Godless6 wrote:
"Well done CV...a thoroughly comprehensive job...no points missed or not addressed."
Thanks, Len. It's been my pleasure to expose the persistent errors of mysticism. And no, the psychological nervosa which god-belief causes in children definitely cannot be good for them. But, the cat is out of the bag, finally, thanks to rational philosophy, and eventually the mystics will simply extinguish themselves, and those who embrace reason will hopefully survive the mystics' holocausts to build a better future.
But it is amazing, as you point out, how Peter still does not comprehend the nature of the fallacy of the stolen concept. He writes, "In order for something to be stolen, it must first belong to something.  You have never demonstrated why any concept at all belongs to the Objectivist view point..." Obviously, he has not consulted the sources I provided which define the nature of this fallacy and give examples of it to boot, for he misses the point completely.
Further, he denies that his god-belief assumes the primacy of consciousness (which is obvious that it does to anyone who understands what the primacy of consciousness entails), and then indulges in the primacy of consciousness himself when he states, "I deny your position, so there are no conceptual errors." Amazingly, he thinks his errors simply disappear if he engages in denial. Ever notice how often Peter denies things in order to make a philosophical point?
When he writes, "But when you look at what I have written and ignore your presuppositions, my conclusions are sound and valid," he ignores (or denies?) the fact that I have reviewed his arguments when he attempted to present them in syllogistic form, and that I found that they were not even formally valid! In fact, he introduced new key terms in his arguments' conclusions, which does not follow logical rules, and his premises also lack substance and drop context. Meanwhile, he does nothing to correct his stolen concepts. Branden was write when he wrote, "One will search in vain for a single instance of an attack on reason, on the senses, on the ontological status of the laws of logic, on the cognitive efficacy of man's mind, that does not rest on the fallacy of the stolen concept."
Besides, theists who attempt to argue for the existence of a god routinely fail to recognize that a proof of god would be fatal to religion. If one could prove that a god exists, it would simply be another item of reality, open to scientific study. But theists want to have their cake, and to eat it, too, for they want both that their god exists (at the exclusion of any other gods people claim exist) but that this god is not simply another item of reality and not subject to scientific scrutiny. This is what happens when men surrender their reason. And Len, watch them fumigate when you don't surrender yours. That's the most telling give-away of them all.