711-07:002013-08-31T11:48:32.711-07:00"You are perpetually accusing others of lacki..."You are perpetually accusing others of lacking in reading comprehension, whilst ironically demonstrating again and again an appalling lack or the same."<br /><br />Why can't you help clear things up by simply answering the question I asked? I wasn't asking about singularities in the cosmos, or anything remotely related to that. I was trying to get to an understanding of your concept of the objectiveness of beauty. That was, after all, the topic of the discussion.<br /><br />How can I tell whether LaFave is in agreement with what you say if you won't even explain your position? Am I speaking with someone rational? Or maybe it's because of my own lack of comprehension (as you keep harping about) that I missed where you gave some kind of cogent explanation of your position on this question.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29191093991523447632013-08-31T11:41:06.290-07:002013-08-31T11:41:06.290-07:00"Please read the article William cited earlie..."<i>Please read the article William cited earlier.</i>"<br /><br />Skep, why are you asking me to read the article (which I did long ago)? LaFave agrees with <b>everything</b> I've been saying here (or did you fail to understand that?) and pretty much labels what you've been pushing here as madness. <br /><br />You are perpetually accusing others of lacking in reading comprehension, whilst ironically demonstrating again and again an appalling lack of the same.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44228757963906266332013-08-31T11:16:41.347-07:002013-08-31T11:16:41.347-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4083701833983181062013-08-31T10:06:18.539-07:002013-08-31T10:06:18.539-07:00grodrigues,
I really don't care what your bac...grodrigues,<br /><br />I really don't care what your background is. If you want to impress people with your knowledge and wisdom, why don't you show some?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com