tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post3801021305535206435..comments2014-07-10T14:00:01.950-07:00Comments on Choosing Hats: Bahnsen Burner's Presuppositional Apologetic For Objectivism, Part 1Brian Knapphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09343706473535031469noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-27150930386034724592009-04-02T06:29:00.000-07:002009-04-02T06:29:00.000-07:00Hi Chris,I overlooked this part in your last comme...Hi Chris,<BR/><BR/>I overlooked this part in your last comment:<BR/><BR/>Chris: “You did not seem to buy my assertion that there are only so many ultimate questions available to any worldview with a finite number of answers. If you agree with me, that is fine.”<BR/><BR/>I don’t know how many questions you consider ultimate, but I would expect it would be finite in number (I don’t think I ever Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-27568810398761316332009-04-02T06:21:00.000-07:002009-04-02T06:21:00.000-07:00Chris: “Non-Christianity is not essentially Non-Ch...Chris: “Non-Christianity is not essentially Non-Christian?”<BR/><BR/>Negations are not primaries, Chris. No one begins by negating; we all begin by affirming, whether we “believe in Christ” or in some other invisible magic being, or simply recognize what we immediately perceive. The descriptor “non-Christian” is a negation, and in order for it to have any meaning, not only does the corresponding Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-59116173624545230382009-04-01T22:43:00.000-07:002009-04-01T22:43:00.000-07:00”What in my statements suggests to you that I migh...<I>”What in my statements suggests to you that I might really mean to defend such a view?”</I><BR/><BR/>You did not seem to buy my assertion that there are only so many ultimate questions available to any worldview with a finite number of answers. If you agree with me, that is fine.<BR/>Non-Christianity is not essentially Non-Christian? I am not sure what you must mean by essential then.<BR/><BR/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-26249282013736932322009-04-01T22:05:00.000-07:002009-04-01T22:05:00.000-07:00Chris: "you really meaning to defend the propositi...Chris: "you really meaning to defend the proposition that these numbers are actually infinite?"<BR/><BR/>What in my statements suggests to you that I might really mean to defend such a view?<BR/><BR/>Chris: "An essential part of every non-Christian position is that it be non-Christian"<BR/><BR/>This is untrue. A worldview may *happen* to e non-Christian, but it does not follow from this that "Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-27534102966381371152009-04-01T21:42:00.000-07:002009-04-01T21:42:00.000-07:00Yes, the different religions and philosophies you ...Yes, the different religions and philosophies you mentioned could be more different from one another. Yes, I have some knowledge of what these different groups teach about the world. The most popular way to study these different belief systems from an academic perspective is actually to compare and contrast them, and this both assumes and turns up results that they do have much in common. If you Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-5689655022064084592009-03-30T12:55:00.000-07:002009-03-30T12:55:00.000-07:00w00t, Randroids.I almost miss Atlas Shrugged. It'...w00t, Randroids.<BR/><BR/>I almost miss Atlas Shrugged. It's an interesting philosophy - but with your feet planted firmly in mid-air, proclaiming that there is objective truth - somehow - it isn't very defensible.<BR/><BR/>Ah, good 'ol BB. I really was waiting to see how long it would be until he found his way here.RazorsKisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196172455018273851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-62635751700426402452009-03-30T06:23:00.000-07:002009-03-30T06:23:00.000-07:00Hi Chris,I’m deeply honored that you would devote ...Hi Chris,<BR/><BR/>I’m deeply honored that you would devote a whole blog entry to my comments. That you intend to honor me with more is very encouraging!<BR/><BR/>In your present blog, you say, regarding my comments to a blog of yours titled “Your Thoughts Welcome...,” that “the illustration is faulted for being in disagreement with Objectivist categories.” This is a bit tendentious, don’t you Bahnsen Burnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11030029491768748360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1742875340359980279.post-69593169183163303812009-03-29T21:20:00.000-07:002009-03-29T21:20:00.000-07:00I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but you ough...I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but you ought to be informed: Randians are a particular breed of dogmatic unbeliever, renowned for two things—their philosophical illiteracy, and their unparalleled verbosity. For illustrations, see:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/01/a-rand-hack-philosopher.html" REL="nofollow">http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/01/Dominic Bnonn Tennanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03103838704540924679noreply@blogger.com