Comment lost at Dan's blog

     On this post, I replied to Dan. Blogger acted up and posted twice. I removed the duplicate. Dan wiped out the original completely. I reposted. And Dan seems to have wiped that out as well. (Maybe, it's just Blogger acting up; but, since I have already lost my original wording, I am going to put my post here.)

Dan:

     "You use your reasoning to test your reasoning which is viciously circular."
     I have already told you that I do not test my reasoning at all. My ability to reason is not in dispute. (If you disputed my ability to reason, you could not rationally call on me to "account for" it.)
     "Its perfectly understandable that you cannot grasp this, since you cannot even account for your reasoning which 'never advances your knowledge.'"
     The following is from the site that you quoted:
     "For an argument to have any epistemological or dialectical force, it must start from premisses already known or believed by its audience, and proceed to a conclusion not known or believed." [Emphasis mine]
     Since my ability to reason is already known or believed by everyone on our respective blogs, any attempt to "account for" it, would fail the requirements for a useful argument. Your very request that I "account for" the rules of logic is a wild goose chase that cannot advance knowledge.

     You gave a link regarding presuppositional apologetics that you said was worth checking out. It was, indeed, worth a look. This is what I found:
     "Sye's response is just patent nonsense, and I agree with Paul that it is dishonest. Even if it's the case that Sye COULD be certain (which we can go along with for the sake of argument, not because it is epistemically obligatory), it's still also the case that he COULD be mistaken (whether it's because of a hallucination or just an error in judgement is not important). Thus (2) is obviously NOT irrelvant, even if it's true that Sye COULD have certainty. Whether this is simply a misunderstanding of modal logic by Sye, or the fact that, as I showed earlier, his arguments presuppose his own infallibility, is impossible to say. I think what is safe to say is that every person reading this thread except for Sye recognizes this rather magnificant hole in his argument. When it comes down to the question of how Sye actually knows he has a revelation from God or is actually (like so many other people as even Sye must admit) deceived about that fact, he has nothing to offer except to say that the materialist doesn't even have a possibility of certainty. That might be the case, but it still doesn't prove that Sye is right! It could be the case that the materialist has no certainty AND that Sye is mistaken in his belief that God has revealed anything to him at all. You can't cover up for that just by playing word games."
     That came from a christian. But it came from an honest one. I do not agree with everything he says. But I am convinced that he believes what he says. I can't give Sye the same credit. He pulled the "you're divisive, so I won't have anything more to do with you" card. That may be biblical. But it's only a reason to suspect that the bible is a con job. Consider, any dissent could be regarded as divisive. It is precisely the way con men don't want to deal with people that subject their claims to critical examination. They will "refuse to have anything to do with that person" in favor of the easy marks.

UPDATE: Another comment of mine disappeared. This time I can rule out a Blogger glitch as the comment appeared with no trouble, showed up visibly on the thread for probably about fifteen minutes and then vanished. I will try to reconstruct it here as best I can.

     "Again, I did not ask whether or not you are capable of using logic, I asked how you account for the laws of logic."
     Word games aside, you are still asking for an "account" of something not in dispute. Remember "and proceed to a conclusion not known or believed." Unless you are claiming that the laws of logic do not exist, you are still trying to lead me on a wild goose chase.
     "But since his reasoning is invalid, he would obviously be wrong."
     And if you thought my reasoning was invalid, nothing I could say would convince you otherwise, as you would dismiss it as the product of "invalid reasoning." You might be persuaded by someone whose reasoning you trusted.
     "Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for [g]od, is question begging though, as you start with the presupposition that [g]od does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of [g]od."
     That is a lie. I hold no such presupposition. Whether or not your god exists, however, my ability to reason is not evidence for your god.
     "Getting close now but, how is [this reasoning] already known to exist within your worldview?"
     It is known to exist within my worldview by virtue of the fact that I declare that it exists. But that is a secondary point. It is inappropriate for you to call for a rational accounting for something unless your worldview doubts it.
     "Yes, lets do that. Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?"
     Asked and answered. I already answered that question on 13 Sep at 1:21pm. [In case Dan decides that my response existing prior to this invocation of the question is "inappropriate," I shall copy that entire response below.]
     "'We don't have eyewitness accounts. [We have anonymous accounts claiming to document others as witnesses.]'
     "O'rly? So you discount ALL of history now? Crusades didn't exist because no one is here to verify it?"
     The christian in question, in support of his claims of the resurrection, said that we had eyewitness accounts. Pointing out that the type of evidence claimed is not actually available is not the same thing as saying it is the only type of evidence that will be accepted.

Text of 13 Sep 1:21pm comment:

     "Assuming that your reasoning is not evidence for [g]od, is question begging, as you start with the presupposition that [g]od does not exist in order to conclude that your ability to reason is not evidence of [g]od."
     That is incorrect. Let's look at the construction of the proposition. Asserting that Whateverman's ability to reason is not evidence for the queen of England does not require a prior assumption that there is no queen of England. The construction "my ability to reason is not evidence of " does not require that be false and so does not beg the question.
     "1. How do you know that your reasoning about this, or ANYTHING, is valid?
     "2. How do YOU account for the laws of logic always existing?
     "3. How, within your worldview, do you get to indubitable knowledge or certainty?
     "4. Do you concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?"
     Questions 1-3 are completely invalid. Although they vary in wording they are calling for an accounting of axioms, demanding that they be drawn, instead, as conclusions. Question 4 can be meaningfully answered. An omniscient, omnipotent being cannot reveal things to us in such a way that we can be certain of them. An omniscient being cannot exist at all. An omnipotent being could "reveal" falsehoods in such a way that you would claim that you knew for certain that they were true. An omnipotent being, therefore, invalidates certitude.

     Stephen Law has done a blog entry about pseudo-profundity, which he apparently intends to include in a future book. He should include another section.

Mock your critics

It's easy, formulaic, and likely to impress your audience. When someone starts critically examining the position you espouse say that he "believes in alien abductions" or "is a flat-earther." The more inflammatory and baseless the claim the better. Your critic is likely to exhibit an emotional reaction to being ridiculed on the basis of a lie. At this point, the audience will see him only as a hothead and will not listen to anything he has to say. Even in the unlikely event that the critic "keeps his cool," the audience may take your charge at face value and still disregard anything your critic says. You will appear to be wise and patient dealing with someone who has nothing of consequence to say.

     That is part of the technique used by the pseudo-profound. Mr. Law would do a disservice not to warn people about it. It's possible he simply overlooked it. So I have taken the liberty of giving him a comment to include it.

Note: Edited for typographical errors.

I found this interesting

     This site, written by a christian, talks about calling people haters as a conversation stopper. Strangely, even though he seems to be describing it as an inappropriate tactic used by atheists, some christians I have encountered appear to have taken it as a recommendation instead.

One point on which Stormbringer was innocent.

     I previously thought that Stormbringer had arranged for the spam comments I was getting, or was writing them himself. I still think that matches his level of integrity. However, I must concede that it was only a coincidence of timing. These same spammers have been attacking various blogs since before Stormbringer came on the scene. And I have run across some of their old comments, still not deleted. He cannot have been involved; and I must concede that I was wrong for thinking he was.

The "good person test"

     I thought I would talk about the sham invented (as far as I know) by Ray Comfort and implemented by his mindless followers known as the "good person test." The con man first asks the victim if he thinks he is (currently) a good person. Of course, everybody thinks himself to be a good person. When the victim says that he does consider himself a good person, the con man asks if he can ask a few questions "to see if that's true." The first of these questions is invariably "have you ever told a lie in your whole life?" The fact is that every has lied at some point. For every person, there was a point when he didn't know any better. For that matter people can, and often do, become better people. But for these con men, it's "tell so much as one lie; never live it down."
     But the low lifes that run this scam are not content with actions that people have actually done. No, they want all their victims to see themselves as "murderers." There's a slight difficulty with this concept. Most people haven't killed anyone. But the wretches will not be deterred. They tell the lie that "anger is murder at heart." In reality, of course, the only thing that is murder at heart is attempting to murder someone. If you think about it, it is not hard to see the whole thing for the scam it is. But the whole exercise to designed to keep the victim from thinking clearly. Ray Comfor calls it "circumnavigating the intellect."

Ignorance of the law

     Some people say that ignorance of the law is not an excuse (legem ignovisse homini non ignoscit.) I say the reverse. It is a rather compelling excuse. Someone who is unfamiliar with a particular law cannot follow it. Furthermore, there are so many laws on the books that it is just not possible to be familiar with all of them. Now let's consider what happens when we try to examine the principle as applied to "god's law." Well, different religions have different claims about what "god's law" is. If this supposed god can't be bothered to show up and clear the confusion, it is impossible to take the notion of "god's law" seriously. Is it possible that there is some powerful being that will actually judge us on the basis of some version of "god's law"? Sure, it's possible. But the way it is actually set up in such a case, the "law" is not designed to be a guide to behavior, but rather as a trap to call people guilty.

Questioning integrity

     "Screaming like scalded cats when I gave them a payback: I faked a couple of 'responses' from the main trolls here in the comment section, left them for a couple of days and took them down."
     "Another time, I was accused of creating someone else, and by the same cafone that did not learn his lesson before. I tried to tell him that this guy even has his own Website. I gave up before I bothered to tell Mr. Cafone that the individual he assumed that I manufactured on the spot had commented on other Weblogs in which both people had participated."
     These two quotes are by the same person. They even appear on the same blog (in main posts, not the comment sections.) As a clarification, he has been accused of writing comments and falsely attributing them to other people. But he has admitted to doing just that. Indeed he only took down the faked responses when the people whose "signatures" he was forging started "screaming like scalded cats." So, sure the people he claims certain comments are from actually exist. They just didn't write the comments he attributes to them. And he's upset that people doubt his integrity?

UPDATE:

     "Here is what was posted, a quote from me, in the proper context. I am putting the parts in red that [he] left off from [his] personal attack on me:"
     Yes, it's so personal that I didn't even identify this individual. There are a few individuals that I find entertaining and will comment on from time to time.
     "Screaming like scalded cats when I gave them a payback: I faked a couple of 'responses' from the main trolls here in the comment section, left them for a couple of days and took them down. Helps prove two of my points: They can't take a joke, and if they had lives that extended beyond trolling, they wouldn't have been pranked. Their double standards are amazing." [Part I quoted initially in bold]
     A quote is out of context when its meaning is changed from the original. I left out his excuses as not particularly relevant. His excuses are also not true. His being an imposter and attempting to put words in someone else's mouth does not prove anything about the other person. Furthermore I don't know of anyone who can take a "joke" like that. Nobody likes having his name used in "support" of a position he opposes. That is no prank. (Note: I do not happen to be one of the people to whom he did this.) The second excuse sounds rather like something a wife-beater says about why he beats his wife. Blaming the victim does not impress anyone.
     "Keep it up, [o wise one,] the crew and I are laughing at you again."
     Somehow I rather doubt that he has a crew. He also seems to forget that he is pretending to ignore me. I have no problem if he ignores me. His inanity is entertaining either way.
     "Even more surprising, this was done to 'prove' that I have made up entire people, numerous comments and, I assume, entire [w]ebsites."
     He is accused only of making up the comments. In his effort to maintain an illusion, he wishes to defend against the nonexistent charge that the people he is attributing his comments to don't exist. The people he faked responses from most certainly exist. They objected to his forgery. No one is claiming that any of these people don't exist. People are saying that these people didn't write what this character says they wrote. That's why the forged comments are "OpenID." He is able to link to anyone's site claiming a comment came from them without their permission.