How to Engage in Argumentum ad Gannitum

_{Barry Arrington

November 13, 2018

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Today I coin a new Latin phrase in honor of our frequent interlocutor daveS. Here it is: Argumentum ad Gannitum – the argument from whining. (“Gannitum” being Latin for “whining”).

The argument from whining takes this form:

Person A makes an argument supported by logic and evidence that he believes compels a conclusion.

Person B, instead of making a counter argument based on logic and evidence, says something like “Admit that you may be wrong” or “It’s not my job to show you how you are wrong.”

Here is an example from a recent combox discussion with daveS:

Barry makes the following argument:

Either there is a God or there is not. If there is a God, meaning is possible. If there is no God, meaning is not possible. Let us, therefore, assume for the sake of argument that an atheist such as yourself is correct. There is no God. Therefore, meaning is not possible.

daveS responds:

Barry, Is it possible that you are wrong?

No, really, that is his response. Check it out here.

Uh, yeah dave, it is certainly possible that I am wrong. But no one will ever know that I am wrong if all you do is whine about my argument instead of attempt to rebut it.

In fairness, dave later made a run at trying to show meaning in a meaningless universe. It amounted to “I know there is no meaning, but I feel like there is, so there is.”

Comments

DaveS
Perhaps another possibility is that minds are always dependent on a brain, and at death, the mind ceases to exist? That’s consistent with the evidence as far as I can tell.
If the mind is immaterial, as I define it, then it cannot die. It isn’t a matter of evidence; it is a matter of logic. By definition, a non-material thing that doesn’t have any parts cannot die. Only physical things can die. I would hasten to add, though, there could be such a thing as a material soul (soul defined as the principle of life) such as what animals (and even plants) possess. However, I don’t think that dogs have a spiritual nature in the sense that they can grasp abstract concepts such as justice, or make logical deductions, or draw inferences, or make moral decisions, or set goals. All that is out of range for them.
Here’s a related question, which might shed some light: Do dogs have minds? My answer is a definite “yes”. Dogs clearly are conscious and understand the world to some extent. They can follow commands and communicate with humans on a basic level (for example dragging around its leash if it wants to take a walk).
I think dogs have instincts, since they can be trained, and feelings, since they seem to be able to show affection, but they they can't reason in the abstract or make moral decisions.
But their minds are not immortal, are they? They cease to exist at the point of physical death.
My guess is that they cease to exist after death because they don’t have souls made in the image and likeness of God (conceptual minds and free will) like humans do. So there would seem to be nothing of substance that could live on. Indeed, it would seem that they are situated solely in the physical realm and that every element of their existence is subject to decay. However, there is nothing to prevent God from creating new dogs or other animals in the next life and keeping them in existence from that point on. But I don't know how they would function in heaven, which requires the ability to know God and love him with a rational soul, which all animals lack.StephenB_{November 17, 2018
November
11
Nov
17
17
2018
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

Ed,
I can accept the idea that souls are created, not eternal, but I have a harder time with the idea that there are a finite number of souls. Why would God set himself this restriction?
I would not consider God's decision to create a finite number of souls a restriction. Several billion human souls (not to mention billions of angels) is a lot of creating. On the practical side, I don't think that infinity can be instantiated in nature anyway. It seems logically impossible to me.StephenB_{November 17, 2018
November
11
Nov
17
17
2018
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
I would argue that an immaterial faculty of mind is required to explain the existence of an immaterial thought. I realize that for humans, as long as they remain in a body, they also require a physical brain to do the processing. However, the mind’s dependence on the brain is conditional and ends when the soul departs from the body at death.
Perhaps another possibility is that minds are always dependent on a brain, and at death, the mind ceases to exist? That's consistent with the evidence as far as I can tell.
I am not clear on how you would distinguish the mind from the brain if you believe that both are physical, mortal, and changeable. Do you hold them to be one and the same thing? For me, the changes you allude to can be explained by the mind’s temporary dependence on the brain.
I don't know whether the mind is physical, but it appears to me to be mortal and changeable. Here's a related question, which might shed some light: Do dogs have minds? My answer is a definite "yes". Dogs clearly are conscious and understand the world to some extent. They can follow commands and communicate with humans on a basic level (for example dragging around its leash if it wants to take a walk). But their minds are not immortal, are they? They cease to exist at the point of physical death.daveS_{November 17, 2018
November
11
Nov
17
17
2018
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

StephenB@70, thank you for the response. I can accept the idea that souls are created, not eternal, but I have a harder time with the idea that there are a finite number of souls. Why would God set himself this restriction?Ed George_{November 17, 2018
November
11
Nov
17
17
2018
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

DaveS:
My issue is that I don’t know of any compelling reason to believe that this immaterial, immortal, and unchanging soul exists.
I would argue that an immaterial faculty of mind is required to explain the existence of an immaterial thought. I realize that for humans, as long as they remain in a body, they also require a physical brain to do the processing. However, the mind’s dependence on the brain is conditional and ends when the soul departs from the body at death.
I do believe minds exist, but I have concluded that they do change over time.
I am not clear on how you would distinguish the mind from the brain if you believe that both are physical, mortal, and changeable. Do you hold them to be one and the same thing? For me, the changes you allude to can be explained by the mind’s temporary dependence on the brain.StephenB_{November 17, 2018
November
11
Nov
17
17
2018
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

Hello Ed, you write,
... by immortal, do you mean that they always existed, or are immortal once they form?
It is the latter. God, for example, is eternal (always existed), but human souls are immortal (were brought into existence, but will live forever from that point on). The number of souls is finite.
I’m agnostic on the idea of the immortal soul. As with most people, I hope that it exists, but I am not going to live my life banking on it.
I understand. We can explain chemical reactions and synapses in the brain by noting that the latter is a physical organ, which can be measured and is extended in space. A physical cause will produce a physical effect. However, we cannot explain the existence of immaterial phenomena, such as thoughts and willful decisions except by reference to some immaterial faculty, such as a mind or a will. Both are faculties (not parts) of an immortal soul.StephenB_{November 17, 2018
November
11
Nov
17
17
2018
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

The problem I have struggled with for years is the concept of the immortal soul. Maybe StephenB can help me by answering the following questions. You will understand my struggle when you read the questions. 1) by immortal, do you mean that they always existed, or are immortal once they form? 3) if the former, is there a finite number of souls? I’m agnostic on the idea of the immortal soul. As with most people, I hope that it exists, but I am not going to live my life banking on it.Ed George_{November 17, 2018
November
11
Nov
17
17
2018
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Starting at the end:
However, if the soul lives forever, by virtue of its immaterial nature, then it must exist in the realm of spirit. Even if we can’t observe it, reason tells us that the other realm exists since the soul lives on.
Yes, if souls exist and live forever, then they must exist in some nonphysical realm.
By “faculties” I mean the immaterial mind and the immaterial will (thinking and willing faculties of an immaterial soul) – distinct from but related to the the material organ of the brain, which is a part of a material (physical) body. The soul lives forever because it has no parts that can disintegrate and die (as opposed to the brain, which is made of matter and will eventually become dust).
If I understand correctly, that's all self-consistent. My issue is that I don't know of any compelling reason to believe that this immaterial, immortal, and unchanging soul exists. I do believe minds exist, but I have concluded that they do change over time. Our mental abilities develop in early childhood but begin to decline by middle age or even before. Maybe minds are immortal, but we have no way of observing them after the person dies. It looks to me like the evidence we have is consistent with the proposition that minds are mortal and do change over time.daveS_{November 17, 2018
November
11
Nov
17
17
2018
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

DaveS, Sorry for the delay. Yes, you understood my latter comments very well. On the earlier points, you write:
But I do believe my mind and faculties will deteriorate and eventually die/cease to exist.
By "faculties" I mean the immaterial mind and the immaterial will (thinking and willing faculties of an immaterial soul) - distinct from but related to the the material organ of the brain, which is a part of a material (physical) body. The soul lives forever because it has no parts that can disintegrate and die (as opposed to the brain, which is made of matter and will eventually become dust).
I take it you believe that when someone’s physical body dies, their mind still exists elsewhere, in some other realm.
Yes.
But that realm is apparently not observable to us, so I don’t know how to proceed.
Yes, the soul and its faculties (mind and will) will continue to exist in some place or some state since they cannot die. You are right. Such a realm is not observable since we can only observe matter. However, if the soul lives forever, by virtue of its immaterial nature, then it must exist in the realm of spirit. Even if we can't observe it, reason tells us that the other realm exists since the soul lives on.StephenB_{November 16, 2018
November
11
Nov
16
16
2018
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I'm pretty swamped at the moment, but I'll try and respond when possible.
Material entities, such as bodies, brains, and organs are physical entities and contain parts, which means that they can disintegrate, decay, die, or be transformed into some other kind of matter (or energy, perhaps); spiritual entities such as souls, minds and faculties, are non-physical entities and contain no parts, which means that they cannot disintegrate, die, or be changed into something else.
I'll have to ponder the issue of minds having parts further. But I do believe my mind and faculties will deteriorate and eventually die/cease to exist. Is there some way to verify that minds cannot disintegrate and die? I take it you believe that when someone's physical body dies, their mind still exists elsewhere, in some other realm. But that realm is apparently not observable to us, so I don't know how to proceed.
Clearly, a material body (or brain), which will die and change into another kind of matter, cannot evolve into a spiritual soul (or mind), which is unchangeable, contains no parts, and will live forever. Matter cannot, therefore, through a series of evolutionary changes, make the leap from dust to immortality. Molecules cannot re-arrange themselves, or be arranged, into a spiritual soul that contains no molecules. There is nothing in the cause (matter) that could possibly produce the effect (spirit). A cause cannot give what it does not have to give.
Yes, all that would seem quite impossible. Although I have never considered such a thing, I will immediately agree that populations of physical bodies cannot evolve into populations of immortal and immaterial spirits. (Assuming that accurately reflects what you are saying; please correct me if necessary).daveS_{November 15, 2018
November
11
Nov
15
15
2018
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

"will turn out to be better than others are in the light of critical discussion and tests." As KF pointed out, appealing to the notion of what is better implies things that derail the argument long before one is finished stating the premises, let alone reached the conclusion. "Critical discussion"? Is that anything like "peer review"? Tests. Who designs these tests? Who performs them? Who writes the articles? (Who does the statistical analyses?) Who peer reviews the published articles about the tests? Oy vey.ScuzzaMan_{November 15, 2018
November
11
Nov
15
15
2018
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

StephenB,
Does that help?
Yes it does, thank you. I'll have to chew on it for a while. One comment on my post #54: I didn't understand parts of your argument, so I attempted to "rephrase" it in terms I am more familiar with. Obviously that went off the rails at some point. Your follow-up post #61 is helping.daveS_{November 15, 2018
November
11
Nov
15
15
2018
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT}

PS: Just for record for those who need it (as opposed to opening yet another side-track), SEP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/ >>Inductive Logic First published Mon Sep 6, 2004; substantive revision Mon Mar 19, 2018 An inductive logic is a logic of evidential support. In a deductive logic, the premises of a valid deductive argument logically entail the conclusion, where logical entailment means that every logically possible state of affairs that makes the premises true must make the conclusion truth as well. Thus, the premises of a valid deductive argument provide total support for the conclusion. An inductive logic extends this idea to weaker arguments. In a good inductive argument, the truth of the premises provides some degree of support for the truth of the conclusion, where this degree-of-support might be measured via some numerical scale. By analogy with the notion of deductive entailment, the notion of inductive degree-of-support might mean something like this: among the logically possible states of affairs that make the premises true, the conclusion must be true in (at least) proportion r of them—where r is some numerical measure of the support strength. If a logic of good inductive arguments is to be of any real value, the measure of support it articulates should be up to the task. Presumably, the logic should at least satisfy the following condition: Criterion of Adequacy (CoA): The logic should make it likely (as a matter of logic) that as evidence accumulates, the total body of true evidence claims will eventually come to indicate, via the logic’s measure of support, that false hypotheses are probably false and that true hypotheses are probably true. The CoA stated here may strike some readers as surprisingly strong. Given a specific logic of evidential support, how might it be shown to satisfy such a condition? Section 4 will show precisely how this condition is satisfied by the logic of evidential support articulated in Sections 1 through 3 of this article. This article will focus on the kind of the approach to inductive logic most widely studied by epistemologists and logicians in recent years. This approach employs conditional probability functions to represent measures of the degree to which evidence statements support hypotheses. Presumably, hypotheses should be empirically evaluated based on what they say (or imply) about the likelihood that evidence claims will be true. A straightforward theorem of probability theory, called Bayes’ Theorem, articulates the way in which what hypotheses say about the likelihoods of evidence claims influences the degree to which hypotheses are supported by those evidence claims. Thus, this approach to the logic of evidential support is often called a Bayesian Inductive Logic or a Bayesian Confirmation Theory . . . >> Of course Bayes is just part of the story.kairosfocus_{November 15, 2018
November
11
Nov
15
15
2018
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

CR, has it registered with you that just to post a t-e-x-t-u-a-l string in reply, you were forced to rely on distinct identity, not to mention that to argue you implicitly appeal to a self-evident known duty to truth, right reason, sound warrant, fairness and justice etc. Thus, at the outset, there is a patent, blatant self-referential incoherence involved in attempts to argue against the principle of distinct identity. Sadly, this is a day and age in which many cling to all sorts of absurdities, precisely because they are locked into the trap of agendas hostile to right reason. And BTW, the argument you link is mostly about debating Popper, critical rationalism and inductive reasoning; it is not focussed on the principle of identity and on its own subject it makes many errors. There are excellent reasons why inductive reasoning is widely acknowledged today as a significant dimension of our ability to attain reliable, responsible albeit provisional empirically rooted knowledge. Of course, all along the argument, you rely on distinct identity and its immediate corollaries, LNC and LEM. As is inevitable. KFkairosfocus_{November 15, 2018
November
11
Nov
15
15
2018
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

DaveS
Ok, then. Thanks for the discussion in any case.
Perhaps I didn't give you a fair chance. Let me explain it another way. Matter cannot produce spirit for several reasons. Let's begin with a few descriptions: Material entities, such as bodies, brains, and organs are physical entities and contain parts, which means that they can disintegrate, decay, die, or be transformed into some other kind of matter (or energy, perhaps); spiritual entities such as souls, minds and faculties, are non-physical entities and contain no parts, which means that they cannot disintegrate, die, or be changed into something else. Clearly, a material body (or brain), which will die and change into another kind of matter, cannot evolve into a spiritual soul (or mind), which is unchangeable, contains no parts, and will live forever. Matter cannot, therefore, through a series of evolutionary changes, make the leap from dust to immortality. Molecules cannot re-arrange themselves, or be arranged, into a spiritual soul that contains no molecules. There is nothing in the cause (matter) that could possibly produce the effect (spirit). A cause cannot give what it does not have to give. Does that help?StephenB_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

daveS
Well, there is more to existence than fretting about meaninglessness, isn’t there? At least I find there is. Edit: For example, wouldn’t you observe that there are people in need and suffering, and that you might have the resources to help them?
You are truly a pitiful and foolish little man. You live every moment of your life as if your most fundamental metaphysical beliefs are false. But it feels OK because you don't allow yourself to think about it too much. And that's good enough for you. Go have some pad Thai dave.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Ok, then. Thanks for the discussion in any case.daveS_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PDT}

DaveS
Are you serious? You can explain why our physical brains cannot produce immaterial thoughts in just a few short sentences?
I not only can, I did.
As I understand it, your argument is: The brain is physical. The brain cannot interact with anything immaterial. Thoughts are immaterial. Therefore the brain cannot produce immaterial thoughts. Is that correct?
That is not correct. It isn't even close. Since I have already explained it twice, and since you ignored the explanation both times, I don't think I should lay it out it a third time only to have it ignored yet again. Perhaps, like JDK, you prefer to remain uninformed. There is a lot of that going around.StephenB_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
08:26 PM
8
08
26
PM
PDT}

@KF
CR, you will never have a good reason to reject frirst principles of reason as to object you must appeal to same. They are where reasoning starts, recognition of distinct identity. Game over. KF
Can you remind me of your responses to this article responding to Nicholas Dykes appeal to the law of identity? Oh, that's right. You never provided one. For your convenience....
[Dykes appeal to the law of identity] doesn’t solve the problem at all. The problem of induction as stated by Hume is that our expectations of the future don’t follow from what we have observed in the past. To see why let’s take Dykes’ example of the hawthorn, which he claims will not produce grapes. How does he know it won’t produce grapes? Perhaps some scientist will genetically engineer hawthorns to produce grapes. And even if he doesn’t the fact that it won’t produce grapes doesn’t follow merely from the fact that it hasn’t in the past. To put this in Dykes’ language, if we were to accept that existence implies identity that would not tell us the identity of any specific entity. And indeed characterising the issue as being about the identity of the object in question is a bad way to think about it. Whatever the thing in question is we need an explanation of how it works to say what it will do next and why. And we won’t be able to tell what we can predict about the entity in question without such an account. Why do hawthorn bushes not produce grapes? That has to do with a complicated set of circumstances in its evolutionary past that selected against hawthorns producing relatively large fleshy fruit and refers to lots of things that are not hawthorn bushes, like human beings who did not selectively breed hawthorn bushes to get them to grow grapes. Stating this theory in terms of definitions would make it less clear because the explanation involves tying together many different entities and so the whole explanation would have to be repeated many times in slightly different ways.
critical rationalist_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

Barry: I actually posted a response to your comment. Then I slapped my forehead and realized that you reject rationality itself. Therefore, attempting to have a rational discussion with you is pointless. So I deleted it.
Even if we assume your portrayal of my position isn't a gross misrepresentation (it is) you supposedly wrote and published an entire post before eventually deleting it. Apparently, that slipped by you. Are you suggesting that you eventually "remembering" was enviable? What if you had received a phone call or some other pressing issue arose and you forgot about it, etc? That's exactly the sort fo thing I'm referring to. Yet, somehow you've equated this to "rejecting rationality itself", which isn't my position. Let me give you a hint. It's not called Critical Rationalism for nothing. From this article...
Relativism, Dogmatism and Critical Preference In the light of Bartley's ideas we can discern a number of possible attitudes towards positions, notably those of relativism, dogmatism (called “fideism” in the scholarly literature) and critical preference (or in Bartley's unfortunately clumsy language, “pancritical rationalism”.) Relativists tend to be disappointed dogmatists who realise that positive confirmation cannot be achieved. From this correct premise they proceed to the false conclusion that all positions are pretty much the same and none can really claim to be better than any other. There is no such thing as the truth, no way to get nearer to the truth and there is no such thing as a rational position. Fideists are people who believe that knowledge is based on an act of faith. Consequently they embrace whatever they want to regard as the truth. If they stop to think about it they may accept that there is no logical way to establish a positive justification for their beliefs or any others, so they insist that we make our choice regardless of reason: ”Here I stand!”. Most forms of rationalism up to date have, at rock bottom, shared this attitude with the irrationalists and other fundamentalists because they share the same 'true belief' structure of thought. According to the stance of critical preference no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one, (or some) will turn out to be better than others are in the light of critical discussion and tests. This type of rationality holds all its positions and propositions open to criticism and a standard objection to this stance is that it is empty; just holding our positions open to criticism provides no guidance as to what position we should adopt in any particular situation. This criticism misses its mark for two reasons. First, the stance of critical preference is not a position, it is a metacontext and as such it is not directed at solving the kind of problems that are solved by adopting a position on some issue or other. It is concerned with the way that such positions are adopted, criticised, defended and relinquished. Second, Bartley does provide guidance on adopting positions; we may adopt the position that to this moment has stood up to criticism most effectively. Of course this is no help for dogmatists who seek stronger reasons for belief, but that is a problem for them, not for exponents of critical preference.
Of course, I've posted this clarification for what must be at least a dozen times, yet you still continue to misrepresent me? What gives, Barry? Furthermore, in addition to misrepresenting my position, your comment assumes a source of criticism is somehow relevant (such as, "someone who believes in rationality") However, as you pointed out earlier in your post "Reality: The Wall You Smack Into When You’re Wrong", reality doesn't believe in anything, let alone itself. Yet, you still think it's a valid source of criticism. Again, what gives?critical rationalist_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:22 PM
6
06
22
PM
PDT}

Barry: Wow CR. You’ve been in the moderation sandbox for months. And the next day after we let you out, you jump right back into a combox and start spewing your “we can’t really know anything” drivel.
Note that in the first post Barry responds to after I get out of moderation, not only does he not answer my questions, but he misrepresents my position! Some things never change? For example, he equates Fallibilism with a claim that we "can't really know anything", which isn't my position and he knows it. That's just towing the foundationalist line. which is exactly what I'm criticizing.
Is it possible that you made a mistake when applying logic to the question at hand? Is it possible that the field of logic as a whole is incomplete or contains mistakes, so that even if you applied it flawlessly, your conclusion regarding the question at hand could be mistaken? Is it possible that, through some inexplicable means, we ended up with the field of logic that was completely and utterly without error and cannot be improved, you somehow misinterpreted it when applying to the question at hand?
Perhaps Barry can humor us and explain how those questions imply that we cannot know anything? To rephrase the question, what is Barry's explanation for how he managed to avoid the issues listed above? Let me guess, God wanted him to avoid them, so he did?critical rationalist_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
06:21 PM
6
06
21
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Are you serious? You can explain why our physical brains cannot produce immaterial thoughts in just a few short sentences? As I understand it, your argument is:
The brain is physical. The brain cannot interact with anything immaterial. Thoughts are immaterial. Therefore the brain cannot produce immaterial thoughts.
Is that correct?daveS_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

SB: … "we know that biological evolution (matter in motion) cannot produce a mind." DaveS
Well, I don’t know if that’s the case or not.
Inasmuch as I explained that this must be the case (matter cannot produce spirit) and inasmuch as I explained why it must be the case (causes cannot give what they do not have), perhaps you can provide a good reason why you still don't know.StephenB_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
... we know that biological evolution (matter in motion) cannot produce a mind
Well, I don't know if that's the case or not. I know next to nothing about evolution, matter, or minds. So I leave that question to those with more expertise and interest, frankly.daveS_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

DaveS
While I don’t know about the existence of a designer, I do agree I have meaningful intentions and immaterial thoughts.
Right you are. So now it is a question of drawing the right inference from those facts. Immaterial thoughts cannot come from a material organ, that is, the brain; therefore, they must come from an immaterial faculty, the mind. So let's begin with the rational principle: A cause cannot give what it doesn't have to give. Working back in the causal chain, we know that biological evolution (matter in motion) cannot produce a mind, so we must find some other explanation. Who or what could do that?StephenB_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

Barry,
Your ability to give charitable interpretations amazes. I would have said, he (JDK) refused to answer the question because he knew the only truthful answer would not serve his purpose.
Yes, that's true, and the number of evasions was astounding. That is why, in the end, I went ahead and provided the answers to my questions *in his name." He didn't challenge even one of them because he knew that doing so would force him to confront their substance. So I felt that he had given me tacit permission to put his signature on the responses. However, on the question of identities, I thought it would be even more revealing (and entertaining) for him to say "I am not sure that a cat is a cat" than to say "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me."StephenB_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
(snip) While your actions are neither material nor immaterial (actions are not things), the intentions behind those actions are, indeed, immaterial. In other words, you are a composite of spirit and matter (you have both a mind [an immaterial faculty] and a brain [a material organ]. Your intentions do have meaning because you exist in a meaningful universe that was designed in such a way that you could have immaterial thoughts, made possible by your immaterial faculties of mind and will. Matter (body, brain) cannot produce non-matter (thoughts).
While I don't know about the existence of a designer, I do agree I have meaningful intentions and immaterial thoughts.daveS_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

Barry,
Why didn’t I (or Camus for that matter) think of that? A helping of pad thai is all anyone needs to divert themselves from the absurdity of a universe without meaning.
Well, there is more to existence than fretting about meaninglessness, isn't there? At least I find there is. Edit: For example, wouldn't you observe that there are people in need and suffering, and that you might have the resources to help them?daveS_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

daveS @ 40 Why didn't I (or Camus for that matter) think of that? A helping of pad thai is all anyone needs to divert themselves from the absurdity of a universe without meaning. You probably already know my take on smiley-faced atheism. In case you don't click here.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

SB
He could not answer the question.
Your ability to give charitable interpretations amazes. I would have said, he refused to answer the question because he knew the only truthful answer would not serve his purpose.Barry Arrington_{November 14, 2018
November
11
Nov
14
14
2018
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply