Carter's nihlism and judgementalism

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 02:06 PM 2/11/99 -0500, Jason Carter wrote:

>At 10:43 AM 2/11/99 -0800, you wrote:

>>> CARTER

>>> Davis, this is very simple, and I am surprised you have not caught on yet.

>>> You cannot demonstrate the PHYSICAL reality of a NON-PHYSICAL entity. It's

>>> like saying, "Demonstrate the physical reality of 'love.'"

>>

>>TILL

>>Hmm, Carter doesn't know what the fallacy of reification is.  Perhaps he

>>should check into it.  

>

>Carter, 

>Actually Till, I do, which is why I pointed it out as an absurdity. 

>


TILL
A "nonphysical" entity, if such exists, would not be an abstraction like
"love" or "courage" or "beauty," which have no existence except as concepts
in the minds of those who formulate them.  If minds didn't exist, then the
abstractions would not exist.  On the other hand, if a "nonphysical" entity
exists, then it would exist whether minds are aware of it or not.  Hence,
you resorted to the fallacy of reification by treating "love" as if it were
a real existent.  So if seems that you don't know what the fallacy of
reification is after all.  Had you said, "You cannot demonstrate the
physical reality of a nonphysical entity like God any more than you can
demonstrate the physical reality of a nonphysical entity like Satan," your
analogy would have been appropriate, since God and Satan, if they exist,
would be parallel as nonphysical entities.



Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

• Previous message: Carter's Theology?
• Next message: Virgin birth (concerning LXX use of parthenos)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]