Peter wrote:
"However, what I would point out is that your method for obtaining knowledge is flawed because it does not follow from the axiom "Existence exists" (nor even adding in "consciousness exists" and "identity exists") that you can determine what that existence is.  I would be willing to stipulate that the axiom "existence exists" is true, and since we both agree we need no argument on that point.  However, your further conclusion that you actually know what that existence is is flawed and in error."
 
What did I say existence is, and in what way did I err? Remember, I have made two important points on this matter: a) 'existence' is a collective noun which includes everything entity, attribute, quality, nuance, etc. which exists, and b) 'existence' cannot be defined in terms of prior concepts (since then one would run into stolen concepts [which apparently some do not mind]).
 
I asked:
"What is your definition of this term? You do agree that it is key to your other definitions, since rejection of reason is here given as a measure of your points, right?"
 
Peter responded:
"For the purposes of this discussion I have defined reason as being the mental faculty that uses logic to determine the validity of something;"
 
The validity of what, and against what standard? By what means are you aware of the something whose validity you are measuring or testing? By no means? (I know, don't tell me; "It doesn't matter!" - that's hilarious!)
 
Peter wrote:
"The point of this entire discussion, however, was to look at what logic and reason demand existence be in order for them to be valid.  This was my whole point."
 
And I think this is one of the points (stress: one of the points) at which your thinking falls prey to stolen concepts, since you seem to think that reality must conform to reason and logic (you write: "what logic and reason demand existence to be"). You've got your priorities reversed here. This is because you have not defined your standard objectively or taken into account the nature of the means by which you are aware of that standard (assuming you have one to begin with).
 
I asked:
"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?" 
 
Peter responded:
"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 possibility.
 
Peter wrote:
"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."
 
Peter wrote:
"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.
 
Peter wrote:
"You have your three axioms."
 
That's right.
 
Peter wrote:
"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 critique it.
 
Peter wrote:
"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 at all)."
 
If you do not understand my view (which is clear to me), then your initial assessment that it is not consistent has no force.
 
I asked:
"Many Christians 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 question?"
 
Peter wrote:
"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).
 
I asked:
"How did you determine that you were misled? Please address this question."
 
Peter responded:
"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 have been." 
 
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.
 
Peter wrote:
"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.
 
Peter writes:
"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.
 
Peter wrote:
"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.
 
I wrote:
"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."
 
Peter responded:
"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 me!"
 
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.
 
I wrote:
"All stolen concepts, since he denies the means of his awareness."
 
Peter responded:
"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 illusion."
 
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.
 
I wrote:
"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)."
 
Peter wrote:
"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 knowledge.
 
 
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 fallacy-borne arguments.
 
Thus, it is here where I will let it stand unless and until I find something worthy of my time.
 
CertainVerdict