Cephus, at his best

Over at Cephus' place, the conversation has been closed. Cephus has asked me to leave. That's understandable, because I have insisted that he recognize and address actual evidence, many, many times, and he has tired of avoiding that. Further, I have addressed his one, single tactic which he uses to avoid contrary evidence: his persistent use of the Category Error. He has even defended his use of the Category Error by invoking the same Category Error (which is actually an error of Circular Reasoning as well). His normally beligerant attitude has not mollified in the least, and at the end he insisted that I acquiesce to his invocation of the Category Error, or leave. Since I don't adhere to anti-rational positions, I have left.

In Cephus-world, if it is not a physical lump, then it cannot be considered knowlege because there is no way in his world that objectivity can apply as a test. When presented with the concept that objectivity exists due to logic in the first place, and that there are objective tests for disciplined logic, the lack of interest in that was deafening. And that applied to the necessity for the pre-existence of logic before empiricism, which depends on logic for its existence. Anything I could say in Cephus world was declared a "story", and deprecated in any way he could dream up. So he would then return to his demand of physical proof for non-physical existence, and ended by telling me to leave if I didn't cough it up.

He has taken to removing some of my comments over there, so I have copied this back over here; it is my last and final comment over in Cephus-world.

"So you want me to leave because you refuse to address the deduction head-on, as would a mature intellectual who would want to disprove the deduction using actual principles of logic. Instead, you declare the issue to be feelings, rather than logic, without even examining the logic involved.

Your concept of "objective" is quite warped in order to insulate you from having to deal with logic. You cannot rationally declare that your position is based on logic, because you both refuse to address it when you could actually try to refute it, AND you refuse to disabuse yourself of the logical fallacy of Category Error, which you use both to justify your denialism, and which you use to intiate your denigrations of dissent from your own religoius worldview.

Your view of "knowlege" is quite warped into physical-objects-only, which is necessary in order to protect your worldview. Knowlege itself is non-physical; there is no lump of mass nor is there any burst of energy which is labelled "knowlege". You have actually refused to address those issues as well, declaring them to be "religious", when in actuality they are facts (and "facts" are also non-material, because they are "meanings" which have no physical mass/energy).

Your concept of "reality", "real", "is" and "evidence" are warped in order to protect your worldview from any conceptualization beyond physical objects.

You cannot prove that your worldview is true or valid; you merely require that opposing views be commanded to provide paradoxical evidence, which you know to be irrational, in order to protect your religiously held worldview.

Go ahead and delete this if it offends you, as you have other comments I have made; this one will be copied over to my blog to memorialize our "conversation" here.

You position is a one-trick pony show, and that trick is to make an irrational demand for evidence which is a logic error: the venerable Category Error. You use that to avoid examining any/all evidence which goes counter to your worldview.

I guess that wraps things up.
Adios.

Oh yes, I will post this comment at my blog, to prevent its loss due to your habit of deleting uncomfortable comments."

ADDENDUM
A rational person will aways question his worldview to determine its rationality. When I started to question my own Atheism, it was the irrational nonsense of Materialists and the quasi-literate Scientismists that forced me ever deeper into the questions of "what is logic?" "how does knowledge happen?", "what are the limits on knowledge? What are the limits on material, empirical factoids? How is rational discerment accomplished?" and many more questions were generated in the pursuit of those and similar subjects. When one does this, a theme occurs: logic is necessary, and illogic must be eiminated, if one is to maintain a rational worldview.

I have found that Atheists necessarily must, at some point in their defense, abandon the rules of disciplined logic. That's why I abandoned Atheism.

ADDENDUM
It's a day later, and Cephus has not posted my parting comment. I wouldn't be surprised if he nuked the entire thread. But maybe he's just preoccupied.