How do you like Beckwith now?

[_silentkid]

If you want to understand the issues surrounding evolution and meaning then a real philosopher like Dennett would be a better bet.

I agree. I'm currently reading Breaking The Spell. It's great.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

by the way, you said,

Mormons have access to an objective metaethical grounding of obligation. That's because he understands what he is replying to.

Interesting how you think he understands what he is replying too and knows what he's talking about, but somehow don't believe his proof which gives atheists every bit as much access to an objective metaethical basis as it gives Mormons.

This is a criticism of those who responded to me in the other thread concerning Beckwith. Many of the responses didn't understand what they were replying to. This led to them doing things like focusing on the mere fact that atheists can act morally. I contrasted this with Blake's approach to this kind of argument. He actually understood the kind of reply necessary to rebut Beckwith, something somebody like the Dude or Guy did not. That's why Blake responded by attacking Beckwith's metaethics and providing his own. By cutting off the first part of my sentence (without an elipses) you end up taking me out context here.

[_Analytics]

by the way, you said,

Mormons have access to an objective metaethical grounding of obligation. That's because he understands what he is replying to.

Interesting how you think he understands what he is replying too and knows what he's talking about, but somehow don't believe his proof which gives atheists every bit as much access to an objective metaethical basis as it gives Mormons.

This is a criticism of those who responded to me in the other thread concerning Beckwith. Many of the responses didn't understand what they were replying to. This led to them doing things like focusing on the mere fact that atheists can act morally. I contrasted this with Blake's approach to this kind of argument. He actually understood the kind of reply necessary to rebut Beckwith, something somebody like the Dude or Guy did not. That's why Blake responded by attacking Beckwith's metaethics and providing his own. By cutting off the first part of my sentence (without an elipses) you end up taking me out context here.

The thing you don't seem to grasp is tht when somebody cuts-and-pastes a really stupid argument onto an Internet message board, people who see it for what it is aren't obligated to write a long, formal rebuttal. I'm positive the Dude understood Beckwith's point and could have made a detailed rebuttal had he so chosen. However, when somebody cuts-and-pastes something so stupid, the response it deserves is exactly the one this one got.

Lame, lame, lame.

[_beastie]

Coggins, you know you're a basket case if you provoked Analytics to make that remark.

LOL!

That puts you right up there in Pahoran land!!! (the only other poster I can remember provoking Analytics to this extent)

(Analytics, in case you're wondering why I know this about you, I'm seven of niine, reborn, clean and new as a maya goddess)

[_Some Schmo]

Other Mormon scholars, such as Daniel C. Peterson, would reject Beckwith's argument against the LDS faith, but not his against atheism. That's because these are, believe it or not, slightly different arguments.

Speaking for DCP, are we? Reminds me of the way Free Thinker talked for Dannyboy, almost as if he knew exactly what Dannyboy himself was thinking.

At least you're not quoting little Danny, pretending you have his permission to use his words from some letter, the other contents of which he made you promise not to divulge...

LMAO

I should just start calling you Sybil.

[_Tarski]

Coggins are you back yet?

I have already had a run in with Beckwith's pseudo-arguments in the past.

Beckwith thinks he can prove mathematically that the Mormon God is impossible.

I don't believe in the Mormon God but Beckwith's argument is flawed (as usual). If Beckwith's arguments against eternal progression were true then transfinite arithmetic (as well as simple limits) would be illogical (which it isn't).
This was pointed this out to him but he would not listen to reason.

Here is his argument:
(see http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/tex ... j0100a.txt for the full essay)

(Premise 1) A being of limited knowledge gaining in
knowledge entails the increasing of a finite number.

(Premise 2) Starting from a finite number, it is
impossible to count to infinity.

(Premise 3) The Mormon view of eternal progression
entails a being of limited knowledge gaining in knowledge
until his knowledge is infinite (remember, the Mormon
universe contains an infinite number of things).

(Conclusion 1/Premise 4) Therefore, the Mormon view
cannot be true, for it is impossible -- given premises 1,
2, and 3 -- for eternal progression to entail that a
being of limited knowledge gains knowledge until his
knowledge is infinite.

(Premise 5) The Mormon doctrine of eternal progression is
entailed by the Mormon concept of God.

(Conclusion 2) Therefore, the Mormon concept of God is
incoherent.

Coggins are you back yet?