Hi Folx! Did you miss me?? I wasn’t gone that long, but I do notice that m last three posts (the bombs that I sent over to you all over the weekend) have not fetched me any responses. This silence is most deafening. Am I to take this silence as affirmation? Hmmmm… I suppose everyone agrees with the statements I put forth regarding objective epistemology, n’est-ce pas??

Anyway, I did have some problems with my computer (ironically the cause of these woes was connected to the fact that my e-mail archives were overflowing, so buyer beware!). I thank Dick (Sfinfidel) for telling everyone about my little setback. Everything’s all better now, in fact better than before, so I don’t anticipate that you’ll see any more unexpected absences on my part - lucky for you.

* * * * $

Tonight I would like to write to you all about one of the most desperate grasps for the idiocy of anti-reason I’ve seen to date (this one almost exceeds the foolery of the statement "nothing in nature tells us that survival is a goal".) Put on your seatbelts, folx, for this one’s a real doosey!!

* * * * * * * * $$

I wanted to respond to something I read in a post that Haggai 1 6 submitted recently ("Re: Haggai has made me an anti-atheist" 5-25-98 12:26:59 EDT). In this hasty post, Haggai made the following statement:

"Modern cosmology tells us that in fact nothing existed 12-18 billion years ago"??? That’s most interesting, Haggai. I assume you include your ‘god’ in this statement? If you say that ‘nothing exists’, then you are automatically precluding your ‘god’ from existing, for positing ‘god’ presupposes existence.

If you accept the claim that ‘nothing existed 12-18 billion years ago’ and then posit ‘god’, you are positing a form of existence, and thereby you hold to contradictory claims. As a religionist, you probably would never accept this claim in full, for it would necessarily apply to your ‘god’ as well as to anything else.

However, your tactic is to declare an exhaustive general statement that ‘nothing existed 12-18 billion years ago’ in order to dismiss the axiom existence exists (with the aim to APPEAR to have won a small victory), but then you turn around and claim that there is one tiny exception to your declaration by positing ‘god’ in direct conflict with your premise. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, but that is exactly what the religionist - as this case demonstrates - wants to do: to apply a sweeping generality that applies absolutely without exception which negates all claims except his own. However, like it or not, existence does exist.

Do you dispute the fact of existence? Do you accept the fact of existence? Here the religionist is caught in a quandary: if the religionist accepts the axiom existence exists as the starting point, then he has no choice but to forfeit his ‘god’ as the starting point (for positing ‘god’ presupposes the fact of existence). If he then decides to dispute the fact of existence, then logically he disputes anything he claims to exist, such as his ‘god’. There is no way out of this quandary for the religionist: he has been checkmated.

Accept the fact of existence, or dispute it. It’s your call.

Again, existence exists indisputably. You ask this question as if it has been established as fact that there is a "possibility for nothing to exist." Can you demonstrate how you arrived at this ‘fact’? It seems most questionable. Here’s why:

The concept ‘fact’ presupposes existence: nothing can be a fact unless it first exists. (I wrote to you all about this over the weekend, and curiously, no one seems to have come up with any kind of objections to date... that’s odd, isn’t it?) If you look up the concept ‘fact’ in the dictionary, you might find a definition similar to the ones I found: "Something put forth as objectively real; Something objectively verified [note that it does not say ‘justified’]; Something with real, demonstrable existence: actuality," (Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary, s.v. ‘fact’). Note how each of these definitions draws a connection to reality, i.e., to existence. A fact, therefore, presupposes existence.

What about the concept ‘possibility’? Does this concept presuppose existence, also? Let’s look at the definition (kind of a weak habit of mine, I guess - annoying, ain’t it???): "Capable of existing or being true; Capable of happening or being accomplished; potential; Capable of being used fro a certain purpose," (Ibid., s.v. ‘possible’). Well, it appears that each of these definitions presupposes existence. How is ‘nothing’ ‘capable of existing or being true’? How is ‘nothing’ ‘capable of happening or being accomplished’? How is ‘nothing’ ‘potential’? How is ‘nothing’ ‘capable of being used for a certain purpose’? HOW IS ‘NOTHING’ POSSIBLE WHEN EXISTENCE EXISTS?

Sounds like more concept-stealing, doesn’t it?

It sure does.

If one wants to argue that it is "possible for nothing to exist", he is committing a grave fallacy. There is no such THING as ‘nothing’; ‘nothing’ is NOT an entity or an existent, not in any way, not by any means, not by any stretch of reason. Existence exists, and nothing does NOT exist. Get it?

There’s also the problem that Haggai would fact if in fact he wanted to demonstrate the ‘possibility that nothing exists’. In order to argue this point with certainty, Haggai would have to construct a proof that would conclude this ‘possibility that nothing exists’. Well, there goes that theory, for the concept ‘proof’ that would conclude this ‘possibility that nothing exists’. Well, there goes that theory, for the concept ‘proof’ presupposes existence (checkmate again, bubba!). One would have a difficult time finding evidence (which presupposes existence) for the claim that ‘nothing exists’ - however, you are free to seek this evidence if you are so moved.

The "Reification of the Zero": A little history to the problem of ‘nothingness’:

This is not the first time this invented problem has come up in philosophy. In fact, Ayn Rand encountered arguments similar to Haggai’s (only far more sophisticated than Haggai is probably capable, but still just as fallacious). She had some comments to make about this supposed problem:

[Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pg. 80.]

The whole ‘problem’ of the Reification of the Zero is nothing more than a failed attempt to dispute the axioms of ‘existence’, ‘identity’ and ‘consciousness’ without identifying itself as such (i.e., dishonestly). This is what Haggai is attempting, whether he knows it or not.

However, Haggai, if you still insist that nothing exists, you are free to proceed with your line of argumentation. In fact, you can bring on all your ‘modern cosmology’ till the cows come home, fella, but you will fail utterly if you want to dispute the fact that EXISTENCE EXISTS. But please, don’t let me stop you. Entertain us.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * $

What motivates such HYSTERIA??

Now that we know that Haggai’s statements quoted above at the top of this post are nonsensical, the next question is: WHY DID HE MAKE THESE STATEMENTS?

What was Haggai’s motivation for stating what he stated? What did he hope to accomplish by his nonsense? What fueled his decision to dispute the fact that existence exists?

Could it be that Haggai resents conceding any truth whatsoever to atheists? Could it be the fact that the Christian cannot lay hold to the axiom existence exists as first originating in his primitive philosophy? Could it be that Haggai simply enjoys indulging into self-abnegating pseudo-intellectual calisthenics for the sake of putting his proverbial foot into his proverbial mouth?

Perhaps, but I suspect that the real reason is that Haggai, like other religionists, realizes that the fact of existence is a direct challenge to his god-belief, and that he has found himself logically cornered by its inescapability. If this is true, then his realization, although a private terror for himself, is correct.

So I ask you: whose philosophy is ‘metaphysically misplaced’? Haggai’s? Or the philosophy of Reason?

Again, as I said: CHECKMATE.

Tindrbox

Alive and well, and happy to be back!!

$

_________________________________