#1: How to Defeat Modern Day Atheism With Three Easy Questions

Since the year is winding down, I think I will repost the top 5 most popular blog entries from 2015.  The most popular one was entitled, “How to Defeat Modern Day Atheism With Three Easy Questions” and was posted on June 24, 2015.   Coming in at #1 – 

Steve Greene wrote a web article entitled How to validate atheism in one easy step and gives us the most common defense of atheism that is out there:

So this is how you validate atheism in one easy step: Ask the god-believer to produce actual, credible, real world evidence of this god. He will never do it. He will always engage in word games employed to try to conjure up his god – while never even attempting to produce actual, relevant, empirical evidence of any god. He will talk about everything else under the sun, engage in rhetorical trickery, misdirection (red herring), misrepresentation (i.e., straw man criticism of atheism), all based on denying obvious facts about reality (like the problematic nature of “eyewitness testimony,” and the subjective nature of subjective beliefs about imaginary things making you feel good), while never getting around to producing any actual evidence of any god – oh, and then, a lot of times you even get the religious apologist who specifically employs some sort of “Divine Hiddenness” argument to try to pretend that his god arranged things deliberately that we would not have any actual evidence of its existence because religious faith (i.e., believing in the god based on faith, not evidence) is a virtue, believing without evidence is a virtue, and doubt (i.e., critical thinking and being skeptical about bogus claims that don’t have good evidence to back them up) is the influence of Satan or some other evil spirit.

Once again, we see how atheism is built on the Demand For Evidence. But we also know that such a demand is more of a rhetorical trick than a sincere expression of intellectual curiosity.

First of all, Greene is working with a shallow, superficial understanding of evidence. He seems to think that if certain data were indeed evidence for X, then these data would be universally perceived and acknowledged as evidence for X. But that is not how evidence works. Evidence is not objective reality that is detected by the senses; evidence is perceived by the mind. The mind converts data from objective reality into the subjective perception of evidence. Because the perception of evidence depends on interpretation from the mind, evidence itself is something that has a distinct subjective element to it. In fact, it would not be too far from the truth to note that evidence is in the eye of the beholder. So the fact that Greene is not convinced by “evidence” from religious people (appeals to eyewitness testimony, appeals to personal experience, and variants of the fine-tuning argument) means only that Greene finds such evidence to be unconvincing. But since the world does not revolve around Greene, the failure to convince him does not mean the evidence does not exist.

What Greene is doing to “validate” atheism is simply trying to posture and set the stage so he can act as Judge and Jury. The religious person is supposed to come before him and “plead their case” with their “evidence.” Greene will then decide the outcome of that case. Amazingly, many Christians fall for this tactic and play right into the hands of people like Greene.

When someone like Greene comes to you demanding “actual, credible, real world evidence of this god,” there are three simple questions you can ask to expose the sham nature of the inquiry and thus defeat the backdoor attempt to “validate atheism.”

Question 1: What would you count as “actual, credible, real world evidence for God?” If the atheist refuses to answer, he/she will be exposed as Hiding the Goalpost, demonstrating the inherent intellectual dishonesty in such a demand. If the atheist finally answers, there is a very, very high likelihood he/she will cite some dramatic, miraculous, sensational demonstration of God’s power. And that leads to the second question.

Question 2: Why would that dramatic, miraculous, sensational event count as evidence for God? At this point, the atheist will likely try to change the topic. But persist with the question. What you will find is that the reason why the atheist would count such an event as evidence for God is because it could not possibly be explained by natural causes and science. In other words, because it was a Gap. Modern day atheism is built on God of the Gaps logic.

At this point, you can ask the third question.

Question 3: Is the God of the Gaps reasoning a valid way of determining the existence of God? If the atheist has not bailed on you yet, he/she will likely run now. For if he/she answers NO, then it will become clear that nothing can count as evidence for the existence of God. Why? Because if the only “evidence” the atheist “Judge/Jury” will allow in his/her kangaroo court is a Gap (something that cannot be explained by science/natural law), and God-of-the-Gaps reasoning is also not allowed by the atheist, then it is clear the atheist demand for evidence is a sneaky, dishonest game of “heads I win, tails you lose.”

Of course, if the atheist answers YES to question 3, then the theist is free to raise Gaps as evidence for God (origin of Life, origin of the Consciousness, etc.). This is why the atheist will run or change the topic – his/her demand for evidence puts the atheist in the position of having to a) acknowledge the deceitful nature of their demand or b) acknowledge there is evidence because of certain existing gaps.

Finally, there is a Bonus question that can be used to supplement or replace the above approach. Since the atheist wants to judge and proclaim whether or not I have evidence for God’s existence, I need evidence this “judge” is open and fair-minded. What rational person would willingly put himself in a position of being judged by a hostile, biased, prejudiced judge? So you can ask the following question.

Bonus question: I’ll provide evidence for God’s existence, but can you first provide evidence that you are capable of considering my evidence in an open- and fair-minded manner?

Given that so many New Atheists are pompous, closed-minded verbal bullies, expect such a question to be ignored. And then you can simply point out that the atheist is simply not qualified to pass meaningful judgment on your beliefs. For prejudgment is not meaningful judgment.

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheism, evidence, God, New Atheism, Religion, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to #1: How to Defeat Modern Day Atheism With Three Easy Questions

  1. SteveK says:

    “Because the perception of evidence depends on interpretation from the mind, evidence itself is something that has a distinct subjective element to it. In fact, it would not be too far from the truth to note that evidence is in the eye of the beholder. ”

    I’m getting the same sense data that these atheists are getting, and at a very basic level you can say that every human being interprets this data the same way.

    Whether you are atheist, agnostic, Christian or Hindu our sense data “sees” (via mental interpretation) species, order, good, causality, meaning, rationality, intentionality, purpose, other minds, free will, etc, etc. Everyone “sees” this stuff so everyone is seeing the same evidence at this basic level of interpretation.

    But when we try to further interpret this basic level of interpretation, that’s when we start seeing major disagreements.

    Many atheists claim that science can resolve the interpretation problem. Can it? No, because science cannot perform an experiment that would reveal to everyone how to correctly interpret our basic interpretations. The experiment doesn’t exist. Science can only give us more evidence to add to the pile of basic evidence that we already have. That larger pile of evidence still needs to be interpreted.

  2. SteveK says:

    Some atheists interpret that larger pile of evidence mentioned above in such a way as to conclude that “The Evidence(tm)” is this: the evidence from science is more trustworthy, more real, more valuable than the basic level interpretation.

    This interpretation tilts their worldview further toward reductionism. It serves to undermine basic level interpretations causing them to deny things they continue to accept at a basic level (free will, morality, intentionality). If the evidence from science says humans are matter and energy, then their basic interpretation of their own sense data must be wrong.

    This is a problem, which should be a clue that maybe you don’t have it right. The basic level interpretation hasn’t gone away. The basic interpretation persists like the light shining from the sun, but now they’ve put themselves in a position where they have to deny that it really is the correct interpretation.

  3. George says:

    Michael: I have evidence.

    Atheist: OK, what is it?

    Michael: Hang on there, cowboy. We have to find out if you’re worthy to receive the evidence.

    Atheist: Er, well, you said that you have evidence. But you don’t want to show it to me, I guess?

    Michael: See? You’re just trying to be Judge and Jury.

    Atheist: Um, no, I was just wondering what the evi…

    Michael: That’s a rhetorical trick. I don’t play that game.

    Atheist: Er, what? What trick?

    Michael: We’re not going any further until you acknowledge the deceitful nature of your demand.

    Atheist: Excuse me?

    This kind of trolling does pretty well on the Internet in terms page hits, but it’s not really meant seriously, is it? I mean, your post reminds me of this comic: https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/34876_142493142434365_100000210398747_429495_2863574_n.jpg

  4. Michael says:

    George,

    Nice try at the spin. But you started it off wrong (and it all goes downhill from there). I don’t go around proclaiming, “I have evidence! ” I’m responding to the New Atheist message which insists religious people can be ridiculed and mocked because they have no evidence for God. The common claim that if you believe in God, it’s because you are either stupid, dishonest, or delusional. In response to these accusations and mocking, I ask the simple question – what would you count as evidence for God? Is there something wrong with the question?

    As for the atheist being “worthy” of receiving evidence, that’s something else you put in my mouth. Instead, why not answer the question I actually did ask: ” What rational person would willingly put himself in a position of being judged by a hostile, biased, prejudiced judge? “

  5. George says:

    Er, Michael, you’re the one that said,

    > I’ll provide evidence for God’s existence, but can you first provide evidence that you are capable of considering my evidence in an open- and fair-minded manner?

    There’s really no indication that you’ll find someone that you judge worthy enough to receive your wisdom. You haven’t imparted it to anyone that I can see. I mean, really, how is someone going to prove their worthiness to you, over the Internet no less? C’mon, this isn’t serious?

    And another thing. If you have evidence for God, why don’t you feel obliged to tell others? How about casting aside the worthiness shenanigans and just come out with it? You have information that could potentially help someone in the world, but you withhold it because … why? I’m glad you weren’t around circa 30 CE.

    Jesus: But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and…

    Michael: Whoa whoa whoa. Hang on there, Jesus. How do we know these people worthy to receive your teaching?

    Jesus: Well are any of us really worthy? Who among us…

    Michael: Hold up. Your listeners need to show evidence that they will be open- and fair-minded when they listen to your message.

    Jesus: Open or not, fair or not, everyone is welcome to hear my words, which I offer freely.

    Michael: Don’t fall for their deceitful rhetorical tricks!

    Jesus: Who? What?

  6. Michael says:

    Er, Michael, you’re the one that said,
    > I’ll provide evidence for God’s existence, but can you first provide evidence that you are capable of considering my evidence in an open- and fair-minded manner?

    Note how George ignores the entire context of my essay. My points are all a response to New Atheist rhetoric and posturing, nicely captured in the blog entry I quote from: “So this is how you validate atheism in one easy step: Ask the god-believer to produce actual, credible, real world evidence of this god.”

    Christians are supposed to “produce actual, credible, real world evidence” and the atheist positions him/herself as the one who gets to decide if actual, credible, real world evidence was produced.

    Now, it would seem to me that my question was most reasonable. I would think that anyone who a) was open and fair-minded about something and b) claimed to root all their beliefs in the evidence would have no problem providing the evidence of their open and fair-minded approach.

    There’s really no indication that you’ll find someone that you judge worthy enough to receive your wisdom. You haven’t imparted it to anyone that I can see. I mean, really, how is someone going to prove their worthiness to you, over the Internet no less? C’mon, this isn’t serious?

    Here George is still trying to spin things. It’s not about worthiness. It’s about whether someone is open and fair-minded about the issue. Note that George ignored my question that I put to him: “What rational person would willingly put himself in a position of being judged by a hostile, biased, prejudiced judge? ”

    Is this difficult or something?

    And another thing. If you have evidence for God, why don’t you feel obliged to tell others? How about casting aside the worthiness shenanigans and just come out with it? You have information that could potentially help someone in the world, but you withhold it because … why? I’m glad you weren’t around circa 30 CE.

    Nice try. Note how George is completely tap dancing around the questions I raised in an attempt to bait me into playing his game. I’m supposed to help him but I have not one shred of evidence to think his request for help is sincere. What’s more, being unwilling to know what he would count as evidence for God, I have no idea what would even help him.

  7. Kevin says:

    Another way to word it would be: What are the criteria for something to be considered evidence for God? Something that one would expect if God existed? Something that makes more sense in a theistic worldview than an atheistic one?

    Or does it have to be ironclad proof that God exists, and something for which there can be no possible alternative explanation?

  8. TFBW says:

    So, George, are you actually going to have a go at answering Question #1, at least, or did you just come here to troll? Because so far it looks like, “troll who can’t answer the questions is trolling.”

  9. George says:

    Hey Michael, whom have you told about the evidence for God that you have? Have you actually found someone worthy to receive your wisdom? If so, is that person permitted to tell others, or must he/she find another pupil who is deemed worthy, and so on? And are there secret handshakes involved?

    About your question, “What rational person would willingly put himself in a position of being judged by a hostile, biased, prejudiced judge?” It has an answer, and the answer is “Christians”. I would direct you to the advice in Matthew 10:14, “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet.” The job of Christians is to share the faith, and if others don’t like it, that’s cool. Dust your feet off. Get on with life. Don’t worry about what others may think. That’s the Christian way, and it’s good advice for everyone. What made you stop sharing? Have you heard the story about the warm fuzzies and the cold pricklies? And remember what they said about Jesus, how he eats with tax collectors and sinners. I prefer Jesus’ model of welcoming Outsiders and putting yourself among them. They aren’t so bad, you know. We’re all human, and we’re all in this together.

    Meanwhile you can keep playing the you’re-not-worthy game, that’s cool. I meant it when I said that you could potentially benefit others, but if you don’t feel like sharing that’s fine. Perhaps someday you will. By the way, here and before I said “others” — you can benefit others, I’m not the only person on the Internet, you know. But for whatever reason to demonize me or something, whatever. I think you would do benefit to yourself and others by becoming more open and sharing, and less concerned about what others may think. Whether you share or not depends upon you, not me.

  10. TFBW says:

    Thus proving my initial evaluation: troll who can’t answer the questions is trolling.

  11. John says:

    ” I would direct you to the advice in Matthew 10:14, ”

    Which prooves..what exactly?

    At least to me,the verse indicates the opposite.

    If someone will not listen to you (including those who are closed minded and therefore will not truly listen to the message,only reject it dishonestly),then ignore him.

    Should we do the same to you,considering you keep on saying Michael doesn’t consider you worthy of the honor of hearing evidence,despite the fact he never said some people aren’t ”worthy”?

    ”The job of Christians is to share the faith, and if others don’t like it, that’s cool.”

    ”And remember what they said about Jesus, how he eats with tax collectors and sinners.”

    I also remember there was a group with opposite sentiment that was called ”the Pharisees”.

    What do you think happened when Jesus met the Pharisees?

  12. Kevin says:

    There is life on Earth. I say this is evidence for God. Not proof, but evidence.

    Do you agree with this statement, George?

  13. SteveK says:

    I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that there is reasonable evidence for God. The thinking that gets you there is not based on a gap in our understanding, but rather is based on what we currently know and what logically follows from our current knowledge. That thinking goes something like this.

    a) Current evidence from nature, as of today, tells us that every discovery that science has made in the past was insufficient to explain itself or is thought to be insufficient according to current theories. In other words, our current state of knowledge says that natural things are not the complete explanation because every natural thing we’ve discovered needs an explanation that is not itself.

    b) Discovering more of the same kind of things (natural) will not change this equation.

    c) Current evidence from nature, as of today, says something else is NEEDED. Something that is not natural as we currently know, use and understand that term. Something that we would put into a different category, called non-natural.

    d) God fits that basic requirement.

  14. SteveK says:

    The belief that one day more natural discoveries will eventually close the gap so tightly that there’s no room for God is naturalism-of-the-gaps. It’s also not true unless you want to re-invent the term “natural” to mean whatever can possibly exist.

    According to (b) above, discovering more natural things will not alter our current situation summarized in (a). Naturalism is an insufficient explanation, and will always be an insufficient explanation no matter how much progress science makes.

  15. Michael says:

    Thus proving my initial evaluation: troll who can’t answer the questions is trolling.

    Indeed. Rather than just answer the question, we get this repetitive word salad. He’s trying sooo hard.

  16. Kevin says:

    Did George get banned, or does he simply not want to answer the question?

  17. TFBW says:

    He came here to try to change the subject, not answer the questions. It’s pretty obvious that he doesn’t have a decent answer for them, or he wouldn’t be trying to bait Michael into a different argument.

  18. Kevin says:

    Sure, but I was even going to answer his questions while he answered mine. Oh well.

  19. Michael says:

    Did George get banned, or does he simply not want to answer the question?

    He wasn’t banned.

  20. Michael says:

    Meanwhile you can keep playing the you’re-not-worthy game, that’s cool. I meant it when I said that you could potentially benefit others, but if you don’t feel like sharing that’s fine. Perhaps someday you will. By the way, here and before I said “others” — you can benefit others, I’m not the only person on the Internet, you know. But for whatever reason to demonize me or something, whatever. I think you would do benefit to yourself and others by becoming more open and sharing, and less concerned about what others may think. Whether you share or not depends upon you, not me.

    I have already instructed you that it has nothing to do with worthiness. The game you insist on playing is called Hide the Goalposts. You insist others convince you with their evidence, but won’t say a word about what it is you would even count as evidence.

    George: Think ya can kick the ball through my goalposts?

    Mike: I don’t see any goalposts.

    George: They are invisible.

    Mike: But where are they?

    George: Not telling.

    Mike: So how will we know if I get the ball through the goalposts?

    George: Don’t worry. I’ll let you know after you try.

    Mike: LOL. You’re wasting my time. See ya.

    George (tears start to fall from his face): What?! You don’t think I am worthy!!?? Come back!!!

  21. Isaac says:

    George’s screed would be moot even if he had a point. The evidence for God is the entire universe, arranged in such a way as to make a secular explanation convoluted or impossible, and thus rendering God more likely than unlikely. I suspect using the obtuseness of George and/or Steve Greene as a template and plugging in said evidence, it would go something like this:

    Atheist: Give me actual, credible, real-world evidence for God.
    Theist: Okay. The Universe.
    Atheist: How is the Universe evidence for God?
    Theist: There is no existing and reasonable hypothesis that explains it without invoking a supernatural. The Universe appears to have begun out of nowhere at a fixed point in the past, as the Bible describes. And then there’s fine-tuning…
    Atheist: Whatever. You didn’t PROVE that there are any gods though!
    Theist: You asked for evidence, not proof. Those are two different things. Do you have any proof of atheism?
    Atheist: I don’t have to prove a negative!
    Theism: But your demand for evidence was supposed to “validate atheism.” Which it hasn’t. I just gave you an abundance of evidence that theism is likely to be true.
    Atheist: I don’t accept your evidence! It was just a bunch of misdirection! It wasn’t the right kind of evidence!
    Theist: The nature of the universe, and whether it suggests the existence of God, seems like exactly the kind of evidence you should be asking for if you were honestly inquiring. Okay, what kind of evidence DO you accept?
    Atheist: Oh, so now you’re asking if I’m WORTHY to receive the evidence? Hiding the evidence, are we? What deceitful trolling this is!
    Theist: You are a crazy person.

  22. randompersonfromnowhere says:

    Nice straw-man you created there. I’ll give it a shot anyway.

    1. “What would you count as “actual, credible, real world evidence for God?”

    I’d like to see the kind of miracles that happened in the bible. The ability to feed large amounts of people with food that never runs out. Walking on water. Parting large bodies of water. Commanding the sun and moon to manipulate the length of a day. Resurrecting people from the dead. Turning people into salt. I want a god to be present and in my face like in the bible.

    2. “Why would that dramatic, miraculous, sensational event count as evidence for God?

    Those miracles were supposedly performed by a god. Sometimes miracles were even performed specifically to provide evidence or an exhibition of power to witnesses. It’s convenient that these types of miracles stopped happening as we became able to better document and understand the world around us.

    Your point here becomes moot when you consider that if a god exists, then I would consider that god to be part of nature. The evidence isn’t that I can’t explain how something happens. The evidence is that a being is demonstrating immense power and control over reality. I don’t care if they are “super advanced aliens” imitating the concept of a god; god-like power is enough. The miracles that happened would have an explanation; a powerful being is causing it.

    3. “Is the God of the Gaps reasoning a valid way of determining the existence of God? ”

    Absolutely not. When something lacks an explanation, it’s not proof of anything. I don’t really need an exhaustive scientific study of any specific miracle. I just want to see spectacular demonstrations performed on demand.

    4. “I’ll provide evidence for God’s existence, but can you first provide evidence that you are capable of considering my evidence in an open- and fair-minded manner?”

    I believe my request for a repeat of miracles that were used as evidence for those in the bible is fair and reasonable. I’m not asking for more than this god was already willing to do. Most of the “evidence” today consists of logical games that rely on special pleading, presupposition, and/or false premises. I also ask that you make the case for a specific god, not a generic placeholder to explain where things came from.

  23. TFBW says:

    @randompersonfromnowhere:

    Your point here becomes moot when you consider that if a god exists, then I would consider that god to be part of nature.

    Problem: you’re demanding Biblical miracles, but then saying this won’t prove the existence of the Biblical God, since He is not a part of nature. As such, you haven’t answered question #1 as it was asked: you’ve substituted “a godlike being” for “God” and answered that. So back up for a minute and revisit your answer to question #1 with the understanding that this is capital-G God we’re talking about — the one-of-a-kind, supernatural, eternal being — and not just any old entity with sufficiently superhuman capabilities. Is there anything that you would count as actual, credible, real-world evidence for God?

  24. Michael says:

    The evidence is that a being is demonstrating immense power and control over reality. I don’t care if they are “super advanced aliens” imitating the concept of a god; god-like power is enough. The miracles that happened would have an explanation; a powerful being is causing it.

    That’s it? You claim willingness to consider miraculous demonstrations as evidence for super advanced aliens. But you are not aETI. You are an atheist. I concur with TFBW above. You were defeated at question 1. The question was not what you would count as evidence for a being more powerful than us. It’s a question in response to the common claim there is no evidence for God.

  25. FZM says:

    Problem: you’re demanding Biblical miracles, but then saying this won’t prove the existence of the Biblical God, since He is not a part of nature.

    It seems it can form the basis of an ‘interesting’ way of proving that the Biblical God can’t exist:

    1) The Biblical God is believed to be outside of nature, supernatural. But He is also believed to influence and change reality.

    2) Nothing that is real and can influence reality can be outside of nature ( because the terms nature and reality are treated as synonymous).

    3) Therefore the idea of a supernatural entity which can influence reality must be self contradictory, something that can’t exist.

    I think Stardusty Psyche was making arguments like this here a while ago.

  26. FZM says:

    I believe my request for a repeat of miracles that were used as evidence for those in the bible is fair and reasonable. I’m not asking for more than this god was already willing to do.

    If it can be demonstrated that the Bible describes God producing spectacular ‘miracles on demand’ on a continuous basis with the intention of convincing all those who were, or might be, sceptical about his existence/powers/nature, I think this would be a fair and reasonable expectation. Then the comment about what the Biblical God was willing to do would be accurate too.

    The evidence isn’t that I can’t explain how something happens. The evidence is that a being is demonstrating immense power and control over reality. I don’t care if they are “super advanced aliens” imitating the concept of a god; god-like power is enough. The miracles that happened would have an explanation; a powerful being is causing it.

    What would be the evidence that differentiates random and, given past experience, unexpected events taking place sometimes (which would prove, say, that Hume’s ideas about causation and it being possible for things to happen or appear with no cause, correct) from a being with immense power and control over reality doing similar things?

    And, what if miracles seem to be happening ‘to order’ on a predictable, regular basis. What evidence would differentiate this being the work of a being with immense power and control over reality from it being the manifestation of impersonal and purposeless laws of nature?

    I also ask that you make the case for a specific god, not a generic placeholder to explain where things came from.

    Atheism is just as wrong if what you decide to label as a ‘generic placeholder’ God in fact exists.

  27. Kevin says:

    “I think Stardusty Psyche was making arguments like this here a while ago.”

    He won’t differentiate God from the “stuff” of the universe, so this is likely true. He’s busy getting demolished over on Dangerous Ideas, so surely he wouldn’t create a throwaway account just to come over here and get demolished again.

    So Random Person says that miracles will be the evidence he wants for God…except if offered, he will consider it to be evidence for something within nature…possibly aliens…but he wants evidence for God, who is not part of nature.

    ‘Kay.

  28. TFBW says:

    @Kevin: “[Stardusty Psyche is] busy getting demolished over on Dangerous Ideas …”
    No he’s not: just ask him. Everyone who disagrees with him is wrong, and it’s not his problem if they can’t see that. If he were wrong about something, he would change his mind; he hasn’t changed his mind, ergo he’s not wrong.

    I sometimes wonder why he even bothers talking to other people when the only authority he recognises is his own. My pet theory is that he’s a falsificationist at heart, and he sees everyone else’s persistent failure to persuade him that he’s mistaken about anything as evidence that he’s not mistaken about anything. Because if anyone had a valid point against him, he would recognise that, right?

    Whadda waste o’ time.

  29. Kevin says:

    “No he’s not: just ask him.”

    You’re right. How foolish of me.

  30. FZM says:

    I sometimes wonder why he even bothers talking to other people when the only authority he recognises is his own. My pet theory is that he’s a falsificationist at heart, and he sees everyone else’s persistent failure to persuade him that he’s mistaken about anything as evidence that he’s not mistaken about anything. Because if anyone had a valid point against him, he would recognise that, right?

    That seems a reasonable explanation for why he tries to engage in discussion from what seemed like such a peculiar and self-referential perspective; I still remember two points that particularly stood out, besides the ‘stuffism’:

    Back in his contributions another poster, G. Rodrigues, noticed that Stardusty was emphasizing that the principle or law of non-contradiction was only a ‘postulate’, something that we assumed to be valid only for pragmatic or utilitarian reasons, not something, in his words, that could be ‘absolutely proven’.

    Then, for Stardusty, only a few things could be proved absolutely, one of which was Descartes ‘I think therefore I am’ idea. But when he said it could be proved absolutely, turned out he meant that he thought that he could prove it absolutely only to himself and to his own satisfaction.

    He just seemed strangely interested in expounding his solipsistic views at length.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s