RE: Friendly Atheism
September 7, 2019 at 5:18 pm
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2019 at 5:42 pm by Objectivist.)
mcc1789
"I think what you say makes sense. This does align with what I've thought, that if God is the basis of everything there is no objective reality. I'm still unclear on why primacy of consciousness must be false, though it seems to be, I do agree. Forgive me if I seem slow. What concepts are stolen?
I have to admit every kind of skepticism seems to refute itself, unless a skeptic is only saying they personally don't know. Once it extends to someone else, how do they know others can't know?"
You're not slow! You thought of that on your own whereas I had to learn it from someone else. You are thinking in terms of essentials all on your own.
The primacy of consciousness is false because existence doesn't conform to conscious activity. If it did we'd all be perfectly fit and handsome or beautiful with perfect bodies and we'd all be rich. Cheetahs wouldn't have to run to catch their food. Frogs would just wish the flies into their mouths and kids would never get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. LOL.
Seriously though, the primacy of existence is true because it corresponds to the facts. Its truth is self-evident. Every single conscious moment of our lives attests to its truth. to accept the primacy of consciousness is to put one's feelings, emotions, faith, and imagination before the facts of reality. That can't end well. Also known as delusion.
Here's a link to a paper on it. It's by Anton Thorn. I highly suspect that Anton Thorn is a pen name and the author is actually Dawson Beckrith of Incinnerating Presuppositionalism. But I can't prove it. Anyway, it's good reading. I highly recommend Incinerating presuppositionalism as well. Some of the comment threads are highly entertaining. Many theists have beaten themselves bloody trying to refute the primacy of existence over there.
http://www.oocities.org/athens/sparta/10...rimacy.htm
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/search...+existence
Which concepts are stollen? All of them really but they are trying to use logic and argumentation to rebut the argument that their view affirms the primacy of consciousness. Both the concepts "logic" and "argumentation" presuppose the primacy of existence (as do all concepts). So they are using concepts while denying a concept logically antecedent to them. In this case POE. I'm going to use POE from now on because I get tired of typing primacy of existence.
"I think what you say makes sense. This does align with what I've thought, that if God is the basis of everything there is no objective reality. I'm still unclear on why primacy of consciousness must be false, though it seems to be, I do agree. Forgive me if I seem slow. What concepts are stolen?
I have to admit every kind of skepticism seems to refute itself, unless a skeptic is only saying they personally don't know. Once it extends to someone else, how do they know others can't know?"
You're not slow! You thought of that on your own whereas I had to learn it from someone else. You are thinking in terms of essentials all on your own.
The primacy of consciousness is false because existence doesn't conform to conscious activity. If it did we'd all be perfectly fit and handsome or beautiful with perfect bodies and we'd all be rich. Cheetahs wouldn't have to run to catch their food. Frogs would just wish the flies into their mouths and kids would never get caught with their hand in the cookie jar. LOL.
Seriously though, the primacy of existence is true because it corresponds to the facts. Its truth is self-evident. Every single conscious moment of our lives attests to its truth. to accept the primacy of consciousness is to put one's feelings, emotions, faith, and imagination before the facts of reality. That can't end well. Also known as delusion.
Here's a link to a paper on it. It's by Anton Thorn. I highly suspect that Anton Thorn is a pen name and the author is actually Dawson Beckrith of Incinnerating Presuppositionalism. But I can't prove it. Anyway, it's good reading. I highly recommend Incinerating presuppositionalism as well. Some of the comment threads are highly entertaining. Many theists have beaten themselves bloody trying to refute the primacy of existence over there.
http://www.oocities.org/athens/sparta/10...rimacy.htm
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/search...+existence
Which concepts are stollen? All of them really but they are trying to use logic and argumentation to rebut the argument that their view affirms the primacy of consciousness. Both the concepts "logic" and "argumentation" presuppose the primacy of existence (as do all concepts). So they are using concepts while denying a concept logically antecedent to them. In this case POE. I'm going to use POE from now on because I get tired of typing primacy of existence.
