In a message dated May 11, 1998 Howard8984 writes:

Howard, et al.,

Don’t you realize that the Bible could never be an ultimate presupposition, because even an appeal to the Bible presupposes existence? Do you truly not realize this? One cannot appeal to any ‘thing’ without first presupposing existence. It makes no difference whether one wants to appeal to a ‘thing’ that is real or unreal, verified or unverified, rational or irrational. Before one even makes an appeal, the choice, desire or the need even to make an appeal presupposes existence.

The fact is, Howard, most persons take existence so much for granted that they don’t even consider it worth mentioning - it’s a given. The Bible is not so ‘given’ - hence these debates. Existence is - AGAIN - indisputable, as I have already explained in great detail. One cannot presuppose ‘something’ before existence since this would presuppose that ‘something’ exists. Get it??? No? What is it that you do not understand about the axiom existence exists?

Can you explain how the Bible is not contingent on existence? IF the Bible were as you say the ‘ultimate presupposition’, then existence would have to presuppose the Bible. It does not, however. The Bible indeed presupposes existence. Everything presupposes existence. Perhaps you’d like to argue that it works the other way around. However, be ye warned ;) positing any ‘thing’ (Bible or otherwise) presupposes existence.

Howard, you may complain to the group that I’m going on excessively about my appeal to existence. I will continue as long as you want to wrestle with the idea of ‘ultimate presuppositions’. As I demonstrated in a recent post (Existence Still Exists), positing ‘god’ itself presupposes existence, even though it is in error. There is nothing that can take the place of existence as the ultimate presupposition. You’re stuck conceptually, guy!

Existence is the only valid ultimate irreducible primary upon which a rational philosophy can be built. That philosophy is called: Objectivism.

Any form of philosophy that fails to recognize this axiom in its metaphysics as the ultimate irreducible primary will itself fail man. This is exactly what has happened in the case of the philosophy of Christianity and the Bible.

But Howard probably knows better, so he won’t ever let himself realize that he’s intellectually stuck on this one. For him to concede to the axiom of existence would shatter his house of cards, and he knows this. Everybody should know this. But like an ostrich with his head stuck in the sand the religionist refuses to lift his mind out of the mud of subjectivism, mysticism, altruism and hatred for man. This is precisely what he intends to defend.

From exile on the island of Sakhalin (I’ll let you guys figure that one out),

Tindrbox

_________________________________