Youtube Discussion

In a recent post, among other things, I presented the case that Gangadean's argument (given towards the end of this talk) for why the human soul could not possibly be eternal, is unsound. At least two of the premises are unproven, and one of them is outright false. It seems a discussion in the comments of that video has begun, and Anderson is playing defense. I want to note just a few things.

The very top comment as of now, is by a person named "Samuel." It's very likely to be a long time member of Westminster Fellowship (Gangadean's church). But you wouldn't know that from the comment. Frequently Gangadeanians, who are members of the church, will post positive reviews (including amazon book reviews and google reviews of the church), without disclosing that they are card carrying members. Maybe this isn't technically lying, but I find something disingenuous about the practice. That's part of the reason why I disclose some details about my personal dealings with Gangadean and his people in the introduction of this blog.

Secondly, I noticed that when Spencer (who reads this blog) presented a version of my criticism of Gangadean's argument (that the human soul is not possibly eternal), Anderson doesn't defend the original argument. To do so would be to defend the truth of the premise that I attacked (namely, premise 3 of the original argument which states that an eternal being would necessarily be all-knowing).  Instead he defends the conclusion. Anderson wonders whether an eternal being must have the greatest amount of power. That suggests that Gangadean's argument as it is is defecient. Anderson's hints at an entirely different argument which purports to make a connection between eternal existence and power (rather than knowledge). That's to concede my original point that Gangadean's argument is unsound because at least one of the premises is false.

Of course, it's not enough for Anderson to ask questions as he frequently does. He needs to present the arguments since he's on the side that is making substantive claims that he can definitively prove that God exists (among others). So the question then becomes can Anderson/Gangadean provide a proof for the claim that "necessarily, if X is eternal, then X is the highest power"? I suspect this is the most promising approach in attempting to patch Gangadean's shoddy argument and we'll have to wait to hear what they come up with, assuming that they do--I wouldn't hold my breathe though.

Wherever that conversation leads, I think there's a non trivial gain that we've made, if my analysis so far is right. The payoff is this: Gangadean has been presenting an argument (for many years, if not decades) with an obvious flaw. And that means he's either known about it, but ignored it in which case he's been dishonest ("bearing false witness" as he would put it) or he's not known about it and he's shown a rather large lapse in philosophical judgment (and this for many years!). Like I said, the mistake is a rather obvious one. In the case of the latter, this is a symptom of a larger problem--Gangadean's way of doing philosophy, the isolation, the intellectual incest (bouncing ideas off of only those that are under your authority), is bound to lead to problems. Neither is this an isolated incident---if you poke around my blog, you'll see that there are a plethora of problems with Gangadean's arguments, and many of them are the result of rather elementary mistakes in reasoning.

Finally, I noticed that Anderson gets lost at some point in the conversation. After one relevant question (noted above), he somehow finds it pertinent to raise the following questions.

1. Can we know anything outside of our experiences?
2. What does the coppolla 'I' in my construal of Gangadean's original argument refers to?

(I'm omitting 3 because that was addressed above).

also,

4. Does memory lapse affect my ability to know if I am eternal?
5. Do I have to know everything in order to know anything?
6. Can we know that 'a is a' outside of experience?

Sometimes in conversing with a Gangadeanian, I feel like I'm speaking with a bot that would fail the turing test. These are simply the wrong sorts of questions--it's as if Anderson is trying to change the subject. This smells an awful lot like a red-herring (sorry, I couldn't resist). My point (and what I take to be Spencer's) is not about whether we can know anything, neither is it about whether or not empiricism is true. In fact, my answer to Anderson's questions about whether we can know anything beyond our experiences (including that 'a is a'), even if memory lapses are possible, is an emphatic, YES!! The irony is that as I have argued before, Anderson and Gangadean, if they are going to be consistent in demanding proof, should probably answer, with an emphatic, NO! (Don't forget we think of the nature of knowledge or define 'knowledge' in very different ways). In any case, none of this is germane to whether or not Gangadean's argument for why any human soul is not eternal, is unsound. It's unsound and Anderson seems to admit this much. Let's move on and talk about whether it can be fixed by way of a sub-proof for the contentious premise(s) or not. 

Finally, just in case you're curious, I'm not claiming that the human soul is in fact, eternal--I take that to be an incredible claim (of course, I don't pretend I can prove that it's false nor do I believe I need to). So that's not what my recent line of criticisms is about. I'm merely pointing out that this is yet another case where Gangadean fails to prove one of his most fundamental claims despite claiming that he can and should do so (i.e., it's among the "most basic things" which he takes to be clear to reason).