"Do you take your
definitions from sources which you think are divinely inspired, or from
sources which are authored by men? I just want to know. Are you
unwilling to tell us?"
"Yes, I am quite
unwilling to tell you."
Everyone should note
Peter's unwillingness to indicate his sources here. For all we know, he
could be making up the meanings of his terms as he goes for
convenience's sake. He gives us nothing by which we can rule out this
"I am simply
putting forth a counter-argument to contrast with yours."
What exactly was my
"argument"? So far, I've just been critiquing your
arguments (and finding a lot of flaws to boot). What argument are you
referring to specifically when you say that you are "putting forth
a counter-argument to contrast with [mine]"? Don't you remember?
You're the one who was putting forth an argument for the existence of a
god in which you were trying to smuggle in the package-deal notion that
"existence, at its root... is consciousness."
"My entire point,
if you'd like to know, is not to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
my view is correct; but to demonstrate that there are equally possible
and consistent contrasting views with your own and that there is no
reason for you to be dogmatic about anything that you say."
Well, why didn't you say so in the first
place? I think there are many possible views open to one's choice, and
it may even be the case that some of those views are internally
consistent (though this needs to be shown). But simply because a view is
internally consistent does not mean that it is true or objective or free
of fallacy. Some views consistently commit themselves to error, such as
stolen concepts and frozen abstractions, throughout their various
branches. I'm in full agreement that this may be possible, but to
demonstrate it, Peter, you would have to do a lot of homework in opening
the hood of that view and showing how what is under its hood is
internally consistent. I don't think that's what we've seen. How the
view in question contrasts with mine is irrelevant to the matter of
whether or not it is internally consistent.
"You have your
"However, you have
not established why those three axioms would make our senses valid
to determine the nature of reality,"
I think you have very little understanding
of my worldview, Peter. I don't hold that the axioms "make
our senses valid," so no failing on my part here. Our senses
exist. Our senses are a means of perception - i.e., of consciousness.
Consciousness exists (we could not engage in discussion without it).
Thus, the means by which consciousness exists (i.e., the senses) are a
fact of reality, and thus they are valid (since facts are facts, and
facts are true). The axioms do not "make" them valid; the
axioms simply identify primary, irreducible and undeniable facts as a
means of grounding our knowledge and inferential processes. Again, you
need to learn more about Objectivism if you're going to attempt to
"I am providing
simply a counter-argument demonstrating that your way is not
the only consistent view (in fact, I don't think your view is consistent
If you do not understand my view (which is
clear to me), then your initial assessment that it is not consistent has
have told me that knowledge is only possible because of their god. This suggests
to me that their god is the ultimate source of knowledge. If their
god is the ultimate source of knowledge, and they claim that the Bible
is the word of god, then how did their god define the terms in
"What makes you
think that God only speaks through the Bible?"
Well, since I don't accept the claim that
there is a god to begin with, I don't even think this, Peter. I am
simply going by what god's mouthpieces (human beings who have no
agreement amongst themselves on the matters on which they speak in this
regard) have either stated to me or put into writing. It's all fantasy
in which persons confuse their hopes with knowledge. If you think it's
true, then by all means, go for it, and enjoy the consequences (but
frankly, I don't think you really believe it).
"How did you determine that you were misled? Please address this
"Again, hearing someone call my name and going up to them and
asking them "What did you want?" only to discover that they
hadn't called me. I assume that they are not lying--they could
See what I mean? Peter relied on sense-perception (when he listened to
the response of the person who he thought called his name) in order to
correct what earlier he claimed was evidence that the senses make
mistakes. This is precisely the point I was making in regard to the
pencil's appearing bent when dunked in a glass half full of water.
"But it is much
more likely that I simply mis-heard something in the room."
What most likely happened is that you heard
something (a perceptual fact) but misidentified (a conceptual process) what
you heard as something it was not (as I explained in one of my past
messages). This is not an "error of the senses" since they
delivered data to your brain (you heard something). It is an
error of identification and evaluation, which is a conceptual
matter (not perceptual), and this points to one of the reasons why we
need reason in the first place - a process which integrates and
identifies what the senses tell us.
"You must give a valid reason why you
must trust your means of awareness..."
I don't even think "trust" is the issue
(indeed, it is a stolen concept in this context since without a means
awareness to begin with, I could not even form the concept 'trust'). The
issue is recognizing that consciousness requires a means, otherwise one
claims that he is conscious by no means. I would not accept
this, and I don't see why anyone would. It is simply a naive notion of
what consciousness is.
"I never said that our senses were the only
means by which we could get data..."
If you think that there is a non-sensory (or
nonsensical) means by which you are able to "get data," please
elaborate. We're all eager to know.
"Here's another stolen concept: 'deluded'. Peter does not inform
us where he gets this term, or how he supposedly validates the context
in which he uses it."
"Give me a break! I was using a synonymn for the word
"inaccurate." The meaning from context is obvious, and
it appears that you are purposely trying to misunderstand
If 'deluded' is synonymous with 'inaccurate' in the context in
which you've used the latter, then my identification of the
former as a stolen concept stands, since I think the latter is one
also (in the sense that you've employed it). I think you could learn
more about this by learning what Objectivism teaches, since obviously
you are too unfamiliar with it at this time to challenge it.
"All stolen concepts, since he denies the means of his
"Not in the least. Even if all that we observe is
illusion, as my argument states we can still know that existence is
valid. We know because we must exist to have the
That's not the point. The point is that, if one denies the means of
his awareness, then he denies the means by which he can form
concepts. If he asserts concepts on this basis, he 'steals' them
from their proper hierarchical position in the knowledge
chain. This is precisely what is happening here. More stolen
concepts. Apparently you do not understand this.
"Consciousness does not create
existence (there goes the Judeo-Christian god who supposedly created the
universe ex nihilo by an act of will - i.e., by a means of a
form of consciousness)."
"Again, you are ignoring the fact that GOD HIMSELF EXISTS before
He could possibly will anything!"
If "god" must exist before he can will anything, then
this is simply another point which refutes the reason why a god is
proposed to exist in the first place. This is all moot, and no, I do
not ignore this. However, I simply focus on the fact that those who
claim that a god exists also claim that this god "created"
the universe (the sum total of existence) by an act of will -
i.e., by a form of consciousness. Since subjectivism is the view that
existence finds its source in a form of consciousness, one cannot get
any more subjective than this. Subjectivism invalidates itself due to
the stolen concepts one would have to accept in order to consider it
Regardless, I've read through the rest of
Peter's posts, and I find nothing of any more value than what we've
already seen time and time again. Since he has not yet taken the time
needed to understand the nature of his errors, and simply repeats them
over and over again (such as when he writes "it is still provable
that existence exists") in spite of my pointing them out to
him on numerous occasions now, I see no reason to go through everything
he's said in order to correct it all. It's clear not only that he
rejects reason, but also that he is unwilling to learn. That is my
assessment after all the effort I've put into reviewing his messages
Thus, it is here where I will let it stand
unless and until I find something worthy of my time.