tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8869496080653918795..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: I Was Wrong, nihil ad remRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52042347503736870342008-01-04T12:43:00.000-05:002008-01-04T12:43:00.000-05:00Hi Andrew,I was saying that if it is meaninglesss ...Hi Andrew,<BR/><BR/>I was saying that if it is meaninglesss to ask if you know that you exist, because "existence is meaningless since it can be predicated to all things," then why isn't it meaningless to ask yourself if you believe that God exists? If that is meaningful, then why isn't it meaninglful to ask if you exist?<BR/><BR/>Annoyed Pinnoy,<BR/><BR/>I'm not tracking what you're trying to get at. Cheung has said that he finds his occasionalism in Clark, Edwards, Malebranche, and flickers in Calvin, among others. But so what? Is any of this deducible from the Bible? And, he doesn't know that thewse men taught that. So, he must believe it only because it is useful to believe it.<BR/><BR/>Also, what's the cash value of this move: "all of reality other than God is/exists in God's mind"? If that can't be deduced from the Bible, then it is only rationally believed for non-epistemic reasons. But who wants to justify idealism by an appeal to its pragmatic value - if it has any?<BR/><BR/>Basically, the argument is a dilemma:<BR/><BR/>Either a proposition is Scripture or deducible from Scripture, or it isn't.<BR/><BR/>If it is, then you have an epistemic justification for it.<BR/><BR/>If it isn't, then you, at best, have a non-epistemic justification for it.<BR/><BR/>If any move you make on behalf of Cheung can't be deduced from Scripture, then it falls into the category of the latter.<BR/><BR/>If so, then the defense only succeeds because it is useful, or prudential, or helpful, or eudaimonic to believe those propositions.<BR/><BR/>But surely key features of your metaphysics, epistemology, anthropology, and ethics should have more than non-epistemic reasons supporting it. <BR/><BR/>If not, then I find it useful to disbelieve all of those moves. I can function just the same by believing the negation. <BR/><BR/>Lastly, since the probability that any given belief you have is aimed at truth is low or inscrutable (since divine illumination produced/es trillions of false beliefs), then when you reflect on your epistemic situation, you should give up all of those beliefs.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61502433900959915262008-01-04T11:29:00.000-05:002008-01-04T11:29:00.000-05:00Frank, your Smurf sized brain is what's a blast fr...Frank, your Smurf sized brain is what's a blast from the past! Watch out for Gargamel! La la la lalalaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91494791281799871302008-01-04T10:44:00.000-05:002008-01-04T10:44:00.000-05:00Thanks for the kind words, Pike!Its good to know t...Thanks for the kind words, Pike!<BR/><BR/>Its good to know that my joke was just as 'spot on' as yours!<BR/><BR/>And your "Mr Potato Head" avatar is also a flashback from the past...<BR/><BR/>We're like two peas in a pod, long lost brothers!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21499418667840854922008-01-04T10:36:00.000-05:002008-01-04T10:36:00.000-05:00What a wonderful comeback, Flouder! "I'm rubber a...What a wonderful comeback, Flouder! "I'm rubber and you're glue" so worked in 1983. It's nice to see you're keeping up with the times. Now put down your Duran Duran records and check out this cool invention called a video disc! It's gonna rule!Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69154907935445854472008-01-04T10:30:00.000-05:002008-01-04T10:30:00.000-05:00Peter the Pike wrote:"BTW, there's a term for peop...Peter the Pike wrote:<BR/><BR/>"BTW, there's a term for people who cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy. I believe it's called "Democrat." I mean "Delusional." One of those D-words."<BR/><BR/>Which reminds me of another ditty:<BR/><BR/>"There's a term for people that can't distinguish between reality and fantasy. I believe its called "Republican." I mean "Retarded." One of the R-words.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71847686639271734812008-01-04T10:05:00.000-05:002008-01-04T10:05:00.000-05:00By the way, since it's fun to invent characters:To...By the way, since it's fun to invent characters:<BR/><BR/>Todd Watson is the anti-Cheung. His existence is derrived from the non-existence of Cheung. As a result, he only exists if Cheung doesn't.<BR/><BR/>I read Todd Watson's diary, in which he said: "I, Todd Watson, exist."<BR/><BR/>If Todd Watson exists, then Cheung cannot exist. Since it is not only possible for Todd Watson to exist, but necessary (after all, I wrote about him, and if he doesn't exist how can I write about him?), then Cheung doesn't exist.<BR/><BR/>But then I wrote about Cheung too.<BR/><BR/>DARN THESE EVIL LOGICAL TRAPS OF THE DEVIL!!!!Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35745632969508576832008-01-04T10:02:00.000-05:002008-01-04T10:02:00.000-05:00Characters in novels don't write anything.BTW, the...Characters in novels don't write anything.<BR/><BR/>BTW, there's a term for people who cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy. I believe it's called "Democrat." I mean "Delusional." One of those D-words.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17263980494856084882008-01-04T04:05:00.000-05:002008-01-04T04:05:00.000-05:00If a character in a novel wrote in his diary, "I d...If a character in a novel wrote in his diary, "I don't exist!", would he exist or not? Would he be contradicting himself? <BR/><BR/>Also, has Cheung distanced himself from (what I understand to be) Gordon Clark's implicit Christian Idealism? Namely, that all of reality other than God is/exists in God's mind. Didn't Jonathan Edwards entertain such a possibility?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80069428017362479422008-01-03T23:27:00.000-05:002008-01-03T23:27:00.000-05:00Paul,You said: "Third, you make faith a exercise i...Paul,<BR/><BR/>You said: <BR/><BR/>"Third, you make faith a exercise in meaninglessness:<BR/><BR/>Hebrews 11:6<BR/>And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>AndrewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53302432093997468692008-01-03T21:57:00.000-05:002008-01-03T21:57:00.000-05:00Hi Vytautas,Vytautas: Cheung might say persons are...Hi Vytautas,<BR/><BR/><I>Vytautas: Cheung might say persons are the propostions that they know, so if Cheung knows something, then Cheung's existence is defined by that something itself."</I><BR/><BR/>Paul: My position has never denied that Cheung can't <I>say</I> all sorts of things. In fact, this is what I think he does on a regular basis. he <I>says</I> his position is deducible from the Bible. He <I>says</I> his occasionalism follows from the Bible's teaching on God's sovereignty. He <I>says</I> he doesn't appeal to fallible intuition. Ad naseum...<BR/><BR/>Secondly, Cheung can't deduce the defense you employ on his behalf (though it's an odd defense, to say the least!) from the Bible. So, he can only have non-epistemic reasons or justifications for that move. But so what? Surely it's not enough to defend an anthropology on the basis that you find it useful to believe that way!?<BR/><BR/>Where does one get his *knowledge* about propositions from? How about his *knowledge* of the metaphysics of identity (not Kripke, Plantinga, and van Inwagen!). Where does one get his *knowledge* about the what is entailed in *knowing* something? Your defense appeals to all sorts of *extra-biblical* concepts. Perhaps *you* can argue for Cheung because you don't accept his constraints. But, I've never maintained that *other people* can't show hoe Cheung can know things. In fact, I believe he does know many things that aren't deducible from Scripture, given my view of knowledge<BR/><BR/><I>Vytautas: "He might also say existence is meaningless since it can be predicated to all things, so saying Cheung cannot know he exists is meaningless."</I><BR/><BR/>Paul: Of course, another claim that Cheung can <I>claim</I> but cannot know. Is this a prudential belief too? Furthermore, perhaps the *predicate* 'existence' is meaningless, but existence *as such* isn't meaningless.<BR/><BR/>Third, you make faith a exercise in meaninglessness:<BR/><BR/>Hebrews 11:6<BR/>And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he <B>exists</B> and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.<BR/><BR/>Fourth, this rests on Kant's disputed argument. Many philosophers have argued that 'existence' adds to our knowledge of something, especially if the existence of it isn't presupposed in the context of the dialogue.<BR/><BR/>Fifth, this rests upon Clark and Robbins' weird idea that "everything exists." I discuss that here:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/09/tinkerbell-exists.html<BR/><BR/><I>Vytautas: "But you object that fairies that wear boots do not exist materially. But we can still have the idea of a material fairy that wears boots, so that a fairy with the property of having matter exists as an idea."</I><BR/><BR/>Paul: And of course Cheung (or you) don't know any of this. Furthermore, I object not that they do not exist "materially," but that *they* do not exist *at all.* A concept *of* a fairy does not mean that *a fairy* exists.<BR/><BR/><I>Vytautas: "Also Cheung once wrote that if he denied he exists, then that would be contradictory, since he would have to exist to deny his existance."</I><BR/><BR/>Paul: And I address a Scripturalists attempt to deduce the law of non-contradiction from the Bible here:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/just-say-no-to-scripturalism.html<BR/><BR/>But, of course this is a true claim, but what is its epistemic status *on Scripturalists* terms.<BR/><BR/>If we are going to allow that we know something, *even one thing,* that was not deduced from the Bible, viz., knowledge from self-evident truths, self-referentially incoherent statements, &c., then we have refuted Scripturalism. So, yes, Cheung can know that he exists. This comes at the cost of refuting his claims that:<BR/><BR/>"Scripture is the first principle of the Christian worldview, so that true knowledge consists of only what is directly stated in Scripture and what is validly deducible from Scripture; all other propositions amount to unjustified opinion at best."<BR/><BR/>I never say any deductions from the Bible here. I saw appeals to philosophical concepts such as propositions, identity, and such. I saw appeals to Kant. And I saw appeals to self-evident and self-referentially incoherent statements.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77339461198289747212008-01-03T21:23:00.000-05:002008-01-03T21:23:00.000-05:00Caleb said... III. If two people know the same se...Caleb said... <BR/><BR/>III. If two people know the same set of propositions, then they are the same person. Yikes! <BR/><BR/>Cheers.<BR/><BR/>1/03/2008 5:56 PM<BR/><BR/>*********<BR/><BR/>Yikes indeed! This would seem to reduce the Godhead to *one* person. So, this would mean that the Clarkians/Cheungians couldn't have a problem w/ Van Til (even though Van Til maintianed a differenceErrorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44763408199739066992008-01-03T19:56:00.000-05:002008-01-03T19:56:00.000-05:00Vytautas: Cheung might say persons are the propost...Vytautas: Cheung might say persons are the propostions that they know, so if Cheung knows something, then Cheung's existence is defined by that something itself. <BR/><BR/>Caleb: Persons are the propositions that they know. Hmmm, let’s play with that. <BR/><BR/>i. If a persons knowledge changes over time, then this view of personhood has problems with identity over time. <BR/><BR/>II. Who grounds the knowing of the propositions? It can’t be Cheung, because he is identical to the propositions known. <BR/><BR/>III. If two people know the same set of propositions, then they are the same person. Yikes! <BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9867391668588748712008-01-03T18:14:00.000-05:002008-01-03T18:14:00.000-05:00Paul Manata: Cheung can't know that he exists sin...Paul Manata: Cheung can't know that he exists since he can't deduce that from the Bible. <BR/><BR/>Vytautas: Cheung might say persons are the propostions that they know, so if Cheung knows something, then Cheung's existence is defined by that something itself. He might also say existence is meaningless since it can be predicated to all things, so saying Cheung cannot know he exists is meaningless. But you object that fairies that wear boots do not exist materially. But we can still have the idea of a material fairy that wears boots, so that a fairy with the property of having matter exists as an idea. Also Cheung once wrote that if he denied he exists, then that would be contradictory, since he would have to exist to deny his existance.Vytautashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563655929016752682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33263506374890793752008-01-03T16:19:00.000-05:002008-01-03T16:19:00.000-05:00JACK_BE_NIMBLE = Paul ManataJACK_BE_NIMBLE = Paul ManataAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-43569472674036875062008-01-03T16:17:00.000-05:002008-01-03T16:17:00.000-05:00Trolling atheists comments will be deleted. If th...Trolling atheists comments will be deleted. If that doesn't work, the comments section for this post will be closed.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-73999044361479525702008-01-03T16:06:00.000-05:002008-01-03T16:06:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68850868965386808522008-01-03T15:38:00.000-05:002008-01-03T15:38:00.000-05:00Good post, Paul.It was a particularly consumptive ...Good post, Paul.<BR/><BR/>It was a particularly consumptive point you made that Cheung's epistemology, and meta-level beliefs about epistemology, can only, if your sparing partner is correct, be justified by appeals to prudence. This is wholly unacceptable for any putative epistemology worthy of the name.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87076069171929248392008-01-03T14:34:00.000-05:002008-01-03T14:34:00.000-05:00Yes, Gus. Now, since we're in the admitting mood,...Yes, Gus. Now, since we're in the admitting mood, why not admit you didn't bother to read the post.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40255651643051758872008-01-03T14:20:00.000-05:002008-01-03T14:20:00.000-05:00What was this post about again? Something to do w...What was this post about again? Something to do with Paul admitting he's wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19930714386740810592008-01-03T13:17:00.000-05:002008-01-03T13:17:00.000-05:00Timmy,Every knows that using fish to make jokes is...Timmy,<BR/><BR/>Every knows that using fish to make jokes is amateur. For example:<BR/><BR/>What part of the fish weighs the most? The scales.<BR/><BR/>Why didn't the lobster share his toys? He was too shellfish.<BR/><BR/>What kind of fish does a parrot sit on? A Pearch.<BR/><BR/>Who are the strongest creatures in the ocean? Mussels<BR/><BR/>Why are fish so smart? They always go around in schools.<BR/><BR/>What's the difference between a piano and a fish? You can tune a piano, but you can't tune a fish.<BR/><BR/>What fish is the most valuable? A goldfish.<BR/><BR/>Which fish runs the undersea mafia? The Codfather!<BR/><BR/>Why was the beach wet? Because the sea weed!<BR/><BR/>So, Timmy Tuna, you've not convinced me that you've graduated from Sesame Street Workshop posts. At best you're around the low 50's.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-62395117653662399992008-01-03T12:02:00.000-05:002008-01-03T12:02:00.000-05:00I knew it! Timmy was the guy from third grade who...I knew it! Timmy was the guy from third grade who thought he was telling jokes but never realized why people were really laughing. <BR/><BR/>It was a bummer to find out about your buccofacial apraxia, Tim. But with time, I'm sure you'll progress.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5273239274272991662008-01-03T11:01:00.000-05:002008-01-03T11:01:00.000-05:00Paul, my mentor and hero,Didn't you notice the sub...Paul, my mentor and hero,<BR/><BR/>Didn't you notice the subtle, yet strangely compelling way I used a play on words (timmy trout) to bring out a somewhat refreshing jolt of humor based around "peter pike?"<BR/><BR/>That is AT LEAST indicative of an intelligence quotient of 72.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72713882383133450512008-01-03T10:43:00.000-05:002008-01-03T10:43:00.000-05:00Timmy,You confused days, again. Next Wednesday ev...Timmy,<BR/><BR/>You confused days, again. <I>Next</I> Wednesday evening is Sesame Street Workshop post. Remember, <I>the first</I> Wednesday of the month are posts requiring an I.Q of over 70 to read. The second Wednesday of the month are posts for our audience which boasts and I.Q. of under 70. This is the last time I'll tell ya. Write in on your calander or whatever you do to remember things like: breakfast if before dinner, I am supposed to shake with my right hand, the person in the mirror is just a reflection, etc.Errorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10615233201833238198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44894825385685935732008-01-03T10:07:00.000-05:002008-01-03T10:07:00.000-05:00SnoozefestSnoozefestAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55647634282754282762008-01-03T10:04:00.000-05:002008-01-03T10:04:00.000-05:00Congratulations on making it through the first par...Congratulations on making it through the first paragraph before you posted a response, anonymous.<BR/><BR/>Now you can go back and read the second paragraph and tell us ":::YAWN!!!:::" again. Chop chop! Fans are waiting.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.com