This post is a *brief* response to the first two paragraphs in Greasy14JC's post of May 12, 1999, maliciously titled "Objectivist Doodoo!"

Stop right there. How can something that you argue [or, more correctly speaking, 'presuppose'] exists be 'infinite'? You do understand the law of identity, correct? A is A. This principle has several corollaries. Among them is the principle that *to exist is to be something. Another related corollary is: if A exists, it must be A. To posit something that is 'infinite' does not mean 'beyond [human] comprehension' but 'without identity'. As such, applying this concept 'infinite' to existents [things that exist or are said to exist] amounts to endorsing a contradiction, since it asserts that something can exist 'without identity', or that A can exist and be something other than A (such as 'more than A'). Once this endorsement is asserted, the arbitrary nature of the religionist's claims becomes embarrassingly clear; and so do his intentions. Since the notion of 'god' is illegitimate (admitting that one cannot define the term and stating that 'it' is 'infinite' adequately demonstrate this illegitimacy), it is now clear why the religionist would want to describe the particular variant of 'god' to which he subscribes as 'infinite': to shelter his assertions from rational scrutiny. Why would he want to do this? Precisely because they cannot withstand such scrutiny for any amount of time. The characterization 'mere assertions' is then nominated to describe any set of claims that follows from such arbitrary premises. Below we will discover that this assertion ('infinite being') is not a singular, exceptional instance of embracing the arbitrary, but merely a symptom of a much larger, indeed pathological axiomatic dystrophy which advocates of supernaturalism invariantly suffer.

Furthermore, to state that "I have no [sic] given you a definite answer is because you are asking the finite to define the infinite" constitutes a tired, outworn Kantian attack on man's consciousness. It is an attempt to discredit man's cognitive faculty precisely because it has identity. Dr. Leonard Peikoff asks:

Here Dr. Peikoff eloquently summarizes precisely the 'nature' of the 'infinite being' posited by the religionist. The attempt to put the identity beyond man's mental grasp - in the manner that Greasy does above - explicitly betrays the disingenuous nature of the religionist's god-belief claims.

Already Greasy, in the first sentence of his response, has shown that his evasion here is far more lethal to his god-belief assertions than he may ultimately appreciate. Basically, he confesses here that he cannot define 'god' because he cannot (a redundancy), but puts the blame on the fact that man's consciousness has identity as the impediment to this identification instead of examining the nature of his claims, and checking them for validity and intelligibility. Furthermore, he urges us to accept his confessed ignorance as knowledge. FreeMind76's question continues to go unanswered.

Let's see what other 'mere assertions' we can find in Greasy's post.

Here's a wonderful example of a completely untestable, undefinable, unsupportable assertion that already gets Greasy into trouble when one attempts to integrate it with his statement above (which suggests that 'god' is 'infinite' - i.e., that 'god' has no identity). If this 'being' asserted as an existent can be said to be 'infinite' (i.e., having no identity), then how can Greasy offer this statement about the identity of his 'god'? Any statement about the nature of something presupposes that this something indeed possesses a nature. But an 'infinite being' - since it is by definition without identity - has no nature, so assertions like this are not only irrelevant and again arbitrary, they are in utter conflict with prior assertions.

In a sense, I agree completely. If an existent exists, then it has an identity and thus can be identified definitively. Since it is not shown that this 'infinite being' exists (it can only be 'presupposed' to exist), it would follow that any attempt you make to define the non-existent could prove troublesome. Rationalizing this problematic impasse is, for the theologian, the very task of his academic endeavors.

Again, ascribing 'feelings' to an 'infinite being' is invalid, for if said 'infinite being' is actually 'infinite', how could it be said to have 'feelings'? And if the position inferred by Greasy's first statements - the position that the 'finite' cannot identify the 'infinite' - then it is again quite problematic for Greasy to assert any knowledge about this 'infinite being'.

Again, if you truly believe unquestioningly all these things you claim, why do you put so much effort forth to convince yourselves? That's what I've always wondered. Do scientists gather on Sundays to encourage each other in affirming the fact of gravity or the existence of the milky way? Certainly not. Why? It's fact. Belaboring claims of their truth merely spotlights their suspicion.

But wait a minute here, Greasy. Are you finite man trying to define the infinite? Are you not here again (read: again) contradicting what you suggested in your original statements heading this post? Let's see those statements again, shall we? Greasy14JC writes: "OK, the reason I have no given you a definite answer is because you are asking the finite to define the infinite. To ask me to define Him is not a valid question." Now, if you are going to state that it's not valid to ask you to define 'god', there must be a reason why it's invalid, right? Your reason for that invalidity was that a finite being cannot define an 'infinite being' (which essentially means: one cannot identify that which has no identity). Now all of a sudden you're going to attempt to offer "as best a definition I can". Well if the principle you offer, that the one cannot identify that which has no identity, is true, then there can be no "best definition" since 'definition' does not apply. Yet, in spite of these very principles which you've carelessly laid out, you are going to attempt to offer a definition anyway. Let's see what happens:

Oh right. Tell me now, is this a definition, or a description? Do you know the difference? Or, perhaps your understanding of concepts is so ambiguously formed as to smear both concepts into one 'infinite' lump void of identity and outside the scope of rational application? No? Then please answer: Is this a definition of 'god', or a 'description' of 'god', or perhaps just a list of some 'his' characteristics (finite characteristics that belong to an 'infinite being')? Please explain, and try to be consistent. While you're at it, why don't you offer the criteria you believe a rational definition should fulfill in order to be accepted as a workable definition. Can you cite where the Bible offers such criteria?

And another thing, your "church's confession" states that "We all [i.e., believers] believe with the heart…[italics Thorn]." While it is generally indisputable that the primitives who lived in biblical times did not understand the various functions of anatomy, it is hard to see how people living in modern times, with the benefit of science and access to higher learning, can think that the human heart is an organ of cognition. The heart is an organ that pumps blood through the body; it is not an organ with which one can believe one thing as opposed to another thing. Carrying these primitive improprieties into today and confirming them with the stamp of official church approval does not elevate them to the status of genuine knowledge; indeed, such approval only calls the stability of its leaders into question.

Also, please tell me one other thing: if it's true that 'god' does not exist (and this is true), wouldn't you expect people to describe 'him' in such terms (and they do describe him in such terms)? Numerous exclusive religions assert similar descriptions of their alleged deities. How is this one any different? (Oh, that's right, "my god is better than their god because my god can account for yadi-yadi-yada…" Right?)

Does this mean that at one time those 'guides' which, you assert here, 'god' created, did not exist? If 'god' created thing A, then does that not mean that at a time prior to its 'creation' thing A did not exist? Or, is this a 'finite being' trying to interpret your 'finite assertions' here? If one asserts that X created something A, one presupposes that X existed prior to something A, and that at one time something A did not exist, no? But does not the act of creation itself require a violation of one of the characteristics offered to describe this 'infinite being'? "What are you talking about???" I'm glad you asked. It seems to me that, if said 'infinite being' has the ability to create whatever, and indeed it is asserted that this 'infinite being' has indeed created (in the past, mind you) whatever, then has not this 'infinite being' in some way changed? You yourself assert that 'god' is 'immutable'; that 'he' does not change. Yet, at some point, if indeed 'he' created something, 'god' had to decide to create that something. Yet another conflict in claims preventing their non-contradictory integration. Something that does not change cannot 'decide to create' since any act of decision entails one course of action as opposed to another, determined at some point in time. But, of course, we will later hear from the religionist that such detail does not matter (albeit, couched in his preferred rhetorical equivocations - he wouldn't want to give the game away), and that one should accept these assertions as knowledge in spite of their inability to be integrated without contradiction.

If I anticipate correctly, you are probably going to assert that I - a 'finite being' - am trying to understand the 'nature' of an 'infinite being' (an internal contradiction here, did you catch that?). But this is not true. What I am endeavoring to understand are the finite assertions of a finite being, namely you. Nothing infinite appears on this page (except perhaps Greasy's capacity for gullibility, retained in his arbitrary statements, but this remains to be confirmed - see below for that). What we have on the pages are assertions of definite nature, assertions possessing definite identity, assertions that cannot claim the hallucinatory sanctuary you ascribe to your 'infinite being'. You offer assertion after assertion, yet in so doing, you conveniently excuse your claims from testability and falsifiability. Does this not embarrass you?

Here's a great example of an assertion which the religionist will accept as truth in spite of the fact that it cannot be tested or demonstrated.

When did 'god' create time? Was there no 'time' before 'he' created time? Or was there a time before God created time? This is laughably absurd. As an absurd claim, it cannot be tested, verified nor demonstrated to be true. Quite frankly, this is an example of an internally incomprehensible claim. But you are free to accept it unquestioningly. I don't.

More of the same….

I can say the same thing about Blarko. So?

Now, here's where this really gets good!

Observe Greasy's attempt to foist an allegation of fallacy to FreeMind76's credit (this is pretty good - watch closely!):

Yes, the fallacy of Bifurcation, indeed a little fox that threatens to spoil the vine! But you assert that this fallacy has spoilt FreeMind76's vine? Indeed, it seems you do. Let's see now, where is that? You do not show us. You accuse FreeMind76 of "oversimplifying" in his attempt to garner any intelligibility from your unsupported (yea, unsupportable) assertions, but you do not offer us any hard analysis as to where exactly FreeMind76 allegedly committed this fallacy. Bifurcation, also known as 'false dichotomy' or 'false dilemma', is committed "when one premise of an argument is an 'either… or…' (disjunctive) statement that presents two alternatives as if they were jointly exhaustive (i.e., as if no third alternative were possible)" (Hurley's Logic, pg. 141.)

Exactly where did FreeMind76 commit this fallacy? Did FreeMind76 explicitly state that there was no third alternative possible? If you'd like to bring this allegation of yours out into the open and show where this bifurcation is alleged to have been committed, I suggest you be careful not to overlook the fact that FreeMind76 was giving you the benefit of the doubt (again, I'm anticipating your very move here, Greasy, so I really hope you take the bait). Until then, your allegation against FreeMind76 is noted, but we await your attempt to legitimize your allegation. Until then, I see no reason to take it seriously.

But meanwhile....

Oh, my, this is serious, Greasy! Very serious indeed!!! Is this truly the example of Bifurcation that you wish to offer here? Oh this is just too good!! For so strenuously you take pride in asserting your 'ultimate presupposition' - by your confession, the Bible - yet in such haste to discredit others do you carelessly lose sight of your sanctimonious 'ultimate presupposition' in this here example.

For we have all read this before, those of us who have read Matthew 12:30, which attributes the following words to Jesus: "He that is not with me is against me" (KJV). According to Greasy, Matthew is attributing the fallacy of Bifurcation to Jesus! If so, then his 'ultimate presupposition' - by virtue of this instance of fallacy alone - is in peril of internal error, and hence, an invalid starting point.

Greasy, in all frankness, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt to this point concerning your shameless displays of arrogance and your ability to wedge both thy feet into your keyboard's mouth [read: "your mouth"] at the same time. But now I realize even this generosity is unwarranted, for indeed your talent for embarrassing yourself is truly legendary, sir!

It's amazing how quick Greasy is to hunt down fallacies in his opponent's arguments (yea, questions, even!), but fails to detect even one of the many fallacies he inherits when he parrots the assertion that existence finds its source in a form of consciousness. At some point, when I feel Greasy has matured enough to cope with it (assuming this is possible), it may be time to introduce him to the problems entailed in such assertions. For the time being, it's sufficient to allow him to rummage in his presupposed self-proclaimed victories - if not for ax-sharpening purposes, then for the tremendous entertainment value such exercise produces.

Hold on, now. I think I see your disunderstanding here. At no point in any of his posts did FreeMind76 assert that your 'god' is "bound by merely a concept or proper name", for asserting here that he would suppose this is indeed hasty of you. On the contrary, FreeMind76 has *in all sincerity* given gracious attention to your verbal utterance 'god' (which rhymes with 'rod', 'pod' and 'sod') in order to achieve a grasp of said verbal utterance's conceptual meaning. This is precisely why he has several times now requested that you explain what you mean when you say or write the word 'god' and what this idea - if it is an 'idea' - means.

I leave this last bit here for everyone to mull on. One man's grease is another man's garbage.

Have a nice day,

Anton Thorn