tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1477942963778706731..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: "The case for conditionalism"Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1833194898234256132016-03-07T01:01:03.281-05:002016-03-07T01:01:03.281-05:00That's basically how I stated my position, yea...That's basically how I stated my position, yeah. My version was admittedly much longer, but I like yours better because it's so short and to the point. Nice work!<br /><br />I see that you are a regular commenter on this blog.Peter Gricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04126539954064642809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19731137186641941442016-03-06T21:57:02.258-05:002016-03-06T21:57:02.258-05:00So then, to summarize your numerous and verbose re...So then, to summarize your numerous and verbose rejoinders here your stated position is basically: "We don't know what we're talking about."<br /><br />Does that sound about right?CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41722167342506036782016-03-06T21:02:33.557-05:002016-03-06T21:02:33.557-05:00In light of the confidence here in the matter of d...In light of the confidence here in the matter of defining life and death so simply and extra-biblically, it might be worth reflecting on these words from Berkhof's systematics, which are consistent with the approach I've outlined:<br /><br />"Life and death are not opposed to each other as existence and non-existence, but are opposites only as different modes of existence. It is quite impossible to say exactly what death is. We speak of it as the cessation of physical life, but then the question immediately arises, Just what is life? And we have no answer. We do not know what life is in its essential being, but know it only in its relations and actions. And experience teaches us that, where these are severed and cease, death enters. Death means a break in the natural relations of life. It may be said that sin is per se death, because it represents a break in the vital relation in which man, as created in the image of God, stands to his Maker. It means the loss of that image, and consequently disturbs all the relations of life."<br /><br />To wit, when a physicalist agrees with this, they are affirming that "Death means a break in the natural relations of life," and affirming Berkhof's rejection that life and death just signify existence and non-existence. Contrary to other expressions here, they agree with Berkhof that "We do not know what life is in its essential being," insofar as we cannot just say it means to be conscious, and agree that we "know it only in its relations and actions... all the relations of life." Different reckonings of a condition to follow death (i.e. dualism vs. physicalism) both leave the definition intact, because both private life so defined. Berkhof opines, "It is quite impossible to say exactly what death is"—the agnosticism I mentioned as valid—and yet it as adequate to yield this much in relation to life.Peter Gricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04126539954064642809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47673238338867570342016-03-06T20:11:50.910-05:002016-03-06T20:11:50.910-05:00// "Christian physicalists and dualism" ...// "Christian physicalists and dualism" don't have a common definition regarding the *condition* of death. //<br /><br />True to form, this responds to a comment where I only just repeated this fact of their disagreement. You keep saying obvious stuff as if it were being denied. As I predicted, you have needed to misrepresent what is being said.<br /><br />// The question at issue is not their condition before they die or after they are resurrected, but the interval in-between. //<br /><br />That's your question, not "the" question, of which there are many in this context, raised by special revelation. But it is entirely addressed within the definition/description I gave. And when you state that the issue is "not their condition before they die or after they are resurrected," this is more failure to represent what I'm saying. On the theological framing life is not reducible to an anthropological condition in an arbitrary moment, because life involves a continuous series of moments, and then so much more associated with its continuance and creational properties. Moreover, death in the Bible is something which has a dominion and is a decree, which is expressed in terms of continuous duration, and on this basis alone is not reducible to the matter of one's conscious condition in a given moment. What I did supply, was a straightfoward logical framework that is biblical and also commonly understood.<br /><br />/* Me: "The fact that one thinks there is conscious existence 'after he dies' and the other disagrees is entirely beside the point, because both agree that this point of difference is not part of how the Bible defines life and death…" */<br /><br />// You: "Christian dualists think Scripture defines the condition of death in reference to the intermediate state. So, no, they don't agree. Are you just unable to reason?" //<br /><br />lol, not the ones who agree with the framing I laid out! In what theological bubble do you operate?! The Bible's language is inspired, and the discipline of consistency with its terms is important for any theologian and lover of truth. Your authority and starting point is a monolithic opinion of "Christian dualists"? Did you really just intimate that all Christian dualists must define death as life? When I say that death privates life, you would dispute this by saying that death is really life? You would, because you insist on a definition of human life as the condition of being conscious. On this blunt definition, every human is always living, and therefore the Bible teaches us that all humans move from life, to life, to life everlasting. The dead are living, right? Gotcha, death is life. Don't be surprised when such an obfuscated model isn't intellectually satisfying to others. Dualists are not bound to such incoherence.<br /><br />By the way, you're adamant that life is defined as a condition of being conscious, yet you don't still think that's what it means when the Bible starts to call it eternal, do you? Of course you don't. Because "spiritual" and relational and qualitative definitions, all of a sudden. Again, quit acting like everyone is just automatically bound over to this spurious reductive definition of human life that is in grave tension with a consistent, scripture-wide assessment of what God means by life and its negation. It's your option to take, but insisting upon your option does nothing to show that another approach is illegitimate.<br /><br />The nature of the case requires careful study of the range of biblical usages of life and death and their cognates. Date's case is set forth with the biblical frame, and that's the context here. Declarations to the contrary are methodologically skewed and overly-simplistic/reductive.Peter Gricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04126539954064642809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22465455528858937452016-03-06T20:11:09.920-05:002016-03-06T20:11:09.920-05:00*nor*norPeter Gricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04126539954064642809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5906006022292707822016-03-06T20:10:46.501-05:002016-03-06T20:10:46.501-05:00Maul, that wasn't offered as a definition, not...Maul, that wasn't offered as a definition, not did I use your wording. But like I said, it's "straightforward," and as an important yet obvious stricture from the Bible it needs to be honored in any definition used in theological discussion.<br /><br />I'm really glad to see that you agree! But I wonder whose definition of life falls afoul of all that I said about the biblical strictures? Life is the condition of being conscious, right?Peter Gricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04126539954064642809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57169313214197554672016-03-06T15:04:22.773-05:002016-03-06T15:04:22.773-05:00PG wrote:
//"Of course there is a definition...PG wrote:<br /><br />//"Of course there is a definition of life and death consistent with both of these. Christian physicalists and dualists can both agree that when the Bible describes dead or "sleeping" people this is after they have died..."//<br /><br />This is rich. The "definition" of "death" is a person who has "died". Wow, illuminating!Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9493021290466177682016-03-06T13:37:41.935-05:002016-03-06T13:37:41.935-05:00Peter writes:
//"It seems that the likes of...Peter writes: <br /><br />//"It seems that the likes of you and "Maul P." live in a kind of fantasy land where physicalists have no idea what physicalism is, and where "annihilationists" don't even define their basic terms like "life" and "death"—which must apparently include top Bible scholars like Richard Bauckham and I. Howard Marshall. Oh, and everybody is just dishonest and embarrassed and afraid. This narrative is really transparent and sad"//<br /><br />How does it "seem" like that? In fact, it should "seem" the opposite to you. For example, I noted a few different physicalist theories of mind, and I noted one of Chris's views--the body-identity view--was at odds with other views he's espoused, e.g., functionalism.<br /><br />But we can go further. Let's note that on the body-identity view, Chris Date isn't essentially a *person*. In fact, on this view, "person" is a *phase sortal*. Persons are phases in the career of 'Chris Date.' Examples of Phase sortals are like "teenager" and "adult," but on the body-identity view, we can add "person" that. Silly, huh? Yeah, see, the problem isn't that I don't know enough about physicalist theories of minds, brains, and persons--it's that I know too much! This allows me to snicker at Chris's ad hoc attempts to offer physicalist theories in response to my various objections.<br /><br />As for the scholars you cite, do they define "life" as "has a function"? If so, that makes computers living lol. If not, how does that help *Date*? For he defined it so. HahaMaul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14033692990895364092016-03-06T12:32:12.309-05:002016-03-06T12:32:12.309-05:00"Of course physicalism and dualism give diffe..."Of course physicalism and dualism give different answers as to "what happens to a human being after he dies." Why keep stating the obvious?"<br /><br />Because you keep ignoring the obvious. Next question.<br /><br />"Of course there is a definition of life and death consistent with both of these. Christian physicalists and dualists can both agree that when the Bible describes dead or 'sleeping' people this is after they have died (stopped living), and when the Bible describes the living this is before they have died or after they have been resurrected. Pretty straightforward stuff."<br /><br />Either you're intentionally equivocating or you're just plain dense. "Christian physicalists and dualism" don't have a common definition regarding the *condition* of death. <br /><br />The question at issue is not their condition before they die or after they are resurrected, but the interval in-between. Do you deliberately obfuscate the issues, or are you really that uncomprehending?<br /><br />"The fact that one thinks there is conscious existence 'after he dies' and the other disagrees is entirely beside the point, because both agree that this point of difference is not part of how the Bible defines life and death…"<br /><br />Christian dualists think Scripture defines the condition of death in reference to the intermediate state. So, no, they don't agree. Are you just unable to reason?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22595633048676517112016-03-06T07:03:42.854-05:002016-03-06T07:03:42.854-05:00// There is no definition of life and death that&#...// There is no definition of life and death that's consistent with physicalism and (substance) dualism alike. That's just propagandistic dissimulation. What happens to a human being after he dies? Physicalism and dualism give different, opposing answers. //<br /><br />Of course physicalism and dualism give different answers as to "what happens to a human being after he dies." Why keep stating the obvious?<br /><br />Of course there is a definition of life and death consistent with both of these. Christian physicalists and dualists can both agree that when the Bible describes dead or "sleeping" people this is after they have died (stopped living), and when the Bible describes the living this is before they have died or after they have been resurrected. Pretty straightforward stuff. The dualist may account for this by holding that for humans to be considered living in any normative biblical sense they must be embodied, which is to so define life and refrain from reducing it to mere conscious existence of some residual aspect of a person, which is not the whole person on this view. And the physicalist may account for it precisely that way. The fact that one thinks there is conscious existence "after he dies" and the other disagrees is entirely beside the point, because both agree that this point of difference is not part of how the Bible defines life and death, and that to assign its conception of life to the concept of a disembodied consciousness would be ignorant and contradictory.<br /><br />Either this definition is kept intact, or it is misrepresented in order to declare that "there is no definition" such as this.<br /><br />Incidentally, the definition is agreeable to many dualists. And it is not grounded in any particular view of Hell, either. I held to it as a traditionalist and dualist, and so did/do many in my theological circles.Peter Gricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04126539954064642809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50527483960425679382016-03-06T01:31:54.173-05:002016-03-06T01:31:54.173-05:00"When evangelical conditionalists (like Date)..."When evangelical conditionalists (like Date) ground their definition of life (and hence death) in a biblical manner consistent with either a physicalist or dualist appreciation of death (and therefore also agnosticism)…"<br /><br />There is no definition of life and death that's consistent with physicalism and (substance) dualism alike. That's just propagandistic dissimulation. What happens to a human being after he dies? Physicalism and dualism give different, opposing answers. <br /><br />"and you just repeat your assertion that the only way to define death here is when 'physicalism… supplies the definition.'"<br /><br />I realize your fanatical partisanship incapacitates you from honestly representing what I said. No, I didn't make the unqualified claim that the only way to define death is when physicalism supplies the definition. Rather, I said that since Date is a physicalist, it logically follows that his commitment to physicalism must supply the definition. Are you incorrigibly mendacious? <br /><br />"Death is a condition, you mention. That's the issue when defining stuff!"<br /><br />What is the postmortem condition of a decedent? What condition is the decedent in, given physicalist annihilationism? Answer: oblivion. <br /><br />"Complaints and assertions do not an argument make."<br /><br />Oh, I'm not complaining. I think it's wonderful that you and Chris are so intellectually evasive. That's a backdoor admission that annihilationism is indefensible. Thanks for tipping your losing hand. <br /><br />Also, you need to learn the difference between assertions and arguments. I haven't merely asserted anything. Rather, I've given reasons in support of my claims. <br /><br />"you don't like the more nuanced, non-reductive approach…"<br /><br />Because physicalism is inherently reductionistic. Humans are just collections of particles. At death, the collection disintegrates. <br /><br />You can't "nuance" away the implications of that position. As I said before, the best that a physicalist annihilationist could do is to posit that God creates duplicate bodies on some M-class planet in the universe, and when a Christian dies, God instantly uploads their consciousness into the duplicate brain (which presumes the computational theory of mind) Otherwise, there's no bridge to prevent personal oblivion between brain death and the resurrection of the just. <br /><br />"…but that's of no concern to me."<br /><br />Yes, logic is of no concern to you. You can't use a logical methodology to defend physicalist annihilationism. I appreciate your damning (parading the pun) concession. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84396277148386376232016-03-06T01:02:08.159-05:002016-03-06T01:02:08.159-05:00// I'm not defining life. I'm responding t...// I'm not defining life. I'm responding to Date on his own grounds. He's a physicalist annihilationist. It is physicalism, not me, that supplies the definition. //<br /><br />Great, so the matter is still settled. When evangelical conditionalists (like Date) ground their definition of life (and hence death) in a biblical manner consistent with either a physicalist or dualist appreciation of death (and therefore also agnosticism), to "frame [anthropology] for purposes of doing theology," your objection is that you found an actual physicalist™ doing this, and you just repeat your assertion that the only way to define death here is when "physicalism... supplies the definition." So simple, even an annihilationist can grasp it, right?!!<br /><br />We obviously don't have common ground in terms of how to define terms in God's universe; I gave enough detail on this here already, and I'm not going to rehash what we say elsewhere. Yet when you now want to insist that it's just our own internal inconsistency, it's clear that you still mean to assert your own ground, which is irrelevant to that charge. Death is a condition, you mention. That's the issue when defining stuff! Because conditions. And Chris Date and physicalism and entailments and stuff (which are just part of what physicalism is). Well I guess that settles it! There's just no other way to think than this!<br /><br />// Your strategy from first to last has been to deflect my arguments rather than refute my arguments. //<br /><br />Complaints and assertions do not an argument make. I've repeatedly engaged what you've said. Predictably, you don't like the more nuanced, non-reductive approach, but that's of no concern to me. My stated purpose is to clarify any misrepresentations of our view. As noted above, I'm satisfied with having done that enough.Peter Gricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04126539954064642809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91330088379591948172016-03-05T22:14:14.464-05:002016-03-05T22:14:14.464-05:00"The sole category you will admit to 'def..."The sole category you will admit to 'define' life is reductive of the biblical conception, and hence also death, and the most you can do is just repeat your insistence that others join you in category error."<br /><br />I'm not defining life. I'm responding to Date on his own grounds. He's a physicalist annihilationist. It is physicalism, not me, that supplies the definition. <br /><br />You've accused me of defining death as an "event". Although it's true that death is an event, death is also a condition. And that's the real issue.<br /><br />Suppose we could preserve a corpse from decay. There'd be no brain function. Would it be dead or alive according to Date?<br /><br />Suppose we could digitize a person and store the data, then turn the abstract data back into its pre-digitized form. Would the individual be alive during storage? <br /><br />"I see that you are no longer flagrantly misrepresenting our claims."<br /><br />I never did misrepresent your claims. The problem is with Date's befuddled position. <br /><br />"I am satisfied that I have clarified them enough if you do continue to do so—I see no further need to interact."<br /><br />Your strategy from first to last has been to deflect my arguments rather than refute my arguments.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-86607684569429688662016-03-05T19:15:17.988-05:002016-03-05T19:15:17.988-05:00You could just as easily have said "physicali...You could just as easily have said "physicalism delimits how life and death can be defined."<br /><br />No it doesn't. See how assertions work to cancel out each other? As for the rationale: Your assumption is that "the Scriptures and the power of God" cannot possibly frame physicalism for purposes of doing theology, because, you know, states of affairs. The sole category you will admit to "define" life is reductive of the biblical conception, and hence also death, and the most you can do is just repeat your insistence that others join you in category error. If we wanted to formulate our model so uncritically, we could have easily taken that option years ago—but we found the overly-simplistic approach lacking in intellectual integrity.<br /><br />It seems that the likes of you and "Maul P." live in a kind of fantasy land where physicalists have no idea what physicalism is, and where "annihilationists" don't even define their basic terms like "life" and "death"—which must apparently include top Bible scholars like Richard Bauckham and I. Howard Marshall. Oh, and everybody is just dishonest and embarrassed and afraid. This narrative is really transparent and sad.<br /><br />I see that you are no longer flagrantly misrepresenting our claims, and I am satisfied that I have clarified them enough if you do continue to do so—I see no further need to interact.Peter Gricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04126539954064642809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53988419465281936992016-03-05T12:44:05.943-05:002016-03-05T12:44:05.943-05:00If an annihilationist is a physicalist, then that ...If an annihilationist is a physicalist, then that commits him to the logical consequences of physicalism. That commits him to a particular position regarding the nature of life and death. If you combine annihilationism with a physicalist anthropology, then physicalism delimits how life and death can be defined. <br /><br />So what's your problem, Peter? Are you just unable to think rationally? Or do you deliberately prevaricate because you wish to avoid grappling with the implications of a physicalist model of annihilationism? stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90384065306952227012016-03-05T04:45:01.317-05:002016-03-05T04:45:01.317-05:00Steve, I have not conceded any such thing about &q...Steve, I have not conceded any such thing about "physicalist annihilationism," which itself is no such singular thing. I expressly said there is "more than one" approach to relating those two viz. *defining* death, and carefully explained how Date takes an alternative nuanced and biblically faithful course to your ham-fisted anthropological event-based one. Anyone can check my explanations of this on this page for themselves.<br /><br />Anyone can look above to see that what I said was no concession, but something universally understood as constitutive of physicalism itself. My point was clearly made, and it is the opposite of making a concession. How childish to still act like Date doesn't know what physicalism is!<br /><br />In the unlikely event that you are being sincere, you end up seeming unable to grasp the difference between a *definition* of a biblical term via normative use, and the basic tenet of physicalism that non-being follows biological death. By all means, go around critiquing people who don't define terms with the categories you prefer, but no amount of foot-stomping will force others to adopt your preferred approach to *definitions* across diverse categories and methodologies as if it's just the only way to go! We're very comfortable with our approach as it relates to our primary audience. You're not our primary audience, but you deserve some interaction anyway if you interacted with us. Although it's genuinely hard for me to see that you did.Peter Gricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04126539954064642809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74087330417803474442016-03-05T04:13:43.595-05:002016-03-05T04:13:43.595-05:00Sorry to burst your bubble, Maul, but I presented ...Sorry to burst your bubble, Maul, but I presented my work on this at our first conference in early 2014. My recent articles in no way respond to your criticism on terminology (I can't even think how, or recall the specifics anyway). As I put to you when we engaged a little before, I would love nothing more than to receive your criticism as a way to sharpen our view, because our critics have proven lackluster. You came up with a decent critique of universalism, so I look forward to whatever you may come up with in future regarding conditionalism. But so you know, you guys here are strangely out of touch with what counts as theological discourse in the world we are operating in. I enjoy your perspectives, but you've got to know you're casting stones from the fringe here, surely. We're your fringe; you're ours. Let's stop acting like we are on the same ground...Peter Gricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04126539954064642809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91869614075477487532016-03-05T00:17:26.995-05:002016-03-05T00:17:26.995-05:00Peter, I like your recent posts on RH trying to ha...Peter, I like your recent posts on RH trying to handle the terminology problem I pressed and brought to everyone's attention. Glad I could help! There's a lot of other problems too. For instance, annihilationists don't even know what they mean by "life" and "death." Pretty important concepts at the heart of your view. Maybe next post you could show how Date and People's definition, viz., X has a life just in case X has a function, makes computers alive? Anyway, lots of work to do!Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63842829437806752632016-03-05T00:06:46.205-05:002016-03-05T00:06:46.205-05:00Date's very first comment was to say "I d...Date's very first comment was to say "I don't, actually, define biological death as equivalent to oblivion."<br /><br />Among other things, you said " I happen to know with precision what Date means and says, so it's easy for me to see how you're misreading what he said. I made the single counter-claim that Date does not *define* death as 'oblivion.'"<br /><br />But you have now conceded that according to physicalist annihilationism, biological death is equivalent to oblivion. Yet in the same breath you presume to accuse me of "astonishing misrepresentation". <br /><br />You're such a toady for annihilationism that you're lack the capacity to recognize your point blank contradictions. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-28819397312835056982016-03-04T23:14:22.104-05:002016-03-04T23:14:22.104-05:00Astonishing misrepresentation. Exactly as you say,...Astonishing misrepresentation. Exactly as you say, this is not a controversial point. It is blindingly obvious, and hardly needs stating, much less defending, because it's a given.<br /><br />Both Date and I affirm that oblivion or non-being is "what happens to someone after they die" on physicalism, that it is "the logical consequences of physicalism." Conversely, neither Date nor I have denied something so incontrovertible as that "Brain death results in the cessation of consciousness" or "that death results in oblivion" on physicalism.<br /><br />In what world do you live where a physicalist doesn't know what physicalism is?<br /><br />In light of this display, how or why you might yet class your interactions as dialogue is left as an exercise for the reader.Peter Gricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04126539954064642809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22420013800970829682016-03-04T19:57:13.643-05:002016-03-04T19:57:13.643-05:00What a twisting rabbit hole of a discussion. Gric...What a twisting rabbit hole of a discussion. Grice and Date come across sounding creepily like Screwtape and Wormwood in this thread. <br /><br />Methinks some remedial logic would help a great deal in their rethinking of hell. Such confusion.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52268422030502049232016-03-04T12:43:29.120-05:002016-03-04T12:43:29.120-05:00Chris,
Either you're dissembling or you just ...Chris,<br /><br />Either you're dissembling or you just aren't capable of thinking straight. Perhaps you and Grice believe it's bad PR for physicalist annihilationists to admit that death results in oblivion. <br /><br />I'm merely stating the logical consequences of physicalism. On that view, consciousness or personality does not exist apart from a functioning brain. Brain death results in the cessation of consciousness. Not in the sense of a comatose patient. Rather, if the brain generates the mind, then when the brain ceases to function, the mind disappears. <br /><br />That's exactly what people mean by "oblivion" in reference to what happens to someone after they die. I'm not saying anything controversial here. I'm not even offering a value judgment on whether that's good or bad. <br /><br />It's very revealing that you and Price refuse to be forthcoming on this elementary point of logic and usage. Apparently, the contributors to Rethinking Hell have decided it's damaging to publicly admit the implications of physicalist annihilationism. That will hurt the cause. So you and he resort to dissimulation about what physicalist annihilationism really represents.<br /><br />The only alternative explanation is that you're hopelessly muddleheaded. Take your pick. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34704048617841602382016-03-04T10:25:15.458-05:002016-03-04T10:25:15.458-05:00Chris just stop. According to you, you told me tha...Chris just stop. According to you, you told me that once you die biologically, we may say that you exist so long as your body does. You said at some point of sufficient decomposition, we may then say that you don't exist. This is a I = my body view. You crucially need this to say that Jesus still existed in his human nature while dead. However, you have also endorsed other mind-body views to answer challenges that conflict with the body-identity view. So in a sense you're correct that your case doesn't depend on a philosophy of mind, but that's because your position on the matter is *incoherent*. You morph into different materialist accounts depending on the challenge. Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13921983910827724782016-03-04T04:47:54.828-05:002016-03-04T04:47:54.828-05:00// a diversionary tactic which does nothing whatso...// a diversionary tactic which does nothing whatsoever to refute the logical connection between physicalism and oblivion at the moment of death. //<br /><br />For the record, then, the logical connection between physicalism and oblivion is just obvious and incontrovertible. It's astonishing that you think this trivial point was disputed. Why does a given even need to be stated, let alone defended? Yikes.<br /><br />At issue was not whether physicalism entails non-being at death, but rather whether Date is obliged to *define* death accordingly when giving his biblical case for conditionalism. He may do so, but he is not obliged to do so, and in fact does not do so, by taking the alternative of defining death against a biblical/creational definition of life as normatively embodied life. Under biblical dualism, souls in the intermediate state are in the abode of the dead, still reckoned dead and having died, and will return to life at the resurrection (hence the logical designation "asleep," which is not about unconsciousness as some have assumed). Under biblical physicalism, same thing, sans intermediate consciousness. Both serve as normative holisms, faithful to the full biblical construct, which is commonly embraced in traditionalism too. Whether there is persistence or non-persistence does nothing to alter the construct, which accommodates either physicalist non-being or dualist consciousness in between death and resurrection.<br /><br />// Physicalist annihilationism is not an "inherently open construct". //<br /><br />I never said it was. There is more than one physicalist conditionalist approach, and nothing about physicalism obliges one to "define" death descriptively and inclusive of states of affairs after a moment of death, most especially when one is doing biblical theology and being faithful to its worldview and use of language. What I said was an "inherently open construct" is the normative holism of the Bible. It is wide open to any view of intermediacy, because its conception of life cannot be reduced to mere disembodied consciousness. Within this paradigm, you have not found a "gotcha" in trying to force death to mean oblivion—that would be a category error. If oblivion follows death, or if it doesn't, death has still served its function of privating ongoing continuance in life. The definition of death here is derived from the Bible's rich definition of what it means to be alive as God intended, and need not be grounded in non-theological, non-soteriological descriptive states of affairs about some aspect of a person after the fact—the consciousness, which is not the whole person on holism.<br /><br />If this kind of nuance is intolerable to you, so be it. If you're working with other categories to define your terms, so what? I'm just interested in clarification, not persuasion, and I suspect at least some of your readers will be able to follow what I've said. Pretend otherwise, but I have been speaking of Date's view all along, as he confirmed. I've invested my time because Date has a number of other obligations. You only think it's damage control because you're a few years behind in your reading; hence my references to our publications and the public record. The issue you try to raise here was worked through a long time ago, and is part of why we even bother to distinguish ourselves from other approaches.<br /><br />Thanks for the wonderful, edifying chat!Peter Gricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04126539954064642809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7468710119283548582016-03-04T01:29:15.996-05:002016-03-04T01:29:15.996-05:00Let's see: I do a single post on Chris Date...Let's see: I do a single post on Chris Date's recent case for annihilationism, and you call that an "obsession". It's really funny how your partisan blinkers have blinded you to the patent absurdity of your allegations. <br /><br />Evidently, you're embarrassed to have Chris represent annihilationism. Otherwise, you wouldn't be in full damage-control mode.<br /><br />You consistently evade the logical implications of his commitment to physicalism by resorting to buzz words like "normative holism," &c. That's a diversionary tactic which does nothing whatsoever to refute the logical connection between physicalism and oblivion at the moment of death. <br /><br />"but there is something irrational about trying to force foreclosure on an inherently open construct."<br /><br />Physicalist annihilationism is not an "inherently open construct". To the contrary, that logically forecloses certain options. If physicalism is true, then death results in oblivion. At best, there's a gap between oblivion and the general resurrection. <br /><br />"Meanwhile, never was straw manning so palpable as to insist to a person, despite their strong protestations, that they define their basic terms against their will…"<br /><br />Chris left one drive-by comment, then scampered away with his tail between his legs. <br /><br />A denial is not a disproof. At best, his overall position is muddle-headed. <br /><br />"These embarrassing antics and the character attacks on this page are poor substitutes for reason and Christian charity."<br /><br />You're an apparatchik for annihilationism. You repeatedly dodge the logical implications of physicalism by tossing decoys behind your sled. Your conduct is incorrigibly unethical. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com