an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Dan Marvin, Lacking in Evidence

In a typically halfwitted post by Dan Marvin, over on his laughably inaccurately named ‘Debunking Atheists’, the following gem slipped out of his idiot hole  –

The supernatural is the presupposition of the integrability of the natural.

When I correctly pointed out the Dan that this was nothing but an evidence free naked assertion he responded thusly –

Are you completely and absolutely certain of that? If so, pretty please grace us with some evidences as to HOW? Otherwise, you completely lose all credibility in this conversation.

I responded in the only way possible, I asked him for objective evidence to back up his claim. I figured that if he could provide some evidence to support his claim that the “supernatural is the presupposition of the integrability of the natural” then, by default, I would be shown to be wrong.

To date he has failed to respond, failed to provide even an argument to support his assertion….in fact he’s ignored several attempts by myself to get him to answer! This leads me to believe that Dan doesn’t actually have any evidence at all, and that my initial point was correct.

Poor hapless Dan, unable to back up even the simplest of his assertions!

Single Post Navigation

37 thoughts on “Dan Marvin, Lacking in Evidence

  1. Dan pretends his opinions are unassailable by logic.

  2. I can make whatever wild claim I like, and until someone can prove me wrong it stands to reason that my claim is indisputably true. So there.

  3. Wouldn’t that claim of Dan’s make a kick-ass bumper sticker though?

  4. “The supernatural is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural.” is the claim

  5. Now, back it up. First, explain just what it means.

    • “The supernatural is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural.” is the claim. In other words, without God you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical in science, logic, reason, etc.

      This is exposed by asking you a very simple question. How do you know your reasoning is valid without God, or being viciously circular?

      • We’ve already gone over this dozens of times with you. Like Sye you ignore any answers that show you up to be wrong.

        I take it that you have no objective evidence to back up your claim?

      • “Some dude on the Internet disagrees with you Dan. Prove that wrong”

        Yea, we have been through Dawson’s argumentum verbosium for years now. If you have a comment, spill it, othwise I just do not want to take the time to decipher that dribble. Do you have the cliff notes version?

        I will ask the question again but how you choose to answer it will speak volumes.

        How do you know your reasoning is valid without God, or being viciously circular?

      • What can you say to someone who says: Without (name of any of god) that you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your hypothetical in science, logic, reason, etc.?

        These idiotic baseless assertions you presuppers use are worthless, since anyone can throw them right back at you.

  6. “How do you know your reasoning is valid without God, or being viciously circular?”

    *sigh*

    Must we REALLY go over this AGAIN??

    Dan, I know my reasoning is valid because it WORKS, and it works ALL THE TIME….FOR EVERYONE. Not only do I know it works for me, but I know it works for others because we have language, language that allows us to express abstract concepts to one another with a great deal of accuracy.

    My reasoning is valid because it allows me to successfully interact with the physical reality I exist in, and because it successfully generates predictive models that I can use to make solid choices about future events. I am able to get to this point because I recognise that I have a foundation for knowledge that starts with being able to correctly identify the relationship between a conscious mind and that which it is conscious of (including itself). I, unlike you it seems, understand that existence comes before consciousness, and this gives an axiomatic start point for all subsequent gaining of knowledge.

    So, there you go, your question is answered. You have literally nothing to offer here.

    • Let’s see if that argument works for our side. Christianity and our religion,… just works. God just is. we through here?

      • Yes, Dan…let’s see if it does work for your side. Here’s a few tests:
        Mark 16:9-20
        Matthew 18:19
        Luke 17:6 If this is a metaphor, how do you know that the Genesis story is also not a metaphor?
        Mark 11:24

        So, not only will you assuredly dodge these somehow, you have neglected to deal with the fact that Alex has dealt with your question…

  7. Ydemoc on said:

    To address the question Dan has raised, I provided him with links to Dawson’s blog entries, as well as making a visit over to his blog and providing him with a link to an exchange he had with Dawson. (http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/09/still-no-evidence.html?showComment=1285983063990#c7265442898051653108)

    Over on his blog, I also asked him if he could provide me with the presuppositional definition and citation for the term he uses above: “intelligibility.” I provided him with Dawson’s definition over on his blog, so it only seems proper that he provide one too, since he’s the one calling “intelligibility” into question if not underwritten by his god.

    At any rate, Dan quoted Reynold, who had also posted a link to Dawson’s writings; and then he responded to me with : “Yea, we have been through Dawson’s argumentum verbosium for years now. ”

    I know you have. I remember reading the exchanges you had with him, and that’s why I posted the links. And if I recall correctly, you never answered many questions posed to you; neither did you (nor your bible) provide definitions for many of the terms you use in defending your faith.

    What I don’t remember is you describing Dawson’s writings back then as “argumentum verbosium.” In fact, in one exchange, you were quite complimentary. What changed?

    Dan continued: “If you have a comment, spill it, othwise I just do not want to take the time to decipher that dribble.”

    What you’ve just said is intelligible. However, how do you justify the unintelligibility of stating that my understanding of what you’ve written above can only be accounted for by that which is imperceptible, undetectable, and invisible — i.e., by that which is indistinguishable from nothing at all — i.e., by your god — when one cannot even form the concepts “invisible” and “undetectable” (i.e., they would not be available) without first having something to perceive? Make your case for me that such major breaches in knowledge hierarchy are acceptable.

    Dan continued: “Do you have the cliff notes version?”

    No I don’t. There is no “cliff notes” [sic] version of Dawson’s writings that I’m aware of, (it’s Cliffs Notes, by the way). Under the circumstances, I suppose Cliffs Notes would be tremendously helpful to you, since you’ve indicated that family activities prevent you from spending too much of your time reading, writing and interacting with blog entries. And I totally understand. I would guess you probably haven’t had time to decipher much of Bahnsen, Van Til, or the Bible, either, have you? — especially Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, which is 700 pages? You probably just read the Cliff Notes, right?

    I think you have said in the past that, basically, it is not up to you to “convince” people of anything as it pertains to salvation, witnessing, and defending one’s faith. By the same token, is it also not one’s job to learn anything? Is learning completely out of one’s hands? How about ignorance? (Note: Although these questions might come across as quite snippy on my part, and therefore be seen as rhetorical, they are meant as a legitimate inquiries.)

    Dan asked: “I will ask the question again but how you choose to answer it will speak volumes. How do you know your reasoning is valid without God, or being viciously circular?”

    Earlier, you asked if Dawson had a Cliff Notes version. Well, I suppose his response to you some time ago (October 2, 2010 5:43 PM) on your own blog, comes closest to what could be called Cliffs Notes. And it also supplies an answer to your question:

    From the impossibility of the contrary.

    Ydemoc

    • >> What you’ve just said is intelligible.

      Then why do you need the “definition and citation” if you already understand it? You could not identify it otherwise.

      Now, if you do know an avenue to Van Til’s Apologetic Cliffsnote I am very interested. I started to fog over at page 149 and there the bookmarks stays. I should try again, but I have not giving it time recently.

      I was impressed that you were able to cite the October 2, 2010 5:43 PM comment Dawson gave. I had to go back and reread it to remember it which I still don’t, but that is an issue of my own.

      I retract the “dribble” reference and as I read his replies I think “frustrating” is more accurate. Anyway, he would not admit to the possibility of false axioms. He said “Every conscious moment is a demonstration of the truth of the axioms.” and I would have to agree if it were my worldview only. You see, God being the precondition of intelligibility and necessary for logic are my axioms. If indeed every conscious moment demonstrates that, then we are through. My points have been made. Something tells me that it is good enough for his worldview but not mine (relativist fallacy) Enter the arrogance of atheism. Even Alex said that he knows his reasoning is valid because “it works”, so there you go. Christianity, and my religion, just works. Can I sleep now?

      • Alex Botten on said:

        Dan, please present an example of knowledge that only your worldview can access, otherwise you’re doing nothing but adding unnecessary stages into this whole ‘knowledge’ lark.

        Btw, an axiom cannot be false, by definition.

    • Reasonable Sanity on said:

      Ydemoc quoting DAN said:
      What I don’t remember is you describing Dawson’s writings back then as “argumentum verbosium.” In fact, in one exchange, you were quite complimentary. What changed?

      DAN has seen Sye say this because Sye was afraid to interact with Dawson’s writings. They are being intellectually lazy on purpose. They don’t want to take the time to read Dawson’s points because then they’d realize that the ideas and arguments they have contain no capital. Instead, they just pretend they aren’t going to read a counterpoint because it may take some time, but actually it’s because they won’t understand it and can’t argue against it. Not only that, but typing, “How do you know that?” over and over again looks subversive to their argument. It sounds better when the can do it in a verbal exchange, because there’s always the chance the listener can be caught off guard.

  8. I had just found Dan’s blog the other day, hadn’t had time to read over anything there. This makes me question whether it’s worth my time for anything besides satire.

    • >> Dan, please present an example of knowledge that only your worldview can access, otherwise you’re doing nothing but adding unnecessary stages into this whole ‘knowledge’ lark.

      Truth of His existence for one. Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth: 2 Timothy 2:24-26

      >> Btw, an axiom cannot be false, by definition.

      God being the precondition of intelligibility and necessary for logic are my axioms. OK, we’re through here then.

      • Alex Botten on said:

        Hilarious, you genuinely don’t understand!

      • Truth of His existence for one. Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth: 2 Timothy 2:24-26
        That’s not “knowledge”, Dan…it’s an assertion that you can’t prove. Besides, it’s backwards. You can’t repent until you know that biblegod exists, otherwise, you won’t feel any need to repent…after all, without knowing of biblegod’s existence, what reason would one have to repent?

      • When asked “please present an example of knowledge that only your worldview can access”, Dan responded as follows:

        Truth of His existence for one

        I thought everyone knew that God existed. Doesn’t this imply that your world view has no special claim to this knowledge?

  9. Something occurred to myself and my roommate last night while discussing something else that could be applied to TAG. Given that TAG has no boundary conditions it would appear to be non falsifiable and therefore does not meet the criteria for truth as set forth by Karl Popper. This standard is what is generally accepted as the standard within the sciences. You know Dan, science where results and not rhetoric matter. By no boundary conditions I mean that since they claim reasoning as such has god as a precondition it is thus impossible even in principle to disprove this assertion if that basic premise is accepted. In short there is no way to measure the soundness of their argument. Further given that the basic premise presupposes the very claim in contention, namely god exists then the argument begs the question and is also invalid.

    • One word: Multiverses

      This just became a relativist fallacy, ok not really but it exposes the inconstancy of your claim. Are naturalism and macroevolution repeatable, testable and verifiable? No? Then it is not science, not to mention science ITSELF cannot be justified as pointed out in one of my posts, Craig said:

      5 things that cannot be scientifically evidenced, but we’re all rational to accept:

      1. Logical and mathematical truths, science presupposes logic and math.
      2. Metaphysical truths. Like the universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age.
      3. Ethical beliefs and statements of value
      4. Aesthetic judgments. Beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven
      5. Science ITSELF cannot be justified by the scientific method. Its also permeated with unprovable assumptions. (Naturalism)

      • 2. Metaphysical truths. Like the universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age.
        Huh? How is that a “truth”? Who actually accepts it?

      • Dan…don’t you want to test if your justification for reasoning actually works?

      • Reasonable Sanity on said:

        DAN said:
        5 things that cannot be scientifically evidenced, but we’re all rational to accept:
        1. Logical and mathematical truths, science presupposes logic and math.
        2. Metaphysical truths. Like the universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age.
        3. Ethical beliefs and statements of value
        4. Aesthetic judgments. Beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven
        5. Science ITSELF cannot be justified by the scientific method. Its also permeated with unprovable assumptions. (Naturalism)

        1. Science is not a development of logic and math, but works in concert with them. Science is a discovery process, and this process is what leads to logic and math. Logic is a development of observation of processes; math is a development of relationship to quantities. If anything, logic and math presuppose science.

        2. While you may think it rational to accept this example as truth, I find it terribly irrational. This brings about a conondrum wherein you accept something as truth, but another rejects it. Thus, since it isn’t axiomatic in that it’s apparent, there is no rational reason to accept this as truth, but instead a probable assertion. It’s probability isn’t very high, thus can be dismissed as usable.

        3. This is a developing science. As we begin to study and understand how the brain functions, patterns are showing and understanding is beginning. Where there are patterns, there is relationship. Tying relationships to thought processes is just the beginning.

        4. Again, this is a developing science. There is a universal standard that has been developed for what is considered beautiful for human faces. This area, along with 3 are just in their infancy. Scientists working in these areas are on the cutting edge and making more and more progress.

        5. Science defines the scientific method, thus it is quite illogical to say that science cannot be justified by the scientific method. It’s like saying wetness is a property of water, but water doesn’t explain wetness.

        The “permeated with unprovable assumptions” claim is just P.T. Barnum showmanship. Science doesn’t seek to prove or disprove, but to understand. The closest to “unprovable assumptions” are called hypotheses. These are insufficiently tested statements based upon observation and thought. Hypotheses are part of the understanding-building system of science.

        Additionally, macroevolution is testable. How else do you explain genetic markers and insertions common to family trees that include modern humans? Or with other families?

        Only the completely stupid will deny the evidence for evolution. Yes, I am certain of that.

      • >> Yes, I am certain of that.

        How are you certain? Not if, but how? Could you be wrong? If not, why not?

  10. Ydemoc on said:

    Hi again, Dan:

    I asked if you could supply us with your world view’s definition of “intelligible,” since you were the one calling into question “intelligibility” if it was not underwritten by your god; or as you put it: “The supernatural is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural.” But in your reply, not only did you not provide your own definition, but after I supplied you with Dawson’s definition (on your blog), you also wrote the following in response to my stating that something you wrote was “intelligible”:

    “Then why do you need the “definition and citation” if you already understand it? You could not identify it otherwise.”

    The reason I did so is because I thought that if one is going claim that, according to one’s world view, that ““The supernatural is the presupposition of the intelligibility of the natural,” then we ought to have a clear definition of what “intelligibility” is (I’d say the same is also the case regarding “supernatural” — and every concept if need be). As you know, Dawson has satisfied this standard with the following definition:

    “Intelligibility is the ability of some thing to be an object of awareness and be identified and integrated into the sum of one’s knowledge without contradiction.” (Dawson Bethrick)

    Not only has he offered up a definition, but he’s also explained in detail why it’s useful and accurate (links provided above). Now, by you not supplying your own definition nor challenging the one provided, would I be correct in assuming that you are also using Dawson’s? Probably not, huh? Because if you are using his definition, this is going to present tremendous problems for your world view. If you aren’t using his definition, which definition are you using, where did you get the concept and concepts which inform it, and can you give us any indication as to the process by which the concept itself was formed?

    You see, Dan, this is just one area where your world view fails you, for it doesn’t have a theory of concepts. Meanwhile, Dawson has clearly identified and integrated what a conceptual consciousness is able to do, i.e., apprehend and understand, and he has provided a definition for the term in question.

    Bear in mind, his definition consists of other concepts that would also need to be apprehended and understood, i.e., be intelligible, i.e., have valid referents in reality, or be abstractions from abstractions that ultimately have referents in reality, i.e., they can be traced through the knowledge hierarchy, all the way back down to the perceptual level, down to the rock bottom data, that serves as the very basis for the concept(s) used.

    Unless you are able to trace your higher-level concepts (e.g., the constituent concepts that make up the definition of “intelligible”) back down that chain of knowledge, without ever breaking that chain for each and every concept that goes into building that particular concept, and being able to tie all of those concepts back (ultimately) to the perceptual level, then then what you are really saying when you talk about your god, is nonsense…. basically, gibberish; and the only thing you are really doing when you think you are doing otherwise, is imagining — and in a vicious circle to boot.

    You wrote: “Now, if you do know an avenue to Van Til’s Apologetic Cliffsnote I am very interested. I started to fog over at page 149 and there the bookmarks stays. I should try again, but I have not giving it time recently.”

    No. I have no idea where you could obtain those Ciffs Notes. And the reason I brought this up is that you had labeled Dawson’s work as “dribble,” (which, to your credit, you’ve since recanted) and you’ve also referred to his work as “argumentum verbosium for years now.” I just wanted to see if you were as critical of presuppositional masterminds’ writings as you seem to be of Dawson’s work. But by all indications, you haven’t had time to read as much of their work as you’d probably like, so I suppose for you, the jury’s still out on that question.

    You wrote: “I was impressed that you were able to cite the October 2, 2010 5:43 PM comment Dawson gave.”

    You need not be, but thanks. I keep text clippings of interesting exchanges I see here and there, including on your blog. The text clippings make it quite easy for me to pull up something should the particular subject matter warrant it. I have so many text clippings — and I’m grateful to Dawson, Anton Thorn, C.J. Holmes, Justin, Robert, Alex, Jim, Reynold, Whateverman, John Loftus, Articulett et al., and yes, even you and Hezekiah sometimes for your valuable contributions to my library of text clippings.

    You write: “I had to go back and reread it to remember it which I still don’t, but that is an issue of my own.”

    Huh. Well, please don’t consider these flip questions (like other questions and/or comments of mine you might consider as such, I’m sure), but how do you account for not remembering? What I mean is, how do you justify your god being ultimately responsible for man’s forgetfulness? As a side question, are sarcasm and/or practical jokes a reflection of your god’s character and actions? When I asked Hezekiah that question, he either refused or couldn’t answer it. Frankly, I can’t remember myself if he answered it. But I thought I’d ask, since you seem much more willing to do so online than he is, (although, on-air, I do find him likable.)

    You wrote: “I retract the “dribble” reference”…

    As noted above.

    You continue: “And as I read his replies I think ‘frustrating’ is more accurate.”

    That’s interesting. And your response raises another question: Would you also say that “The supernatural is the presupposition of ‘frustration’? To ask it another way, does “frustration” presuppose the Christian god? and/or is “frustration” a part of you’re god’s character and actions? Is frustration a sin? I’d be curious to see your answer to this.

    You wrote: “Anyway, he [Dawson] would not admit to the possibility of false axioms.”

    Of course he wouldn’t, because doing so makes no sense (in the context of the axioms under discussion). Why would someone attempt to even answer it, let alone admit the possibility of something obtaining that is impossible? Would you answer “yes” “no” or “maybe” to the questions: “Do you remember things before you were born?” or “Is it possible that nothing is possible?” or “Is it possible that shoes are really milk shakes?” Just because you can string some words together and place a question mark at the end, this doesn’t mean that the question rises to the level of meriting a response.

    Furthermore, if one were to attempt to assert it’s possible that the axioms are false, this would be a performative contradiction question or deny or even attempt to deny existence, consciousness, and identity and the Primacy of existence Principle — the axioms and the principle would have to obtain even to even form the concept “possibility” — and somebody did form it, by the way, based upon what they observed in reality. You would be counting on the axioms in an attempt to undercut them, or at the very least, in an attempt to doubt them. They would all have to obtain to even begin to doubt anything in the first place. Doubt what? (Existence, Consciousness, Identity obtain in everything, even this question — Doubting is something a consciousness is capable of. It makes no sense to speak of a rock that “doubts” — to say otherwise would clearly be unintelligible. And there would have to be something to doubt — it makes no sense to speak of doubting that which doesn’t exist. And if something exists, some thing exists and it is what it is — the Law of Identity.

    Dan wrote, quoting Dawson: “Every conscious moment is a demonstration of the truth of the axioms.”

    Exactly.

    You write: “and I would have to agree if it were my worldview only.”

    Dan, I’m not sure what this means. Things around you obtain, consciousness obtains, identity obtains, the Primacy of Existence is always in effect, no matter what your world view. Some people just wish this wasn’t the case — they’ve minds have veered of into the imaginary.

    You write: “You see, God being the precondition of intelligibility and necessary for logic are my axioms.”

    Dan, I’m not even sure this sentence is grammatically correct. I usually don’t care unless it’s habitual to the point of being annoying, or it interferes with intelligibility. In this case, I think it’s the latter.

    But maybe a little clarification would help. So would you care to tell us what the conditions are that would meet your definition of an axiom? I have mine. Additionally, I believe (a valid use of the concept “believe,” by the way) I have read someplace on a blog exchange (I don’t have the citation) Sye stating that God is not an axiom (I could be wrong about this). That may be neither here nor there for you, but I just thought I’d let you know, since I wasn’t entirely clear on what it was you were trying to say. But maybe you’re saying that “the precondition of God” is your axiom(s)? Is there more than one axiom? I’m just not sure… it’s a little confusing.

    In any event, Dawson lays the standard of an axiom quite nicely, (perhaps from your blog?) when he writes:

    “…criteria which a philosophical axiom would need to fulfill in order to be genuinely axiomatic. They are:

    It names a perceptually self-evident fact
    Its truth is not inferred from prior truths
    Its truth is conceptually irreducible
    Its truth is implicit in all perception
    Its truth is implicit in all knowledge and any statement
    Its truth must be assumed even in denying it”

    Providing a starting point which is:

    – objective
    – conceptually irreducible
    – perceptually self-evident
    – undeniably true
    – universal”

    Dan, in one of my text clippings, I found an exchange I think you had with Dawson that sheds further light on the matter:

    “Dan: ‘You assume the axiom to be true, but since it can be neither demonstrated nor proven to be true, you cannot know it to be true.”

    Dawson: ‘It’s true that the axioms cannot be proven; they don’t have to be, they identify facts which are perceptually self-evident and are the basis of any proof. So why would you make such a blunder as to say that the axioms cannot be demonstrated? Every conscious moment is a demonstration of the truth of the axioms.’

    If you dispute the fact that existence, identity and consciousness are the preconditions for intelligible experience, please explain how there can be intelligible experience if there’s no existence, no identity and no consciousness? Please, explain yourself, Dan. Or, is skepticism the only way you know how to respond to incontestable facts that are inconvenient for your god-belief fantasies?” (Dawson Bethrick)

    Dan writes: “If indeed every conscious moment demonstrates that, then we are through. My points have been made.

    No, Dan, you’re points haven’t been made. Not at all. And you have a long way to go in your journey from imagination back to reality.

    Dan writes: “Something tells me that it is good enough for his worldview but not mine (relativist fallacy) Enter the arrogance of atheism.”

    That’s kind of a non-sequitur, isn’t it? Maybe you were distracted when you wrote this, with all your family activity and such. I just don’t see the connection between recognizing that existence exists, consciousness, identity, and the fact that objects do not conform to consciousness, but visa-versa… I don’t see how realizing this is in any way arrogant.

    Dan writes: “Even Alex said that he knows his reasoning is valid because “it works”, so there you go.”

    What’s wrong with that? Should one ignore or not recognize that reasoning works?

    Dan writes: “Christianity, and my religion, just works.

    But I don’t recognize it working at all. Can you say the same about reason? That you don’t think it works?

    Dan writes: “Can I sleep now?”

    I suppose you can. I just wonder how you account for doing so. And why wouldn’t being tired be sufficient?

    This brings up another question you didn’t really address: How do you justify the unintelligibility of stating that my understanding of what you’ve written above can only be accounted for by that which is imperceptible, undetectable, and invisible — i.e., by that which is indistinguishable from nothing at all — i.e., by your god — when one cannot even form the concepts “invisible” and “undetectable” (i.e., they would not be available) without first having something to perceive? Make your case for me that such major breaches in knowledge hierarchy are acceptable.

    I hope this last question doesn’t keep you awake.

    P.S. I had an enjoyable time crafting my response, and I hope you had a good time crafting yours.

    Ydemoc

  11. @Ydemoc

    If you keep posting what I was going to say and do it better I am just going to pick up my toys and go home:) Thanks Ydemoc, you said it well.

    • Ydemoc on said:

      Thanks Justin!

      I noticed after I posted that I failed to make proper edits to one particular paragraph. I posted the corrected paragraph below.

      Ydemoc

  12. Ydemoc on said:

    Dan,

    Speaking of unintelligible, I see that I failed to properly edit and proofread one of my paragraphs. Here it is again, with corrections:

    ” Furthermore, if one were to attempt to assert the possibility of the axioms being false, this would be a performative contradiction. The axioms and the Primacy of existence Principle — would have to obtain to even form the concept “possibility” — and somebody did form it, by the way, based upon what they observed in reality.

    In performatively contradicting yourself, you would be counting on that which you are trying to undercut or doubt. They would all have to obtain in order to doubt anything in the first place. Doubt what? (Existence, Consciousness, Identity obtain in everything, even this question — Doubting is something consciousness is capable of. It makes no sense to speak of a rock that “doubts,” does it? — to say otherwise would clearly be unintelligible. And there would have to be something to doubt — it makes no sense to speak of doubting that which doesn’t exist, does it? And if something exists, some thing exists and it is what it is — the Law of Identity.”

    I’m sure if I have anymore sloppiness, someone will bring it to my attention.

    Ydemoc

  13. Surely some of this MUST be getting through Dan’s thick skull?? Surely there’s a little voice in there saying ‘actually, everything I’m claiming has been shown to be wrong, and, far from being impossible, other worldviews more than adequately explain how we attain knowledge!’

    Surely?

  14. “How are you certain? Not if, but how? Could you be wrong? If not, why not?”

    Ah, the ‘how do you know that?’ questions, the last defence of the scoundrel TAG apologist who doesn’t want to face up to the FUCKING FACT that his ‘worldview’ is utter garbage!

    • Hard to face facts when you’re inhaling the ink from a freshly pressed bible… I hear they use ground up cocaine and psychotropics as a special ink on those rice paper sheets. It keeps the sheep in line.

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: