If there was an objective meaning of life.
What would it be?
Would it be about achieving goals? Making progress morally and spiritually? Doing the will of a deity. Fulfilling an inbuilt teleology?
Hedonism?
Would it be about achieving goals? Making progress morally and spiritually? Doing the will of a deity. Fulfilling an inbuilt teleology?
Hedonism?
Comments (638)
I don't necessarily agree on pursuit of pleasure a worthy objective meaning for life; however, I think pursuit of instrinsic good make sense as a humanistic meaning for life.
I suppose that an experience of pleasure could be inherently meaningful partly because when we are in a state of pleasure we are less likely to seek further meaning.
On the other side I don't derive meaning from suffering.
I think if there is no meaning to existence then that could be deeply problematic. I think societies survive by enforcing meanings and reaching some kind of temporary consensus.
People speak and act as if there was some agreed upon meaning consensus. But I am quite nihilistic and find things inauthentic. Can we force our own meaning on society and can we have our own meaning without imposing it on the other?
An objective meaning could be something that justifies societies and actions and deflates nihilism.
It's not that there is no meaning. Even an antinatalist or nihilist proclaims meaning found where there is none. The problem is that (at least in the West) meaning had been subjugated into a concept of utility or economic satisfaction like preference or tastes. Thus, rendering any discussions about said preferences or tastes as moot, and unwelcome.
That is probably a good attitude.
The deepest sense of pleasure is found in the gratification of the deepest desire. Google defines desire "a strong feeling of wanting to have something or wishing for something to happen". Wish attainment. Gratification of our deepest wishes (goals) Power from the ability to create a certain reality for ourselves. This is the highest purpose. Moral self willing. What Wallows said the golden rule.
The pursuit of pleasure in the sensual sense (physical)
It can be a quagmire to define meaning but here I am referring to life having an overriding goal or purpose or structure.
For example the laws of physics or cell structures do not depend on the individual and continue to exist after the death of the individual. In this sense you can't impose meaning onto something that already has an intrinsic structure.
However evolutionary theory has undermined the idea of a purpose in nature. It makes life seem subservient to mindless reproduction and survival.
But I am not sure that we can make our own meaning in a strong sense because what makes us able to bestow meaning in this way and what makes our meaning valid. You could cite groups such as the Nazis as indulging in meaning making or any other dangerous, controversial or wacky group.
Modern art is probably relevant here where people consider certain works to be valueless and only given the title art based on a new flexibility to the concept of art. I don't think all things labelled art are art or are equivalent.
Often we don't make a meaning but derive it from preexisting things or other people.
I wonder what parents think the meaning of life is when they create a child. Surely you would want your child to have a meaningful life in a meaningful world.
In some cases parents have a religious meaning but the problem with that is what happens if the child rejects that. You cannot guarantee your child will find your meanings valid.
So I see and hear people. They are like me, wanting to understand the the awful things they hear and see.
And that is it. The place where "we" meet.
Or not.
I thinking an objective meaning would be applicable to everyone. The objective meaning would fail if it didn't apply to everyone.
For example every human needs a heart to live.
I think everyone's life should have value and meaning.
It cannot be, because there isn't any objective meaning. No argument can support any meaning of life without being biased to our own existence. We measure the meaning of life, based upon our own existence as humans, which makes the argument flawed. If we cannot present an objective meaning of life towards another lifeform, such as another form of intelligent life in the universe with another set of parameters for the meaning of life, then we cannot have an objective meaning. We can present an objective meaning of life, so long as it incorporates every possible life form in the universe, which makes it impossible for us to present it, as we are bound to the existence of being humans. Whenever you try to deduce the argument for an objective meaning of life, you will run into the answer that there isn't any objective meaning of life. If you create a subjective meaning of life, that is a set of maxims of your own, but never objective. Objective means it has been and will always be something, but since life wasn't created with any meaning in mind, but instead evolved out of dead matter evolving into organic matter through chemical processes, there is no objective meaning.
We exist and all notions of the mystery of our existence that fuels our sense of there being an objective meaning to our existence is false and based on lacking knowledge about how life evolved. The "hunt" for objective meaning is futile and out of desperation when faced with the meaningless nature of our existence. I would abandon all attempts at finding objective meaning and instead find a meaning that we invent for ourselves. If we are meaningless, we are free to create meaning, to create a reason for existing. If we can't create meaning, then we might as well kill ourselves. Trying to find an objective meaning of life is a distraction from either giving up life or creating meaning. But it's tempting to try and find an objective meaning. People tend to want an authority to govern them, it's a well-known function in psychology about how people behave. So most people want to find an external solid truth that can govern them and the idea of having no meaning, having nothing that guides us, frightens most people to death. But it's futile, there isn't any objective meaning, we simply are and that's it. The meaning needs to be created and if that's scary, it doesn't mean hiding from it makes it less true.
The question is, if there was an objective meaning of life, what would it be? Please entertain the question instead of rejecting it outright.
How can I entertain a question that is essentially impossible to answer? I can answer with what I might think is a subjective meaning of life, a meaning that I personally think is worthwhile in life, but answering what is an objective meaning of life is a pointless question when there isn't any objective meaning.
To entertain the question, you must first accept that there is an objective meaning of life, but something we don't know. But as soon as you try and make a rational argument for doing so, the question falls apart into absurdity.
So how can we answer a question that is pointless? It becomes trivial nonsense without philosophical weight. The true question that can be discussed would be... can there be any objective meaning? And so far we've had thousands of years of philosophers failing to find there to be any.
1. Being the only species, on this planet, capable of rational inquiry, comprehension and feeling, we should carry this accidental (evolution) or deliberate (god) trait to its natural conclusion - gather knowledge, wisdomn, feel the beauty of the universe. Like I read somewhere, ''the universe is trying to understand itself''.. We're the brains and heart of the universe, one could say. Why not function accordingly?
Is this purpose?
Of course some will disagree that the universe is ''beautiful''. Life-smothering vacuum, asteroids, supernova radiation, parasites, etc. but that doesn't detract from the fact that we are the brains and heart of the universe.
We're capable, probably in a limited way at present, of comprehending its laws and structure, and love its mind-boggling vastness and potential or fear its world-destroying power through asteroids, volcanoes, supernovae, etc.
So, try to understand the universe and invest emotionally in it.
One doesn't have to be a scientist to do this. Reality is at many levels. We know it because we've studied them. There's an x-ology, meaning study of x, for all that a human experiences. Given this is so, one can always find a subject that one is drawn to. Study it, contribute, enjoy it.
Some may disagree with me. In the short run there's mortality and in the long run there's the heat death of the universe. Why do anything at all, let alone try to understand the universe? Better to have fun and die.
My meaning in life can be erased in an instant (asteroids) or slowly when the universe reaches thermal equilibrium and there's no life giving or sustaining energy.
Yet, there's a real chance that our knowledge is incomplete or even wrong. May be we can, if we develop the tech, hop from star to star and extend life till a point where we can create our own stars and planets. Too much science-fiction? Could be but I think it's more probable than, say, that we've completely understood this universe of ours.
2. To have meaning is to have purpose. A purpose implies usage. To be used for something is something people don't like. This is relevant for people who want divine purpose. If God creates us for a purpose then we're not free and we're being used justl like a hammer or a nail.
It could be that we derive satisfaction by being part of something ''greater'' than ourselves. Yet, if this is true then we're no more than slaves who must do their master's bidding. Is this a purpose/meaning one would like?
It's odd that the pyramids, they are beautiful, should be so highly regarded and credited to the pharaohs. What of the slaves or laborers that actually did the hard work? To have divine purpose would be to be like them, used, abused and forgotten and their hard labor attributed to their master.
It could be that if the purpose were benevolent the sweat would be worth it. Yet, to have no choice in the matter still reeks of slavery. One could say that the goodness in the work would automatically make us volunteer. Yet that is a condescending attitude - to think for someone else is to ignore his personhood.
3. We lack an objective purpose. In the context of 2 above this should be a happy occasion. We're not slaves to a god at least. This opens the door to self-created meaning in life. We can choose our own paths in life's journey and write our own chapter in the book of humanity.
In this sense, the lack of objective meaning is a blessing and should be welcomed instead of cried over.
4. Why do we seek meaning though? What about life as we know it is inadequate.
Our forefathers were too busy just surving the vagaries of nature to think about stuff like this. Then things changed. Civilization allowed us to think on life and people became discontented. We began to see how similar we are to animals. They too eat, mate, procreate and build nests. Were we simply animals? Were we just the star attraction yet nothing more than an animal in a zoo? We, sought, a higher purpose. That which would put us above mere animals.
This trend, if we could call it one, continued along the same line. There came among men, supermen, who wanted to be more than just a man (now that we were not just animals).
We can see where this is going. There seems no end to it. There will always be something ''greater'' we want to be a part of. I guess, if one must continue extending this line of thinking, we won't ever be satisfied unless we become gods ourselves.
And even when we do become gods we may still ask, in our vanity for which we're well known, ''Is this all?''.
Just saying...
The universe doesn't provide us ready-made, objective meaning. It can't. On the other hand, we can, we will, we shall, we must provide meaning. And we do.
Got to go. The corpse is waiting.
Not to be blunt or insensitive, but that's a very meta framing of your "nothing has objective meaning"-comment. :sweat:
If there was a balloon on Mars, what colour would it be? Red? Blue? Yellow? Green?
The best color is white because it contains all other colors.
That's another good example of where things can go wrong in philosophy.
Please explain
Okay. Those sort of statements are ambiguous enough to potentially lead to error, and it doesn't have to be about colour: it could be about virtually anything.
One way of interpreting your statement is that you're saying that, for you, white is the best colour, because, for you, the best colour is whatever colour contains the greatest number of other colours, and white contains the greatest number of other colours. If this is what you meant, then there's no problem. Otherwise, there's a problem, because I don't think that you can justify that there's a best colour in any way other than in this subjective and relativistic sort of way.
If the universe does not contain meaning where are you getting the meaning from? Something from nothing? I think whatever we find meaningful is inevitably provided by the Universe.
However if we don't find meaning in this it cannot be blamed on us.
I was saying objective meaning would be the equivalent to finding the everyone needs a heart to live. Maybe someone could see we all need love and we all flourish with love.
I don't agree with that necessarily but there could be something fundamental that humans objectively need to have a fulfilled existence.
I think evolution is a claim of objective meaning where evolutionary theorist seek to explain life from a fixed or lawful paradigm.
If the only reason we exist is through evolution then evolution offers an explanation of our desires (reductively) and these are around mindless survival and reproduction.
I don't know why organisms seek to survive but organisms tend to have survival traits so at the basic level you could say we are here to survive.
On the other hand you could say we have discovered that we are simple blind reproduction machines and have now exposed the secret behind our desires and we should stop aiding mindless replication of our genes.
I feel that after discovering the idea of evolution it should cause us to reevaluate things and to me if you you favour the most ruthless reductive notion of evolution I think we should end this process.
On the other hand I think the whole scientific paradigm is probably not favorable to exploring meaning.
I think trying to understand and explore the universe could be meaningful if that was humanities main goal. But there is too much other stuff going on like overpopulating and polluting the planet, over consumption and war.
I think gathering knowledge does require using meanings in some sense. But who knows where our accumulated knowledge will take us?
Maybe we will explore hidden dimensions of reality or create time machines or something radical like that.
Personally I quite like the idea of a world dedicated information gathering and creativity but this one is just too dystopian at the moment.
I think our parents have already played God and we are here because of their motivations or actions.
My parents are very religious Christians who made me go to church up to 5 times a week as a child. So I had that meaning imposed on me until I left home.
I have no idea now what it would be like to be truly free to choose my own meaning without indoctrination.
Evolution is just the function of our existence. It's the form we have in the universe, just as a star convert hydrogen into helium and later dies, the evolution of biological entities on earth goes through evolutionary steps to further change its function in the environment. There's no meaning to this, it's only a function. It also has no meaning just because scientists came to this conclusion, the scientific evidence points to it, it simply is. What is the meaning of a function? What is the meaning of the sun's ability to transform hydrogen into helium? Detach your own existence from the universe and you realize it has no objective meaning. People get clouded in our human sense of existing and it shrouds our ability to think beyond ourselves. We are nothing more than matter able to think about ourselves as matter, all meaning is our invention, objective meaning is non-existent.
I'm getting it from my fertile mind.
"Making meaning" is the exclusive privilege of human beings.
This depends on what the mind actually is. And what is in your mind where does that come from?
Evolution seeks to explain characteristics or attributes we have in terms of evolutionary usefulness. These are expected to determine some or all of our characteristics.
There would be no point in the theory if it didn't meaningfully explain anything. T
I don't think scientists are the only people that can interpret their findings. That would be a reductionist approach to science. So for example a scientist might notice the presence of increased Oxycontin levels when someone is in love but that would not mean the measurement they make is all their is to the phenomena.
Another example could be a painting.
You could describe a painting in many ways at different levels. You could talk about the atomic structure of the painting, You could discuss the style and history of the work. You could talk about how the image reaches the brain due to photons hitting the retina and so on. Or you could say this a picture of a sheep. The most informative statement there is this is a picture of a sheep. But no single claim is exclusive or superior.
I think it is hard not to have meaning if you use language and do the sciences and involve theories and representations. But it is hard to pin down an overarching meaning to all these meanings and conceptual representations. in my opinion.
Somehow Hitler needed an alternative source of meaning , purpose and satisfaction.
:rofl: :lol: :clap:
I think that a definition of the word "meaning" would be needed because I don't see any meaning in evolution. As I said, it's a function that, as you said, explain the characteristics or attributes of usefulness. The process and function of the evolutionary changes over time is just what it is, there is no further meaning to it.
What I mean is that when we talk about "objective meaning", that meaning is essentially transcending beyond the simple function or characteristics of something. The "meaning of life" means that there is some meaning to all our existence beyond just existing or having life. If the "meaning" of a flower is to be yellow, that is not really a meaning, it's a function or a characteristic, it has no real value and is just what it is, it's yellow, no meaning. Same goes for evolution, the evolutionary process has no meaning, it is a function, it is a process, but it is what it is.
Objective meaning means that there is a reason for our existence, beyond of just existing. In terms of a God creating us, could maybe mean that we have a meaning for that Gods plan that we don't know about. But any rational person who wants to create a logical and reasonable argument for the meaning of life would not find one since it demands proving there's a God that has a meaning set out for us. Without any specific meaning to life, there is none and we simply just are.
That's why all arguments for a "meaning of life" falls flat every time since it requires there to be an agent of that meaning to apply it to our life. If there is no agent of meaning, there is no meaning. The argument for a "meaning of life" is infected by religion and its fallacies in reasoning.
There is no objective meaning.
"Hello everyone,
Today I would like to discuss with you a very delicate but interesting subject that have been on everybody's mind since the beginning of mankind. The purpose of life. So I wanted to ask you this. What is the purpose of life? I tend to agree with the premise that there is a purpose to every form of life from microscopic beings to macroscopic ones. This brings me to my second question : should life exist without purpose? Let me explain a little bit. Life is a cycle and everything in it contributes in order to maintain the universal order of things. Can life exist without purpose? I do not think so but I'm open for debate.
I await your reponses with a lot of curiosity.
Sincerely,
Paul"
Why are you putting one person's meaning against another? Hitler might have felt a sense of meaning for himself, but why should that be set to a standard meaning for all?
To find your own meaning of life requires you to find it for yourself. It's not about finding a meaning that applies to all others. That is objective meaning and it doesn't exist, neither as a grand meaning nor a found meaning for all.
@Paul24:
There is no purpose to life. It's the consequence of billions after billions of random dead matter clashing together into chemical reactions until organic matter developed. Later, that organic matter developed simple functions that would guide it into existing with least resistance to the environment. From that, the evolutionary process continued this process over the course of billions of years and the organic matter developed into larger and more complex beings.
There is no purpose to this, it's simply a process, like how beech rocks form shapes after millions of years of water crashing into them, their form does not have a purpose, it's just a result of matter over time.
The premise that there is a purpose to life is not a premise that can be used in a reasonable argument because it has no truth-value. If the conclusion is that there is purpose to life and the premise is that there is purpose to life, that is a fallacy.
Therefore, the question of whether or not life should exist without purpose becomes a non-question since a purpose hasn't been proven to exist in the first place.
A universal order is not equal to the process of evolutionary cycles. The universe will continue indifferent to our planet being blown up or not, since it has no agent of will. It doesn't care, it can't care, it's a dead place of matter without consciousness.
You can't think about the purpose of life when you haven't proven there to be one in the first place. So far, thousands of years of philosophy have not been able to prove there to be any purpose. All reasonable arguments tend to come to the same conclusion; there is none. The notion that there is a purpose is born out of a religious legacy that fails to present a logical argument for that purpose and instead only requires faith.
So the philosophical discussion is at a standstill since everyone is still debating if there is any purpose or not. It's an irrelevant question when so little points to there being any purpose or meaning at all. The question that should be discussed is rather; how should we live and find meaning in our lives when there is no objective or universal purpose or meaning to our lives? That doesn't mean finding a universal meaning, it means finding a purpose that is meaningful to ourselves as humans.
My personal sense of meaning is a pursuit of knowledge in order to find control over the uncontrollable universe. It's not a universal meaning, it's not something that has any purpose outside of my own values as a person. It is meaningful to me as a person and that's the limit of any kind of meaning and purpose in life.
Hitler is probably the ultimate example of someone making and living their own meaning in a large way. He had a whole ideology, architecture, music,gained power, boosted his ego. But it was all a dangerous fantasy.
He had his own morality which he lived by and his own politics. But if you claim people should make their own meaning what grounds have you for criticizing his type of meaning making effort?
On the " make your own meaning" idea you have no grounds to criticize anyone's meaning making however destructive and murderous.
If you start to moralize about other peoples meaning making efforts or start judging them in anyway you started getting objective and abandoning the problem of leaving each to make her own meaning.
This is one other reasons i think the claim to make you own meaning is a triviality. It is like a platitude but it doesn't explore what the consequences of the claim would be.
It was a corruption of Nietzsche's ideas. And it's an unnecessarily loaded question fallacy that muddies the argument of creating your own meaning in life. He was a lunatic with too much power, I fail to see how it relates to the broader aspect of finding meaning in life. Also, I could argue that there isn't clear that he followed his own meaning, he might not have even thought of his life in the sense of "meaning" or "purpose" but just following his power-hungry nature and urge to be in control.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Yes you can. You are mixing together "meaning in life" with morality and ethics. We can discuss ethics and criticise someone's ethics and morality, it has nothing to do with meaning in life.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Creating your own meaning in life gives you a reason to exist in your life. It has nothing to do with ethics and morality, it has to do with giving a sense of balance and foundation for your life. If the reaction is to dispute this in order to try and find an objective meaning, based on confusing it with discussions about ethics and morality, that is a fallacy. They are not the same thing. There's also nothing that prevents there to be a discussion about a person's meaning in life. It's a foundation that many therapists and clinical psychologists can use in order to balance a person who's clearly in a bad place.
If someone has a meaning in life that is clearly dangerous to others and/or themselves, it can absolutely be challenged. But it seems you are making the argument that when encountering this, it's about applying a universal objective meaning that can override this person's own meaning. But that is not what it's about. Just as therapists and clinical psychologists work with dangerous ideas and sense of meaning, they work with balancing values of life in order to change the dangerous meaning of life into something that isn't destructive to the self or others.
You can't use a loaded question or slippery slope fallacy to dispute this. Just because you find your own meaning in life, it doesn't mean it opens the door to dangerous ideas. If you already have a damaged moral and is dangerous to others and yourself, THAT is what defines your actions, not the meaning you create out of it. You are using the notion that the meaning itself comes before corrupted morals when instead the created meaning is the result of that corrupted moral.
Hitler didn't create meaning and followed it and therefore did horrible things. The corrupted morals came before the meaning. I think you are confusing "meaning of life" with ethics and even so, it has nothing to do with any objective meaning.
The argument is essentially simple:
- Objective meaning doesn't exist (no rational argument proves there to be one).
- Without a sense of meaning, you have no sense of purpose.
- Without purpose, you become indifferent to living (and suicide becomes an option).
Meaning and purpose must then be created in order to have a solid foundation for living.
This has nothing to do with ethics and morals, it's a point about living a balanced life. It's an idea about how to navigate a pointless world. You can corrupt yourself with religious rules to feel a sense of purpose and meaning, but for those who are rational and doesn't accept fairy tales as a foundation for life, they need another set of guidelines. Because there is no objective meaning, there has to be a sense of meaning, in order to give life a sense of purpose. You find something to live for.
So if this is about finding something to live for in a meaningless universe, it cannot be countered with "it's false because of some people becoming morally dangerous". There is no link between these two and ethics has nothing to do with how to handle the topic of meaning in life. A bad, morally currupted person is not an argument against personal meaning in life.
The universe is matter and energy.
The brain is matter and energy.
The brain produces the mind.
The mind produces meaning.
The universe is the source of meaning.
I had nothing to do with it.
Is that the deal we get?
One of the reasons being born is bad is that everyone is being used. It is the premise of life. Your pain is on top of the fact that your work is needed, and you need others' work. The purpose of your life is to be used by your fellow humans, use your fellow humans, and try to maximize utility within the framework of use that has been set up by you by your contingent historical socio-economic circumstances.
It doesn't have to be so bad. It's really simple. There are two options. Option A) make the most of it. Option B) give up.
You're constantly overcomplicating things and exaggerating one side. It's very irritating. It's more propaganda than philosophy.
To the contrary, the world is pretty darn complicated, based on many levels of socio-economic realities and parties. Your desires and wants cause others to be used, just as you are. Even being born itself can be said was not for yourself. I never said we don't have the ability to cope. I cope with your arguments and obvious hostility for example :wink: . The point is, we are not gods, we simply have to deal with realities that we are enculturated to endure and accept as "just how it is" post-facto.
It's funny, that if someone affirms life it is not propaganda, but if someone denies it it is..I never denied that good experiences exist. However, I am pointing out some of the realities of how that good is played out in the real world.
No, not to the contrary. I didn't say that [i]the world[/I] wasn't complicated. The world is [i]extremely[/I] complicated. You're twisting my words. I was saying that what the issue you raised boils down to isn't complicated, in the sense that there's only two options on the table which can be summed up in just a few words.
Quoting schopenhauer1
You're doing it again. Notice how your wording doesn't mirror my wording? I used the phrase, "make the most of it". Making the most of it is not equivalent to coping, nor enduring, nor acceptance. Please, just stop it. You've done this kind of thing too many times to be let off so lightly.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Stop doing that. It's not that you're denying that good experiences exist. It's that you're exaggerating the bad.
I meant this particular discussion to be more of a quick one-liner to Bitter Crank..but I see I now have to put my dukes up.. I'll try to put the effort into going down this rabbit hole later.
You've stirred up a hornets' nest.
Emphasis on the S.
I think you are treating humans as separate from nature if you criticize or moralize about their behaviour. We don't criticize a lion for eating a wildebeest alive. Or a Tsunami for killing people. Or plant for being toxic.
The Hitler example is a factual and bizarre and brutal incident in humans natural history which I am saying is a result of fantastical meaning making not grounded in any objective criteria.
I think if you have a criteria to criticize someones meaning making it is either objective and factual or just your own whims. I think you have to apply morality to meaning making if you don't want a chaos of disturbed, irrational and destructive meaning making projects.
For example people see the proliferation of weapons and nuclear weapons in particular as crazy and an existential threat. Other people see capitalism as unsustainable, unjust and environmental damaging. Lot so politics, philosophies and lifestyle choices are highly contentious. But without an objective standard all these phenomena are equal.
The way people say "make your own meaning" seems to only mean like make a soporific sticking plaster on your own life to make yourself feel a bit better without rocking the boat, critiquing the system or doing anything radical.
Why should someones own meaning making be something that is just about condoning, placating and supporting society and following received trends and not be something angry, revolutionary or nihilistic?
If there is a reason to continue existing there is a reason to continue existing. If there is no reason for you to continue to exist there is no reason.
If you already think there is no purpose or meaning to life it is a bit of a delusional project to try and create a meaning that you know is based around and subservient to an innately pointlessness.
It seems rather bizarre that organisms would come to exist that are immensely complicated but with no purpose driving it. And these organism have elaborate bodies and behaviors to ensure survival and reproduction (Metamorphosis being one of the most complex and bizarre)
Why would a gene care whether it survives or not.
Why go to all this effort to survive?
And why does the universe contain the properties and emergent properties suitable for life.
Why does anything exist at all?
I think there are lots of unanswered questions and unknowable's (time, consciousness, language and mental representation) that make me agnostic about whether life has an ultimate meaning or purpose.
I think it is rational to be the skeptical about the scope of scientific claims. And among these claims there are conflicts of explanation. You appear to have chosen the most harsh, mechanical and devaluing picture.
Evolution is said to explain life on this planet which is a tiny speck in a vast universe so what explains the rest of the universe? I don't think a universe from nothing is a compelling rational or logical proposition.
I think you are doing what I mentioned earlier with Bitter Crank which is disappearing into the mystery of the mind. If by subjective you mean the content of our mind.
I don't see why the content of our mind would be more meaningful than what is in the external world.
in fact it seems the content of our mind is more likely to be wrong than our perception of the external world.
Humans have had false beliefs for far longer than they have had beliefs informed by reason, science and logic. Religion persists.
To me, discovering the kind of evolutionary model proposed by Christoffer and the likes of Dawkins is like a cow discovering it is going to a slaughterhouse. You can't put a positive spin on it.
As most have caught on - i think Camus in the myth of Sisyphus - outlines this issue best.
His proposition is that there is no meaning - yet we feel a need to find one - this he feels is absurd.
So like Sisyphus rolling the bolder up the hill, only to have it roll back down, just to roll it back up the hill again for all eternity - why would we live a purposeless life?
So Camus says most all take a leap of faith into something we call meaning - and thereby commit a type of philosophic suicide.
Many take a leap of faith into some form of theism or mysticism - to find meaning
Many take a leap of faith into some form of hedonism - " i find meaning in sunsets, chocolate ice cream, helping other's etc etc.
or the Existentialists who say we are all in charge of our own meaning
What Camus says is he is looking for the absurd hero - who knows there is no meaning, but who challenges the absurdity and at the same time accepts it ( not sure how one is supposed to do that). That in the absence of meaning they finds contentment in knowing the truth that there is no meaning.
What if one experiences meaning? Would that still be considered a leap of faith?
Quoting Rank Amateur
Maybe I am nitpicking here, but knowing the "truth" in this context sounds naive. One can find contentment knowing that there may not be meaning, but it is highly unlikely that anyone will be able to beyond a reasonable doubt experience the meaning of life or an absence thereof.
Personally, the closest thing I can imagine to being an objective meaning of life is the quest for self-development. One strives to become a better person, recognizes his faults and works to resolve them. Generally this greatly benefits the person, but also the community in which they live.
well according to Camus yes - him speaking not me, would say that "experience" you are elevating to a meaning for existence is as faith based as the theist. His logic is based on his belief that there is no meaning - I think he is wrong. But if you like his position that there is no meaning to life - everything we call meaning is a leap of faith.
Quoting Tzeentch
That was his "truth" truth is a tricky thing
And there's no leap of faith in finding meaning in sunsets, chocolate ice cream, helping other's, etc. You should stop saying things like that. You do so in order to create a false equivalence with your faith in theism in order to reflect criticism. It's a fact that I find stuff like that meaningful. Faith plays no role, and it certainly isn't required.
As for objective meaning, there either is none, or there may as well be none, so it's kind of trivial.
It shouldn't be, but bear in mind that Rank Amateur has an agenda. He pushes the faith rhetoric because of his faith-based theism. If [i]he[/I] takes a leap of faith, then so must everyone else! That way he can retort that we're all in the same boat.
I don't see how you know objective meaning doesn't exist yet you know subjective meaning exists.
I think when people say they find meaning in X they are referring to an emotional state they have and likewise some people find no meaning in anything.
I don't think that an emotion or belief that Xis meaning equals meaning. I enjoy certain foods but do not have a meaningful experience when eating food. It is verging on solipsism to rely solely on your own feelings and perceptions.
Like I said in a subsequent post, regarding objective meaning, there either is none, or there may as well be none, so in that sense it's trivial. We either know that this ever illusive objective meaning doesn't exist, along with fairies, goblins, unicorns and the like, or we don't know, strictly speaking, though we do know that there's no real difference between their existence or nonexistence.
And as for subjective meaning, surely you're not questioning my knowledge of that, are you? What reason would you have to doubt that I get meaning from things like socialising, listening to music, watching a film, and the like?
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Only dead people find no meaning in this sense. Either that, or you set the bar impossibly high for these people. Either consequence indicates that your approach is the wrong way of looking at it.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
I'm sure that some sensible balance can be found between the utterly trivial and the extraordinarily profound, and that this can be used to gauge meaning. It's not all or nothing.
You are correct, I do have an agenda. And I am more than happy to restate it. My agenda is that theism is a reasonable world view, and when dismissed or degraded as such - those arguments should be challenged - so once again – here is the formal argument. Please note, this is NOT I repeat NOT an argument that God is, it is an argument that theism is not outside fact or reason.
P1. There exist such things as Theists – defined as human beings who believe in some form of supernatural being or entity - for this argument we will label as “God”
P2. God exists is not a fact - as defined as, in the space time plane we exist in, and assuming reality is as our senses perceive it, the item being tested as “fact” conforms to the apparent reality.
P3. God does not exist is not a fact
P4. There are arguments – based on reason – that God does not exist
P5. The arguments in P4 – have reasonable counter arguments
P6. There are arguments – based on reason – an “un-created – creator” existed
P7. The arguments if P6 – have reasonable counter arguments
Conclusion:
Therefore - Theism, as defined is not in direct conflict with fact. Theism, as defined is not in
direct conflict with reason, since by reason alone there are positions both for an against.
That is it the whole agenda. I continue to welcome arguments that either the propositions are false or the conclusion does not follow. I also welcome any counter arguments supported by propositions proposed as true, that ends in a conclusion “ therefor theism is not reasonable “
And if you repeat that stupid slogan again...
Well it's either based on that or what seems to be nothing other than a fiction. Much of society is based on fiction actually.
It doesn't matter, because we wouldn't know what it was. At the least, we would/could not know it was Objective. So, if there is such a thing, we can't know what it is. The most obvious response to this is to ignore Objectivity entirely, as we don't have Objective access to the Objective Reality, and carry on with the approximations and understandings that we do have, and that we can work with. Objectivity is nothing more than an intellectual curiosity to us humans, as we can't verify or refute it.
Your reply is too hasty and dismissive. That was actually a [i]reductio ad absurdum[/I], which is a form of argument. And you've evaded it completely. :ok:
Your argument doesn't support the part of your stated agenda where you say that theism is a reasonable world view, and it contains a number of errors, at least some of which I've addressed before, and will do so here yet again.
1. You misuse the terms "fact" and "matter of fact". A fact is what's the case or a state of affairs. You seem to mean something else, like knowledge. Based on the correct usage, whether or not God exists is a matter of fact. That is, it is a matter relating to what's the case or the current state of affairs. If we don't know either way, then that doesn't mean that it's a) not a matter of fact, b) not a fact that God exists, c) not a fact that God doesn't exist.
2. If we don't know either way, then your conclusion that theism isn't in conflict with fact is unwarranted, as it may well be, and it is if God doesn't in fact exist, unbeknownst to us. The conflict would be that you believe in the existence of something which doesn't in fact exist. If you believe it, then you believe it to be true, but it can't be true without contradiction. That's definitely a conflict.
3. Arguments based on reason aren't necessarily reasonable. Even fallacious arguments are based on reason, but they're obviously not reasonable. I accept that there are arguments for theism which are based on reason. Whether any of them are reasonable is open to debate.
that is as much an opinion as the first, only in latin
Quoting S
Beautifully written - However if:
A. God's existence is not a matter of fact or
B. not a fact that God exists or
C. not a fact than god does not exist
than allow me correctly finish you point .... it may well be, and it is if God doesn't in fact exist, OR DOES EXIST which you conveniently, and IMO quite dishonestly omitted.
Therefor if I allow your A, B, and C as I do - there is no way any belief at all about God can be in conflict with that position since it encompasses all possible positions -
Quoting S
again - thank you the lesson - and agree - if your point is they are unreasonable - as i have on many occasions please make the argument -
That's rather childish, although it did give me a bit of a laugh. You could of course just respond that way to every comment I make. Alternatively, you could look up the argument form I referenced and use your noggin to match them up. You could also maybe tell me which parts of my argument you disagree with, although we'd probably end up going back over well trodden ground.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Thank you, I thought so too. The final edit makes it even more so.
Quoting Rank Amateur
A. is false, and B. & C. together is not logically possible.
Quoting Rank Amateur
There you go again, trying to goad me into making an argument to that effect when the burden doesn't lie with me.
I have actually spent some time recently thinking about the cosmological argument, and specifically the Kalam version of it. It's a shame that the old forum no longer exists, because it had a really long thread about it.
Quoting S
that is just pure nonsense - let me help
A is either True or False - if A is True - neither B or C have meaning
If A is False - Either B or C but not both are true
So for theism to be in conflict with your definition A would need to be false and B would have to be true. Please feel free to make that argument
Quoting S
there you go again looking for the argument you want - instead of the one I am making. You want an argument where I am forced to prove God is, I have never made such an declaration. In fact I most specifically said when starting this engagement that is not the case I was making.
Yet again - I made an argument with premises i state are true and a conclusion that follows - and await your reasoned objections.
I agree that A is either true or false. It is false, so the logical consequences of it being true are irrelevant.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I agree. That's what I said.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Another attempt by you to shift the burden. It would indeed be in conflict in the scenario described above, [i]and that's potentially the scenario right now as we speak[/I], hence you aren't warranted in claiming that it's not in conflict, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I'm just telling you what would be required for your argument here to work.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Even though you do not grant me the same courtesy in relation to my argument, which you deny is even an argument. Here's some more Latin for you: [I]quid pro quo[/I].
Can I just interject to ask you to what criteria you're using to judge "reason" and "reasonable" in P4-7. I ask because you've forwarded this collection of propositions as a means of demonstrating that theism is "reasonable", so you're obviously of the opinion that to be reasonable a proposition requires justification. So it follows that to be classed as reasonable, the propositions P4-7 must also be justified by a set of propositions, yet you've not included such a set in your justification, making it, by your own process, unsatisfactory.
Otherwise you might just as well say "theism is reasonable because it's reasonable".
is this tactic or are you just missing the point -
I say theism is reasonable
you highlight - sort of that in the case where a is false and b is true - my proposition fails
i ask you to then make that case
than you duck behind the " i dont need to make that case dodge "
Quoting S
I have not seen you make an argument yet. Please do
Therefore - Theism, as defined is not in direct conflict with fact. Theism, as defined is not in
direct conflict with reason, since by reason alone there are positions both for an against.
And that is what I mean -
Quoting Isaac
What I am in fact saying is theism is not in conflict with reason - because there is no evidence it is unreasonable. If there is some relatively objective preponderance of reasoned evidence either for or against theism - I am un-aware or it. Unless some such evidence exists it is impossible to be in conflict with it.
I have a burden for making the case that A is false, as I have claimed. I do not have a burden for making the case that B is true, as the possibility alone is sufficient.
A is false because, as defined by you, God is some form of supernatural being or entity, and whether or not there exists some form of supernatural being or entity is a matter of fact. You seemed to suggest that God could be outside of the space time plane we exist in - but that's nonsense. You also seemed to conflate reality with our perception of reality - an error. Matters of fact do not depend on our perception. Or, if you think otherwise, I'm alright with retracting that claim for a weaker claim and allowing you to present an argument.
You've not really answered my question at all though. Your proposition, no mater how you phrase it, is that theism is reasonable (or not in conflict with reason) and you present an argument to justify this (indicating that you feel one is required for such a claim)
Yet within that argument is the claim that other subsumed arguments are themselves reasonable (or not in conflict with reason).
If it is necessary to justify, with argument, the claim "x is reasonable", then why have you not done so for the subsumed arguments? If, on the other hand, you find it satisfactory to simply declare that an argument is reasonable, then why have you provided justification at all for the claim that "theism is reasonable"?
Okay - your original point was
A. God's existence is not a matter of fact or
If that is false, then God's existence is a matter of fact
and either
B. not a fact that God exists or
C. not a fact than god does not exist
I am making no claim that as a matter of fact that b or c are true, in fact my original proposition was
that we can not say either a or b are true.
You in you challenge to this proposition are now claiming A is false and take you pick b or c are true to defeat my proposition - which if you can make either case would defeat it.;
So I ask you to make the case - and then we go back into your no need to make any case do loop
Quoting Rank Amateur
I was specifically referring to the one that you've evaded addressing, and deny is an argument. I know that you know what I'm talking about, and the issue is whether or not you're going to do what would be fair and actually address it, or whether you're going to continue to play dumb and be evasive.
are you asking for me to make a specific reasonable argument for theism - to support my position there are such things ??
If so sure - but jumped to the assumption most on here know the classic theist arguments. - didn't feel i needed to state them. Can if I need to.
How about we take this step by step? Do you agree that A is false? In other words, do you agree that whether or not God exists a matter of fact? Yes or no? That isn't clear to me from the above.
I have addressed this point at least 3 times in this latest exchange - you are now just trying an argument ad nauseam -
I put the argument in form to avoid a twitter argument and exchange honest ideas - you seem to resist this -
but will address for one more time. I am NOT NOT NOT making any argument that God is. You seem not to be able to separate the argument " God is" from " it is reasonable to believe God is"
just did that - in detail show that you actually take 2 minutes to understand the points made back to you before arguing them -
it seems your only tactic is argument ad nauseam -
If you believe that you've properly addressed it even once in this discussion, then you are truly deluded. (But then we already knew that). And no, calling it opinion or denying that it's an argument or playing dumb is not properly addressing it.
Here it is again:
Quoting S
I've had to go right back to the start for that. And no, I'm not going to spend time needlessly making it look more formal for you. You obviously disagree, so simply tell me what you disagree with and why. Why is that so bloody difficult for you? Once you've done that, we can take it from there.
Okay, you're being a dick. I told you that it's unclear to me, and I could have also been a dick by blaming that on your incompetence in expressing yourself clearly, but I did the decent thing instead.
You can't even manage a simple yes or no? Jesus.
Faith is venturing something on a belief you don’t definitively know to be true. If you skydive, you don’t definitively know your parachute has been packed correctly; you make the jump because you both reason, and have faith, that it has been.
I can't believe that you're being so childish as to stubbornly refuse to help me to help you in the simplest of ways.
I'll skip past the part which wasn't entirely clear to me, due at least in part to your phrasing, and work on conditional reasoning.
If we agree that A is false, then we agree that whether or not God exists is a matter of fact.
That would bring us to the possible truth of either B or C, which is sufficient grounds for your claim that theism is not in conflict with fact to be unwarranted in the case that we do not know either way.
So, if we agree that A is false, and we agree that we do not know either way, then your argument is refuted. And if we agree that A is false, but we don't agree that we do not know either way, implying that you know otherwise, then the burden is on you. And if you refuse to clarify your answers upon request in the simplest of ways, then you basically lose the debate by default.
I accept that people have faith in ordinary contexts. We can distinguish that from reasoned belief. I might slip into the habit of having faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, but, if I am in agreement with Hume, then I won't attempt to justify that. I only slip into that faith by habit, not by conscious choice, and that's a key difference. Those who consciously choose to have faith in such things aren't being reasonable, they're being unreasonable, and they're consciously choosing to be so.
how is that ?? How is my claim that theism is not it conflict with fact, if in fact we do not know what the fact is ??
Quoting S
disagree - in this case to refute my argument that it is not in conflict with fact - it would have to be shown that God is not - that burden is on you,
what you want this to be is a case I am not making - namely It is a matter of fact that God is or is not, and you want me to say "God is" - for now at lest the 5th time that is not the case I am making - nor need to make to argue theism is reasonable
ok - now using your definition of fact, here are all the options
1. It is not a matter of fact that God is, or is not - Theism can not be in conflict with fact if it is not a matter of fact
2. It is a matter of fact that God is or God is not - then God is not as fact refutes my argument - make the case, or God is and theism is not in conflict with fact
that is all the cases of your logic - if you want to go down this road the only option that causes my proposition to fail is: god is or is not a matter of fact, and in fact God is not - feel free to make the case.
So there is all the reason and logic of the path you have taken to challenge the original argument. Which I have clearly shown to be without any basis whatsoever.
Oh my goodness. Where on earth are you getting that from? Certainly not from what you quoted. Anyway, taken straight from the conclusion of your argument:
Quoting Rank Amateur
Other than your qualifications ("as defined", "directly"), that's what you claimed. And I wasn't saying that you claimed that we don't know either way - what I said was intentionally worded in a conditional manner, there being an "if", precisely so as to avoid you kicking off about what you have or haven't claimed (which you refused to clarify!).
Quoting Rank Amateur
You can disagree all you like, but you're wrong. Regarding the burden, if, as I said in the quote you were responding to, you think that you know otherwise, i.e. that you obtain knowledge that God exists, then the burden is on you to demonstrate that supposed knowledge, not on me to demonstrate otherwise. It's a well known fallacy to attempt to shift the burden on to me in this context, it's known as an argument from ignorance. That's the only way you can justify your claim - it's your claim, not mine - that theism [i]isn't[/I] in conflict with fact. Otherwise, it stands to reason that it may well be in conflict with fact.
I haven't claimed that God doesn't exist, and I don't need to.
Quoting Rank Amateur
So you don't even agree that A is false. You don't agree that whether or not God exists is a matter of fact. And you've been making this more difficult than it needed to be.
Either that, or you are being very unclear with your wording, as that's what it looks like you're saying. If this is the case, I urge you to be more careful in your wording.
But if so, that is, if you don't believe that it's even a matter of fact, that is, if you don't believe that whether B is true or whether C is true is a factual matter determined by what is the case, the question remains, why not? I don't believe you've answered that, or answered that satisfactorily.
No, it's not the mere presence of these arguments that sustains yours though is it? It's the conclusion that they are reasonable arguments. I'm asking you why you have not felt the need justify your belief that these arguments themselves are reasonable. You obviously feel the need to justify the conclusion that your argument for theism is reasonable, you don't merely state that it is.
Quoting S
there is no way on earth I could be more clear on any of these points - which you either willfully fail to understand and directly argue - or you are incapable of comprehending which i do not thing is the case.
Even if you don't see it all your objections above have been answered - continued repetition of them does not make them any more valid.
I make argument A - say the cosmological argument - i pro-port this argument is based on propositions that are true and a conclusion that follows - I say this makes the argument reasonable. If one does not believe this argument is reasonable - the burden is theirs to make the case it is not.
It seems if I understand you correctly you want me to defend that an argument is reasonable without using the argument is reasonable in the argument - I feel I am badly missing your point - can you try another path ??
Yes, I agree with that logic. However, I reject the premise as false.
Quoting Rank Amateur
And this is your argument from ignorance where you attempt to shift the burden from you to me.
The possibility alone refutes your argument. You would have to demonstrate that God exists, otherwise your claim that there isn't a conflict with fact is completely unwarranted. Unless you do so, it's either 1) possible that there's a conflict, and if it's possible, then you can't justifiably say that there isn't one, or 2) there definitely is a conflict, as the only other alternative left unaddressed is that God doesn't exist.
I don't think I can make it any clearer than that. It's on you now.
Quoting Rank Amateur
This is faulty logic from you.
In my skydiving example you would be choosing to have faith that your parachute was packed correctly. Would that necessarily be unreasonable?
because .... you can not just dismiss a premise because you don' t like it - make a case
Quoting S
no - I gave you all the options of YOUR logic you need to treat all of the as a whole.
If as YOU state it is a matter of fact that God is there are only 2 possibilies
1 - god is ( if that is the case theism is not in conflict with fact)
2. god is not ( if that is the case theism is in conflict with fact)
This is YOUR case - not mine - mine is it is not a matter of fact that you have dismissed without reason and which I have generously let you.
so decide in YOUR case is it 1 or 2 there are no other options in YOUR case - make the argument
If that's your claim, then that requires a big explanation from you. Where is this explanation?
No, it could be based on reasoned belief as opposed to faith. I reject your criteria for what counts as faith. Reasoned belief is based on sufficient reason, and sufficient reason doesn't have to be definitive reason, i.e. certainty.
But otherwise, yes, if you choose to have faith where something can't be justified through reason, then that's unreasonable. That's different to habit-based beliefs which are practically unavoidable.
Wow, you really [i]are[/I] a rank amateur. You don't even understand how the burden of proof works and you interpret it in a fallacious way. That's a textbook argument from ignorance, practically word for word.
I did. You didn't address it, if I recall correctly. So go back and find it, then get back to me. I'm certainly not going to find it for you.
what did i miss that supports this last sentence ??
this i answered with:
Quoting Rank Amateur
you continue to move goal posts and make the argument you want - or ignore or dismiss without argument my counters and go back and make the same point again and again. This seems your style
Sigh. You're a pain. You owe me for this one, so less of the attitude would be nice, although I know that I'm hardly the most amenable of chaps. I went back and found it, then I looked at your reply, and that confirms that you didn't address it.
Here:
Quoting S
ah here is something I can build on. The fact that you do not find it reasonable is absolutely fine with me - quite you prerogative - and I respect your position as above. Expanding your belief into the general is maybe where we come apart. and requires support.
simple because S does not find an argument reasonable is not in anyway proof is not reasonable.
seems we are arguing more about the definition of reasonable than theism
And this I answered with my explanation of why it is a matter of fact, which you ignored. And then I explained that, under the assumption for arguments sake that it is indeed a matter of fact, the burden would then lie with you to demonstrate option 1, as otherwise the other options - A) "I don't have a clue either way, but believe nevertheless" or B) God doesn't exist, yet you believe God exists - result in conflict.
That's a reduction to the absurd, and it refutes your argument, but it all depends on that premise of it being a matter of fact.
No no no Mate - You really really want this to be an argument that GOD is and want me to support it.
I HAVE NOT MADE THAT ARGUMENT - I have stated in P1 that theism exists - and defined it, you are arguing my definition or theism as is believed by theists. I did not say the definition was true - i just said that it is believed by theists.
The only truth claim in that whole P that I am making is " Theism exists" do you feel that is untrue ?
You cant just go to a pile of words - pick some you want to argue - and make a whole new argument that you want to have instead of the one that was made.
Another possibility: the universe was caused by a 4-dimensional black hole. The burden would have to be on the person making this claim to argue that this is a reasonable position.
Rank Amateur feels the cosmological argument is a good argument. S does not. Now, S should give an argument why one of the premises of this argument is false, or why the conclusion doesn’t follow. That’s how you critique arguments.
Personally, I think Rank Amateur is the more noble of you two, not because I agree with him (because I would have to hear the argument and counter-argument before I would decide, and I have my own reasons for my beliefs), but because he is brave enough to put forth a claim.
What has any of that got to do with whether or not the issue of whether or not God exists is a matter of fact? It looks like a giant red herring.
This was indeed part of what you've been arguing. I hope you don't deny it or try to make me go back and quote you as evidence.
See above.
just go back to the original argument - it is quite simple and clear. If you have a another reasoned and logical objection - i am happy to address - but we have now entered into some meaningless do loop -
Sure, but you seem to have your hands full already. I'm in no hurry, but if you feel like it any time we can start from this. How do you determine that an argument is reasonable?
Well, this is kind of silly, because none of us can step outside of ourselves, can we? There's always a subjective element, but so what? That certainly doesn't mean that I must be at fault, or that anything goes, or anything of the sort. This doesn't change anything significant. I've accepted my fallibility from the start, I just didn't think it relevant to mention. That I'm fallible is not that I'm wrong. If I'm wrong, you'll actually have to demonstrate that I'm wrong.
i find the premises true and the conclusion follows
But you're asking other people to agree that theism is reasonable. They can't be expected to hold that belief on the basis that you find the premises true and the conclusion follows.
of course we can - i can see, appreciate and find all kinds of arguments reasonable that I don't agree with.
Quoting S
as above - there is no fault whatsoever in believing what one want to believe ( within some level of reason) - I have never taken a position that atheism if wrong or unreasonable - and until I can make such a case I won't.
The reasoned belief is that the parachute is packed correctly. Venturing something on that belief - the jump - is an act of faith. Why is venturing something on the basis of a reasoned belief not a suitable definition of an act of faith?
Why the heck am I doing all the work here? You can't remember your own argument, so I must go back and quote you your own damn words? Jesus Christ.
when you drive home - driving the car requires 100% commitment - you either drive home or you don't. There is some chance you could die in a crash on the way home. Driving the car home is an act of faith. It is reasonable you will make it home, you always have before - but it is not a fact you will make it home - it is a matter of probability.
We can't step outside of ourselves in the sense that I meant.
In cases where there are multiple arguments where the conclusions are incompatible, and which all seem reasonable, then what's reasonable is to determine which is the "most" reasonable or withhold judgement until you can. All this does is switch up the terminology a little, it doesn't change anything significantly. What I'm simply calling reasonable, you might call the "most" reasonable.
Either you think that theism is the "most" reasonable or you're being unreasonable by not withholding judgement.
Quoting Rank Amateur
That's a misleading portrayal of my stance. I've seen you jump at trying to mischaracterise my stance in this sort of way before. I haven't given you any ground to do so. To be clear, I don't believe what I want to believe. Want has nothing to do with it.
I do think it is most reasonable, and I think that position is reasonable. I also respect the counter position. I know of no way at all to measure in any meaningful way if my belief or your belief is objectively more reasonable. We are left what we both believe - i am just asking for respect for the position -
enjoy the rest of your day - things to do
Yeah, and of course wholly analogous to Christian belief, where you venture living in a way you wouldn’t otherwise, on the reasoned, but not necessarily certain, belief that it’s true.
No, it would be an act of reasoned belief, not an act of faith. I would reason that if my parachute is packed correctly, then jumping won't be a problem. An act of faith can't be reasoned by virtue of the meaning of faith. An act of faith would be not having a clue about whether or not there's any reason to believe that my parachute is packed correctly, but believing that it'll all be okay anyway.
If you believe anything beyond what's probable, then that's faith. But if you can't help it because of the circumstances, then importantly, that's different to a conscious decision to have faith regardless. The one is unreasonable through habit, not our fault, we can't help it. The other is unreasonable through choice, our fault, we can do otherwise.
It's 10 O'clock at night. :grin:
Right, well what you’re calling “an act of reasoned belief” is what I mean by the word “faith”. So whatever your own definition of faith is will be beside the point. I can simply call being a Christian “an act of reasoned belief” and mean the same thing.
If you do call being a Christian “an act of reasoned belief” and mean the same thing as I do, then we will be in disagreement, and I base that disagreement on the absence of any sound reasoning (of which I'm aware, which goes without saying, and which Rank Amateur tries to exploit to his advantage).
Sound reasoning in support of my definition you mean?
If theism is not outside of what's factual, then it must be within the domain of what's factual, meaning that it's a matter of fact. Theism is the belief that God exists, which implies the belief that "God exists" is true. If it can be true, then whether or not God exists is a matter of fact.
Sound reasoning which concludes that God exists, which is fundamental to being a Christian. I do not know of any such reasoning. If you think that you do, then that's what distinguishes our positions. I'm sceptical at best.
Alternatively, it's possible that you in fact do not mean the same thing as I do by the phrase, "an act of reasoned belief", which I maintain is distinct from an act of faith.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument gives a sound enough rational reason for believing in God. Its premises, though rebutted, have not been refuted and so are reasonable to believe, and therefore the conclusion too.
I know that that's what you believe. I remember from when you brought it up before. I'm sceptical at best on whether or not it's logically sound, which is what I mean by reasonable in this context. And no, that it hasn't been refuted is insufficient and illogical as a basis for believing it.
Theism is a fact. It was my P1. Theism is I have never denied theism is a fact. No clue what you are trying to say.
No problem. But that’s it then: A reason for believing, plus faith, or “an act of reasoned belief”, and there’s your Christian.
My proposition was and is whether god is or is not is not a matter of fact.
There's a problem if you're calling "faith" what I mean by “an act of reasoned belief”, as I think that that's misleading. But otherwise, sure, it's either faith or reasoned belief. And the former is unreasonable by nature, whereas the latter might or might not be reasonable, and in the case of Christianity, I remain unconvinced that any argument for the existence of God - including your Kalam - is reasonable, i.e. logically sound.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Whaaaaaat? :chin:
I don't understand how these two seemingly contradictory statements can be compatible. Unless maybe you're misusing the terms involved.
Wow, ten times and you're still misunderstanding what I'm doing. Right now, the only thing that matters is simply whether or not it's a matter of fact. That's what I'm going after, arguing that it [i]is[/I] a matter of fact, and that's where we got stuck, because you started to change the subject, as you're doing once again.
And you can't conclude a conclusion that doesn't have anything to do with the actual conclusion of the argument. Assumptions about what the conclusion to the Kalam Cosmological Argument is, does not equal those assumptions to be the true conclusion.
If you need a good sum of why the argument is flawed, please watch this.
You seem to have misunderstood. Maybe we're talking past each other because you're misinterpreting the phrase, "matter of fact". I did point out this problem right at the beginning, and explained the correct way to use it.
When I'm saying that whether or not God exists is a matter of fact, I'm not saying anything about the actual status of either possibility. When I'm saying that whether or not God exists is a matter of fact, I'm saying that it's the sort of issue that's about what is the case or the present state of affairs. When you say things like, "Whether God exists is not a matter of fact" if this isn't what you mean, then you're going to keep being misinterpreted over and over again. If this is the case, then you really need to sort it out. Surely you can see how much of a problem it has been. And this isn't the first time. You're stuck in your ways.
I've made the case that it's a matter of fact. That it's an issue that is a worldly matter, a matter about what is the case; specifically, whether or not a supernatural entity or being, which we can call "God", exists.
What else could it be, if not a matter of fact?
The video is deconstructing the argument in detail much better than me transcribing it here. If you really want an explanation on why the argument fails, then you might need to put in some time and effort to listen to those who dispute it. To just ignore when a sound deconstruction is presented just because it's a video pretty much sums up that you are not interested in actual arguments, you just seem to want to hold your ground about this. That, if anything, is NOT philosophy.
The Kalam argument only points to there being a first cause that caused the universe, it does not conclude anything else and assuming anything else is a fallacy. If you want more depth, see the video.
Scientific causes are based in hypotheses and theories and no one of them is concluding anything to be true. Faith and religion settle down with it being God. That is a logical misstep. Science has much more pressure to prove something and if you believe that they present something equal to faith you misunderstand the scientific process entirely. You need to prove that the first cause, if you can prove there to be a first cause and not for example circular time is the truth, is God. If you can't, the Kalam argument doesn't prove anything. It's actually a pretty weak argument saying essentially nothing outside of common sense about causality really. So the Kalam argument does not have anything to do with God and any notion it does is a fallacy if it's not proven. Burden of proof still applies, or the teapots will fly around the sun, if you understand that reference.
What is the current state of affairs as to the existence of God then ? Please complete the thought so some one as challenged as myself can understand
Show me where I've declared it so. You can't. What I actually said was that I remain unconvinced that it's sound.
I write carefully, and you read recklessly. A match made in heaven. Or not.
It is sound, in describing that something must be the first cause of all the causality. It doesn't prove anything else than that. But one could argue that the argument assumes the first cause to be defined by our universal laws and what we can measure with scientific methods at this time in history. If we can't define the first cause, we don't even know if we can pinpoint it as a first cause in the timeline of our time dimension. So the argument in a way assumes a lot about its conclusion, even if we detach it from the idea of God. It really doesn't do much as an argument since so much of the premises needs to be proven before the conclusion.
It's a very weak argument that requires belief and assumptions to work, meaning it's flawed, at best says there was a Big Bang... which we already know through scientific theories.
Odd. You give the impression here that you're okay with some sort of minimalist definition of God as a first cause, which barely even counts as a God in any meaningful sense. That clashes with the God of your romantic wishful thinking in the other discussion.
[quote="Rank Amateur;247007"]P6. There are arguments – based on reason – an “un-created – creator” existed
And I grant as below
P7. The arguments if P6 – have reasonable counter arguments
I'm not sure why you're skipping ahead and asking me that question. I first wanted to make sure that we were on the same semantic page regarding matters of fact in the hope of avoiding any further misunderstandings.
I can of course only justifiably tell you about my knowledge of the current state of affairs, and that knowledge leads me to conclude that it's either the case that neither of us know whether or not God exists, or you know more than I do on this one, the latter of which remains to be seen before you get too ahead of yourself. In philosophy, you must demonstrate your knowledge. So if you claim to know more than I do on this one, such that you reach a different conclusion, then I ask that you point me to this demonstration.
This is where you could of course point to some argument, like the cosmological argument. But the jury is out on that one, at best.
A hypothesis is a qualified guess not yet proven. That is not the same as the type of guesswork that apologists do when trying to use philosophical arguments. The scientific process is pretty solid in what it does, it does not conclude any answers until they are scientific theories. You are also pinpointing testing Big Bang as being untestable. That would require you to be able to conclude that science will not ever be able to test or measure these things into proven theories. You do not know that and it comes off as the people saying people would never fly and then we did. That's a lot of assumptions about science in order to defend the Kalam argument, but it requires you to know all the scientific discoveries in the future.
If the Kalam argument was to be solid, there can't be anything that can refute it. Assuming things about science or God does not make the argument correct. That is why it fails.
Pointing out that science is equal to faith by pointing out that hypotheses aren't proven is a misunderstanding of what a hypothesis is and also a simplification of the scientific process in order to support an argument that science is flawed. The difference between science and religion is that science requires burden of proof to be fulfilled and it never points to hypotheses being anything other than qualified guesses. But even with qualified guesses, they are still rooted in much more solid grounds through already proven theories and facts than proposing ideas about God on top of an argument that doesn't even connect to it, which is what religious apologists does.
The big difference is that science evolves and changes their view on a subject by testing and working it out through logic and measurements in order to reach as close to truth as possible. Religion doesn't do that, it concludes without proper logical reasoning and fills in gaps to fit the narrative. The two aren't even comparable.
A good example of an "unprovable" hypothesis is the one about the Higgs Boson field and also the one about gravitational waves. Both were recently proven to be true and measurable. Assuming that science can't answer something based on what we can't answer today, ignoring any possibility of answering it in the future, is a big logical misstep.
And this is different from my point that is is not a fact that God is or God is not how exactly
I'm getting tired of these ambiguous statements from you where it isn't clear what you mean. We've been here so many times before, and I don't want to get sucked in again.
To recap the latest
I say it is not a matter of fact that either God is or god is not
You say no it is about a state of affairs
I say what are the state of affairs about the existence of God
You say neither you or I know
I say what is the difference
You get mad
Please
Oh god. What a muddle you're turning this into. You've hastily skipped ahead. Don't try to run before you can walk. I already told you that when I'm saying that whether or not God exists is a matter of fact, I'm not saying anything about the actual status of either possibility. You then question me about the actual status. And this is somehow my fault, not yours.
They have a foundation in already proven theories and facts. They are hypotheses. Just like I said the Higgs Boson field and Gravitational waves were unprovable and considered "fantasy" by those criticizing science. They are both proved to be true. The difference is that the science community does not conclude them to be true, they know they are hypotheses and nothing more. But religious apologists use this to propose that "therefore our ideas could be true", which is a fallacy. And the Kalam argument still doesn't do much, even if we in the end proves there to be a sentient being kickstarting the universe and Big Bang, that in itself still doesn't underline that this being is "God". The confusion about hypotheses and theories as concepts in the scientific world seem to be a big reason why people don't understand the ideas proposed. No one who is educated about string theory or m-theory propose them to be true, but they are also not rooted in fantasy but already established science, which means they are qualified guesses compared to just guesses. The difference between the two is night and day.
I do, but you're unfortunately proving incapable of comprehending the vital distinction between, on the one hand, what counts as [i]a matter of fact[/I], and on the other hand, the actual status of whether something [i]is[/I] a fact.
This issue is rightly classed a matter of fact, as opposed to, say, a matter of preference or opinion, whether I can tell you [i]what[/I] the fact is or otherwise. That's irrelevant. What's relevant is what kind of issue it's rightly categorised as, and it's rightly categorised as a factual matter. The proposition and its negation are truth-apt, and they pertain to the world. Hence, it is a matter of fact whether God does or doesn't exist, and the fact corresponds accordingly, in line with what's the case.
This is where you seem to go wrong again and again and again and again...
Maybe one day you'll finally grasp the distinction, adjust your use of language accordingly, and stop causing such confusion all around.
Can you see into the future? Do you know that humanity will never be able to prove them? Isn't that an assumption that demands you to know a lot of the scientific history of the future? Also, your example about string theory counter argues nothing of what I said about science and religion. The big difference is that those who have less to no insight into the world of science generally misunderstand theories and hypotheses as nothing more than guesses when they are far more than that since they have a foundation in established science. Religious arguments get into childish logic at best.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
As I said, nothing of what you say about the topic of string theory and m-theory counter argues what I previously said.
Quoting Isaac
You've got him there. Nicely done. :ok:
The difference is that no scientist is saying that they are the truth. Because they are only hypotheses. Popular media have distorted these ideas into being something they are not. But in religion assumptions and guesses equal proof or logical reasonable arguments for God. That's why religious apologists arguments are childish at best. String theory and M-theory are only a path towards a unification theory, nothing more, nothing less, so using it as a counter-argument to what I have said becomes weak as a counter argument. There's been a lot of hypotheses from the days of Einstein that have been considered unprovable and impossible to use as scientific theories, only to later be proven and become solid facts. But you assume that to mean that String theory as it's proposed now to be proven in the future, but not even within the scientific community is string theory considered true or anything other than a stepping stone of scientific reasoning based on established facts towards a unification theory.
You are still just saying the same thing over and over, but it's still not in support of the Kalam argument proving anything at all or any religious argument to be at anywhere near the level of a scientific hypotheses since those are based on a lot of facts and established science while religious arguments assume way too much in order to reach their conclusions. I don't see religious arguments being anywhere near scientific ones because the foundation of the two is like comparing child play with a lab. Saying that some scientific hypotheses to be impossible or close to impossible to prove does not lead to religious arguments becoming more logical or reasonable, they are still weak. It's like a desperate attempt to put flawed arguments at the level of unproven science in order to argue that therefore the religious flawed argument "could be true". This is a very flawed way of trying to push flawed arguments into being more reasonable without actually making the argument reasonable.
It's a very long and complex argument. I don't even know where to begin. Overall, I'm just not convinced and would need to think it over way more for any chance of a different outcome.
Which, in itself, is trivial, but which is, more likely for your purpose, a false equivalence. See my earlier distinction.
"Based on reason" is a weakness I pointed out from the very beginning. Plenty of fallacies are based on reason.
I have plenty of beliefs, some of which I've revealed. But beliefs in the sense that you really seem to mean are [i]weakly supported beliefs[/I]. You're assuming that I have [i]weakly supported beliefs[/I] like yours, and you expect me to hand them to you on a silver platter, for you to pick them apart, or so that you can declare, "Ah ha! Gotcha! You have weakly supported beliefs just like me! So now we're [i]both[/I] idiots!"? :lol:
Sorry to disappoint, but it's more reasonable to be a sceptic than to believe whatever takes your fancy.
It's not even a choice. I can't choose what to believe. Beliefs are involuntary, and I'm reasonable by disposition. What you're talking about is fallacious, and I know that it's fallacious. I couldn't believe it if I tried.
Look up the term, "appeal to consequences", for more information on this fallacy.
I can't choose what to believe. I can take steps which might or might not lead to delusion. But I don't agree with your mindless happy delusion anyway. I wouldn't opt for the pleasure machine. Would you?
You already have your pleasure machine, figuratively speaking. It may as well be one. Who cares for the truth when you have your pleasure, right? :vomit:
That it doesn't depend on what you wish were the case. And if you don't believe me, then try wishing yourself a teleportation device and use it to meet me in my living room in five minutes time.
I won't hold my breath.
You said that it's reasonable to believe what improves your life. If so, and if your aim is to be reasonable, then none of those pesky details matter. None of the details about [i]anything[/I] would matter. What matters would only be whether or not believing something will improve your life. That means that anything goes, so long as it improves your life. You could believe that you're a butterfly, or that you're the reincarnation of Hitler, or that flying pink unicorns are about to invade Switzerland, so long as it meets that one condition.
As an epistemic standard, that's ridiculous.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
But you would if meeting me would improve your life, which it certainly would. I just have that effect on everyone around me. I think I might be a god, actually.
Furthermore, it’s not an epistemic standard in that it is a source of knowledge. Justified true belief is knowledge, and having that is one way to be rational. I’m proposing another way.
Thanks. Don't you sometimes get the feeling you've checkmated someone, only to realise your opponent isn't even playing chess?
It was just a hypothetical. I wasn't saying that they [i]actually would[/I] improve your life.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
That's not another way to be rational with regards to truth or knowledge. That's just a way to be rational with regards to achieving the goal of an improved life.
Quoting S
You left out my answer back here
Quoting Rank Amateur
Which as far as I know Isaac has not responded to.
It is systematic of you entire argument, variable, illogical, and disingenuous. I could not pin you down in en entire day on what a fact was.
It was just the "S" do loop. You make an objection, I defeat it, you say that wasn't what you meant, I ask, you say something else, I defeat that, you say that's not what you meant on and on.
What I did know going in, and what was confirmed, was you just like to fight. I don't. So if want to pick this back up, start with making a clear, specific, logical, and complete objection.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs
I could've sworn that you've been trying to argue that theism is a reasonable belief. And if so, I think it's implied that you're effectively "asking" us to find theism reasonable.
But whatever.
It's not clear to me how one would "respect the belief that theism is a reasonable belief" while finding theism to not be a reasonable belief.
Maybe you mean something like tolerate or "leave people alone in what you take to be their unreasonableness"?
Ah--I just saw above that you're referring to logical validity? I wouldn't say that a belief is reasonable just because it's the conclusion of a valid argument. Remember that, for one, in traditional bivalent logic, anything validly follows a contradiction. So you'd have to say that all beliefs are reasonable, just in case we frame them as conclusions to arguments whose premises are a contradiction. (If you're saying instead that reasonableness is soundness, then we're back to how one would respect that theism is a reasonable belief while not finding theism reasonable, because someone who doesn't find theism reasonable isn't going to think that an valid argument that concludes with theism has true premises.)
Not really i believe it is possible to have reasonable arguments on both sides of an issue. And if one feels compelled to take a position on the issue they are forced to chose between reasonable alternatives. Your point, if i understand it correctly is that for any issue - there is only one reasonable argument. Or if you disagree with an argument it is therefor unreasonable -
Quoting Terrapin Station
and i would agree - but that point must be made and argued in the specific - not the general.
All valid arguments are true - is not a true statement
All valid arguments are false - is not a true statement
but valid arguments is a good place to start though
Well that's disingenuous. I've defined what a fact is, I've explained what a fact is, multiple times, as the evidence of this discussion shows, and I'm going by a standard philosophical understanding, as opposed to an idiosyncratic one.
I'm confident that plenty of the other, [i]more experienced[/I], members of this forum would understand. I think that it's just you.
I won't respond to your do-loop nonsense and personal attacks where you blame me for everything. It's beneath me.
That's not my view, actually. It's just that I think that religious beliefs are absurd.
So how would I respect the belief that a religious conclusion is reasonable when I don't think that religious conclusions/beliefs are reasonable?
[I]*presents argument*[/I]
Person B: "So, do you think that I should find this argument to be reasonable?".
Person A: "Oh gosh, no! I would never ask such a thing of you. Where the heavens did you get that idea from?".
It does seem like a peculiar performative contradiction.
opinions are your right - Quoting Terrapin Station
your belief in specific that a position is unreasonable - does not make the belief unreasonable in the general.
and all your opinions are fine - however if you wish to make it a general point that either theism is absurd, or unreasonable - i await your argument.
He didn't actually answer the question in his last reply, did he? I suspect that you were right with the, "Leave Britney alone!", sort of meaning. An appeal to our sensibilities, rather than having anything to do with our capacity to reasonably assess an argument.
I don't understand this comment. What does it mean for a belief to be "unreasonable in general" versus a "belief in specific that a position is unreasonable"?
I'm not wanting to argue against theism. I just don't think it's clear that it would make sense for any arbitrary view to respect the belief that it's reasonable while not actually finding the view reasonable.
i mean just because you find it unreasonable - does not mean it is unreasonable.
this may help -
do you believe it is possible for there to be competing reasonable arguments both for and against a specific point?
Oh . . . I don't agree with that. "Reasonable/unreasonable" is a judgment that individuals make, and it's nothing more than that. There is no objective reasonableness that we can get wrong.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Yes, for some things. But not for just any arbitrary thing. It depends on the subject matter, how it's approached, etc.
Completely objective reasonableness may be an unreachable standard. However the concept of reasonableness being nothing more than an individual judgement makes the entire concept of reasoned arguments useless.
party a - I believe this - because 1, 2, 3 etc)
party b - You are unreasonable
party a - why
party b - because I say so, and i am the sole arbiter of reasonableness
Quoting Terrapin Station
and
Quoting Terrapin Station
they seem a little at odds
how about we try it out in specific - here is my full argument -
P1. There exist such things as Theists – defined as human beings who believe in some form of supernatural being or entity - for this argument we will label as “God”
P2. God exists is not a fact - Fact defined as, in the space time plane we exist in, and assuming reality is as our senses perceive it, the item being tested as “fact” conforms to the reality.
P3. God does not exist is not a fact
P4. There are arguments – based on reason – that God does not exist
P5. The arguments in P4 – have reasonable counter arguments
P6. There are arguments – based on reason – an “un-created – creator” existed
P7. The arguments if P6 – have reasonable counter arguments
Conclusion:
Therefore - Theism, as defined, is not in direct conflict with fact. Theism, as defined is not in
direct conflict with reason, since by reason alone there are positions both for an against.
Please tell me which propositions are false, or that the conclusion does not matter
I don't know why you'd think something is useless just because it's an individual judgment. And whether it's an individual judgment or not, simply telling someone that their argument is unreasonable isn't going to make them say, "Oh. Well I guess I'm wrong then."
Re the other comment, I also don't know why those seem at odds to you. You can see how something makes sense in some context but not agree with a conclusion.
On my view P3, P5 and P6 are false.
You seem to be using "reasonable" as "based on reasons" though. In the sense of "based on reasons" where we're looking at that purely descriptively, though, and not evaluatively, then P5 and P6 would be okay, but it would be odd to use especially "reasonable" that way.
maybe we are having a semantic argument:
let me try an example - I find the argument from evil a reasonable argument. the logic is good, the preemies are true, the conclusion follows. I am also aware of the counter arguments to the argument from evil, which I also find reasonable. I chose to believe the counter arguments have more weight and defeat the argument. I do not believe the argument from evil is true. That does not mean it is not a reasonable argument. It also does not mean that my judgement of what I chose to believe is true is or is not correct.
I am using reasonable as based on reason. - not sure what you mean by " that is not evaluative" - can you explain.
and not sure what any of that has to do with P3 which you claim is false
What do you think of my take on the argument? P2 and P3 cannot both be true unless an additional premise stating that [i]whether or not God exists[/I] is not a matter of fact, is also true. That additional premise is false. Therefore the argument is unsound.
let me see if this helps -
I am about to flip a fair coin
It is a matter of fact that the result will be a head or a tail
It is not a matter of fact the result will be a head
it is not a matter of fact the result will be a tail
It is a matter of fact that God is or God is not
It is not a matter of fact that God is
It is not a matter of fact that God is not
Quoting Rank Amateur
Those statements are inconsistent.
I think somewhere in our chat yesterday you made the same point - that just because an argument is reasonable ( based on reason) it may not be true. If memory serves
Yes, it helps clarify that you and I use the phrase "matter of fact" differently. But then, I knew that from the start. By my book, you're breaking the rules of correct usage, which makes it more difficult than it would otherwise be to interpret your meaning.
[I]Whether the result will be a head or a tail[/i] is a matter of fact, and [i]whether God is or God is not[/I] is a matter of fact.
You can say it is a fact that the result will be a head, or it is a fact that God is not. You can say that because, as per the above, these are factual matters.
i agree with that - go on don't stop there -
using your understanding of "matter of fact" can you say either god is a matter of fact, or can you say God is not a matter of fact ?
No, I find that confusing.
Given that, [I]whether the result will be a head or a tail[/i] is a matter of fact, and [i]whether God is or God is not[/I] is a matter of fact, you can say it is a fact that the result will be a head, or it is a fact that God is not. You can say that because, as per the above, these statements fall under the category of factual matters. Matters of fact, as opposed to matters of taste, etc. It's the right category.
In other words, someone might say, "I believe I'm Napoleon, because I ate a taco last night." "Because I ate a taco last night" is a reason they gave for why they believe they're Napoleon. In that sense, their argument is based on (a) reason, and we could say that if "reasonable" simply refers to "being based on (a) reason," then their argument is reasonable. We're simply being descriptive. They had a reason motivating their conclusion.
This is different than us evaluating the merit of their reason, which is usually what "reasonable" connotes--that we've evaluated their reasons/their reasoning, and we've found it satisfactory (otherwise, if we reach a negative evaluation, we say it's unreasonable). "I ate a taco last night" is a reason the person gave for believing that they're Napoleon, but most of us would say that it's not a good reason, that it's not reasonable in an evaluative sense.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Nothing. I brought up the above re P5 and P6 instead.
P3 is false because I think it's pretty clear empirically that it's a fact that there are no gods.
so using YOUR own understanding of MATTER OF FACT - you cant say either God is or is not a matter of fact ??
because:
Quoting S
I have no idea at all what any of that means - not being a jerk - I have no clue at all what you are trying to say here.
can you give me an example ?? try another explanation ?
unsupported - that is just opinion -
Quoting Terrapin Station
fine - than using that definition i still say P4 - P7 stand unless you can make an argument they "unreasonable" as you define it above. Just saying they are not - does not make it so.
I don't really think that the "argument from evil" is reasonable, because it parses evil as if it refers to something objective and not vague.
"Evil" is just a judgment, a negative assessment that individuals make about behavior. Basically, on a continuum, it's all the way to the extreme end of the negative assessment dial.
For me to say that the argument is reasonable, it would have to rest on a more accurate account of what evil is.
I don't think so though. I think it's as clear as anything can be.
do you have an argument to support ??
It's primarily an empirical matter. There's a complete lack of empirical evidence for it.
I say "primarily," because there's also the problem that the claims being made are incoherent, in that they posit things like nonphysical existents, things that "transcend" time, etc.
this is an aside - this is just the same old - lets argue about definitions and not the concept in question. Very very tiresome and unproductive. Especially on a board like this where we don't do pages of argument. Both you and I and most anyone else has a good enough and consistent enough common understanding of evil to argue the concept in the well worn AFE. We use the word truth here all the time - you can take a 2 semester course on the meaning of the word truth. If your objective is just to never constructively answer anything - these definition arguments are a winning tactic -
end of aside
But it's not "just about definitions." It's a matter of what we're claiming to be the case ontologically. The argument as it stands wouldn't make much sense if we're talking about subjective assessments that individuals make.
Lack of empirical evidence is a reasonable argument that God is not. It does not elevate the proposition God is not to the level of fact.
your point is just where exactly on the good - evil continuum you want to draw the line - meaningless. If memory serves, statement in the AFE is - Evil exists - would you say evil ( however you wish to define it) does not exist ?
Facts are states of affairs. It's a state of affairs that there's no God, just like it's a state of affairs that there are no cigar-smoking rabbits floating around in Jupiter's atmosphere.
Quoting Rank AmateurIt doesn't exist as something objective. It's only a judgment that individuals make when they make that judgment. (Not everyone does.)
back to the original argument - I challenge your objection to P3 - due to lack of empirical evidence in support of P3.
There was not empirical evidence about bacteria until there was.
There was not empirical evidence for atoms until there was.
Lack of empirical evidence is a claim of reason - not of fact.
Again, it's both the lack of evidence for it and the incoherence of it. Basically, it's just ridiculous nonsense. You don't reserve judgment on ridiculous nonsense for anything else (like the cigar-smoking rabbits in Jupiter's atmosphere, and that isn't even incoherent)
un basically - that is again - just opinion - which is fine - but one can not defeat a proposition in an argument simply because it is your opinion it is wrong. Make an argument, or allow it.
The arguments for theism demonstrate the existence of a transcendent, and so timeless and immaterial, God; not simply a creature residing somewhere in the universe.
No, I would just say that it's either a fact that God is, or it's a fact that God is not. And the issue as a whole, i.e. whether or not God exists, is a matter of fact, meaning a factual matter, or a matter pertaining to what's the case, or about the current state of affairs, which are just different ways of saying the same thing.
How's that? Are you with me? I don't understand why you're not understanding.
Because it's incoherent. The only way to defeat that is to attempt to make it coherent.
They don't demonstrate something incoherent.
If society is based on consensuses I wouldn't call that subjective meaning or entirely fiction.
I would agree society is based on fictions but I don't think the people that makes societies believe this.
It is hard to justify values and ideologies that are fictions.
I agree 100 % - now useing your words if you say -
" I would just say that it's either a fact that God is, or it's a fact that God is not. "
if both possibilities exist - that is exactly the same thing as saying
it is not a fact that god is or it is not a fact that god is
which are my propositions
you just continue to make declarative statements without support. I understand what you think about the matter - but your opinion is not an argument -
No. Impossible to imagine with our Euclidean minds, but not incoherent.
A thing is a matter of fact.
A thing is not a matter of fact.
In the first proposition, the subject is, “a thing is or a thing is not”, and the predicate is “a matter of fact”.
In the second and third propositions, the subject is “a thing”, and the predicate is “a matter of fact”.
What’s the big deal?
How does "coherent but impossible to imagine" make sense?
So you're getting much more restrictive on reasons here. What are the criteria for support in your view?
Hey! Do you mind? We're trying to talk about God here? :lol:
Anyway, a consensus is intersubjective. And I wasn't calling that fictional. I was calling objective meaning fictional, or like a fiction.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
Oh yes, I agree. There are situations where we treat fiction as though it were real, and situations where we mistakenly believe that something fictional is something real.
if your talking about my argument - not sure how much clearer it could be they a labeled as propositions.
You just said "you just continue to make declarative statements without support" (And I quoted that in my comment above.)
So apparently we don't agree on what counts as "support." Hence I'm asking you what your criteria for support are. What would be the requirements for me supporting a declarative statement I'm making in your view?
It’s impossible to imagine an infinity of something, but that doesn’t make the concept of infinity incoherent.
So you're not saying "impossible to imagine" a la "impossible to make sense" of something then. I was using "incoherent" as "can't make sense of," and you substituted "impossible to imagine" for the term.
So would you say you can make sense of nonphysical existents or something "transcending" time?
to recap
you challenge P3 - due to lack of empirical evidence
I challenge that lack of empirical evidence does not elevate to fact
you challenge back - it is ridiculous nonsense ( without support)
I ask for support
you come back with it is incoherent - without support
I ask for support
you ask me what is support
not sure what exactly is so hard about saying I dont agree because - - - - -
you just keep leaving off the because part
it is ridiculous nonsense because - - - - -
it is incoherent because - - - - -
without the because it is just opinion -
I'm not disputing what counts as a subject and what counts as a predicate there. I'm just saying that, based on how I use those terms, deviations from that usage appear to me to be a category error.
A fish is a mammal.
In this proposition, the subject is, "a fish" , and the predicate is, "a mammal".
What's the big deal?
But then I explained that facts are not something "elevated." Facts are states of affairs, and the state of affairs that's apparent in the world is that there is no God.
You didn't respond to this. So what's your response to it?
I can make sense of something having no beginning and no end, or being able to experience all of time as a whole, rather than from moment to moment; but of course I can’t imagine what that would be like. Perhaps there are logical reasons why you couldn’t have either, akin to why you can’t have a square circle, but I’m not currently aware of any.
because - - - - - --
that is just one more declarative statement without support -
what i imagine you are saying here is a noseeum argument - " i have looked around and I don't see God - god is not " this is a reason based argument - it may be a reasonable argument that God does not exist - but certainly does not support a conclusion that as a matter of fact god does not exist. For your point to do that you would have to argue that you are aware of all the possible states of affairs in the universe, you have examined all of them, and there is no God .
maybe easier if i make this point about unicorns.
P1 - it is not a matter of fact that unicorns exist on earth
P2 - it is not a matter of fact that unicorns to not exist on earth
while i imagine both you and i would agree the arguments overwhelmingly support the belief that unicorns do not exist - it is still possible in some jungle somewhere yet to be looked at there is a unicorn there.
the argument there are no unicorns if reasonable - but it is not a fact.
I can't make any sense of that, because time is simply motion or change. So one, if there's no change or motion we don't have time after all, and two, I can't make sense of what it would be to experience something where there's no motion or change--I could have no change in my thoughts, for example. I can't make sense of experiencing something where that's not an active process.
Right--I can't imagine why you'd not say that in response to anything I'd say, because I have no idea what your criteria are to count as support rather than counting as a declarative statement without support.
For Q to count as support of P rather than just being another declarative statement without support (as P was), Q needs to . . . to what? What are the criteria?
because you have yet to supply any reason whatsoever behind you statement - i even tried to do it for you on the last one. You need to support your statements or they are just opinion
my P3 stands - It is not a fact that God is not - until you can make a reasoned argument that it is a matter of fact that god is not - this is how argument works.
do you have a complete and reasoned argument against P3 - if not allow it
That would imply that you have criteria for what counts as reasons.
So, for example, "I believe I'm Napoleon because I ate a taco last night." Is "because I ate a taco last night" a reason there or not?
supply just one and I will let you know.
wait - take that back - you have supplied one - - no empirical evidence - which i addressed, that is how it works.
Right. So one reason that we know that it's a fact that there is no god is that there's no empirical evidence at all that there is a god. Now, you'd say that's not a reason, it's simply a "declarative statement without support."
So that means it doesn't meet some criterion you have for a sentence, Q, to count as a reason for or to count as support of another sentence, P. We need to figure out what your criteria are.
second aside - I have no clue what so ever is so hard about an acknowledgement that there is no knowledge that we can elevate to fact to say that God is or God is not. That it is not in the realm of science - it is a matter of philosophy of reason - not fact - no clue why that has generated such argument.
I actually don’t know enough about God’s timelessness/immutability to argue about this. But my initial point stands; he’s not anything at all like an orbiting rabbit.
To be clear, it was inquired that, given an dedicated understanding of a predicate of a logical proposition (matter of fact), could it be argued that breaking down a proposition with a compound subject (a thing is or is not) into a single subject proposition (a thing is) and its negation (a thing is not), have the strictly equivalent degree of validity?
I’m suggesting it cannot be expected that one formal instance of understanding transfers unequivocably to separated propositions. In this case, the proposition constructed with a compounded subject and its predicate is an analytic true statement, whereas the separated propositions both require a formal synthesis in order to even be possibly true. Thus, the same understanding cannot justify all three at the same time.
I’m saying you threw a metaphysical monkey wrench into an otherwise respectable dialectic by forcing a co-conversant to argue from an irrational position.
Nevertheless.......carry on!!!!!
No - that was a argument - if you remember way back to the first time - my argument back was - the lack of empirical evidence is a very good reasonable argument that god does not exist. It does not however make it a fact. As an example - there was no empirical evidence at one time for the atom - until there was.
next
I agree completely with that statement
Quoting Mww
If you go back to the beginning I never propositioned all 3 - all three were thrown in by those trying to argue against my 2 propositions.
If you can somehow help us out of the morass about what is or is not fact i would welcome your view.
Yeah, categorical error, or error of equivocation. Dunno. Just didn’t sound right.
‘Nuff said?
I already responded to this. Do you withhold judgment on everything conceivable that there's no empirical evidence for, no matter how crazy the idea is?
I would say the only thing factual that can be said on the lack of empirical evidence, is that it is a lack or empirical evidence.
there is however almost limitless empirical evidence of things that there was no empirical evidence for, until there was.
Sure. So you wouldn't say that it's a fact that there's no easter bunny, for example?
on P3 - what is your current objection, and its basis
onP,4-7 I think you have already allowed - but I am not sure
where those your only objections ?
really would like to stay in the framework of the argument if we can
i would say if we can agree on what a bunny is - and not go off into some definition argument
and we can say we know something factual about the capabilities of such bunnies
I would say it is a fact that there is no such bunny that flies around the world filling baskets in houses
around the world on Easter Sunday
But with the Easter bunny notion, that's not even incoherent. There's just no evidence for it. So it doesn't seem consistent for you to not say that it's not a fact, there's just no empirical evidence for it--until there is.
no - as I said it is a fact that such things as bunnies exist, it is a fact we know the capabilities of these things we call bunnies, it is a fact that the these capabilities do not include filling baskets around the world on Easter Sunday.
you contest P3 - " it is not a fact that god is not" -
there is only one way and one way only to contest that point - make a case that it IS A FACT that God is not. So far you have made one case, which i believe I have countered effectively. Please note there is no burden on me on this proposition to prove that it is a fact that God is, that is not the proposition.
await your back on track - or concede the point please
Not interested in helping anybody out......usually on lending a helping hand, one comes away missing some fingers.
My view.....because you did ask.....on the syllogism on pg3 and pg8:
It would hard for me to concur that the conclusion follows from the argument because the conclusion says....
“..Theism, as defined......(once), Theism, as defined....(twice).....
.......but theism isn’t so defined anywhere in the list of premises. P1 says theist, defined as. If the inclusion of “theism” into the conclusion was meant to be rhetorical, insofar as it should be accepted as prima facia understanding derived from P1, fine. Shoulda said so, seems like. Nonetheless, I can say without hesitation I agree with the statements stipulated by the conclusion but not that it *IS* itself, a conclusion to a logical argument.
I’m not so sure a series of antinomies qualifies as a logical argument anyway. One premise says this, the next premise says not this, when it should be, one premise says this and the next premise says that. Any cognitively intelligible statement has its own negation given immediately, as a matter of course; that’s just the way the human thinking system works. So it’s irrelevant to premise what reason already gives necessarily.
I’m a serious reductionist. For me, defining what a “fact” is, even to qualify its limits, doesn’t say anything about the altogether tentative nature of human knowledge which are also generally the same limits placed on the “facts”. Something is needed to prevent falsification of the premise because it lacks the conditions of time.
P1, 4,5,6,7 are acceptable stand-alone affirmative judgements, but as logical premises......ehhhhhh, it’s your show. Treat ‘em as you wish.
it was in P1 I believe - it was defined as a belief in a supernatural entity
In hindsight I would have been better of just having a proposition that the existence of God is not a fact. instead of P2 - P3 -
Quoting Mww
agree - would be happy to amend it to our existing knowledge at this time.
thanks the help - watch your fingers
So in other words, the idea is that given that you're okay saying it's a fact that there's no x on an absence of evidence of it even when the idea of an x is coherent (for example, the Easter bunny), it's even stronger to say that there's no x on an absence of evidence when the idea of the x isn't coherent (as with gods).
(And this is the argument for P3 being false. It's not a proof per se. Empirical claims are not provable period, including "There is no Easter bunny," including "I have a refrigerator in my kitchen," etc.)
no I am saying there IS EVIDENCE, scientific evidence, that we know what bunnies are. I am also saying there is scientific evidence that we know the capabilities of bunnies. I am saying as fact that there is scientific evidence that the ability to fill Easter baskets around the world on Easter is outside these capabilities. therefor no Easter bunny.
This is not the no-seeum argument you were making before - there is lots of empirical evidence about such things as we call bunnies, and their capabilities. Wouldn't you agree?
What is meaning? It is some sort of a feeling that drives us. When we feel it there is nothing to explain, the feeling is the whole meaning, the 'why' we are doing what we do. And when we don't feel it it's like there is no meaning and no amount of rationality can make us find one.
Various people are driven by different things. The desire to make one's children happy, that can be the meaning of one's life. Or the desire to achieve such or such thing. Then we might ask in the end what's the point? But we need to feel it to see the point.
The beliefs we hold have an impact on what gives us meaning also. Meaning is subjective to a great extent and I don't think you would find one that applies to everyone. You have to find yours.
How would there even be anything "supernatural"?
But both can't be true. So your argument isn't sound. P3 and P4 render your argument necessarily unsound.
Are you aware that on atheism you’re forced to believe the universe just is, and there’s no explanation why? That some part of it accounts for its own existence, by what you can very fairly characterise as magic?
Yep.
No, there are other ways. I've argued that it can't possibly be true in combination with your other premise which contradicts it. It's also possible to reject the premise on the basis that it's unjustified, as opposed to on the basis that it's false. Be careful not to commit the fallacy of an argument from ignorance.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Correct. Your burden is to justify your premise that it's not a fact that god is not. But that's not possible in light of the contradiction.
It makes no sense to me why you'd think theism is any different in that regard. (Keeping in mind that I use the term "the universe" to refer to everything.)
Well I believe theism is different in that regard, but that’s beside the point of my question, which is that if you acknowledge the magical element of atheism, why do you find theism so ludicrous? The universe either accounts for its own existence, or something beyond it does.
Now you can go look for another semantic argument if you wish, because you have yet to make a meaningful one.
There can't be something "beyond" the universe. If there were a god, the god would be part of the universe. Again, I use "universe" to refer to everything.
No matter what, we're only left with either things appearing "out of nowhere" or with things always existing, and both are counterintuitive. There's no way around that. So although counterintuitive, there are simply no other options.
I'm not a "scientism" adherent, by the way, a la treating current scientific claims like a religion. Science forwards a lot of nonsense.
Finally, a concession. It would've been nice if you'd have realised your error sooner, but hey ho. Late is better than never.
That’s pure question-begging, amounting to nothing more than, “You’re wrong, because I’m right.”
:up:
The begging the question fallacy occurs when the premise of an argument assumes the conclusion of the argument.
I don't even know what you'd be reading as my premise(s) and my conclusion.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Quoting Terrapin Station
Those are your premises and conclusions, combined.
An error's an error. A good argument should contain premises which can be clearly understood. Your meaning wasn't made clear until many pages later. You're responsible for that.
And I stand by my criticism as a whole. That was just a part. Resolving one part doesn't get you out of the water.
Re "beyond the universe" I'm telling you how I use the term "universe." That's not an argument, it's a statement about a concept per my usage.
Re the paragraph starting with "No matter what," that's again not an argument. It's simply a statement reporting what I believe to be a logical dichotomy. If you know of a third option, I'd be glad to hear it.
At any rate, for some reason you're taking me to be forwarding arguments with premises and conclusions when I'm not.
Don't remember your other specific objections. Happy to address them if you wish to restate and continue
An error's an error. A good argument should contain premises which can be clearly understood. Your meaning wasn't made clear until many pages later. You're responsible
Agree - mean culpa, do you now accept the new P2?
Hmmm......
How can an atheist be accused of magical thinking if he happens to accord with a theist’s belief, re: the Universe either accounts for its own existence or something else does?
Ah yes, I remember how it is. You want me to do all the work. I've already provided the criticism.
Quoting Rank Amateur
[S]I don't accept it as true, no. Why wouldn't whether or not some form of supernatural being or entity be a factual matter whereby the scientific method is relevant and applicable?[/s] Oh wait, never mind, because it's supernatural, right?
Okay, then yes, I accept that premise. But I don't accept that there's a reasonable argument for believing in anything supernatural.
And your concept of the universe is question-begging: By defining it as “everything” you assume there is nothing beyond it, and therefore no God, which is precisely the issue under discussion.
Quoting Terrapin Station
The third option is creation by a transcendent God, which your dichotomy precludes because it assumes there isn’t one.
Quoting Terrapin Station
You are, your premises are your conclusions, and vice versa.
Because if it was a scientific fact, it would then defeat my conclusion, if it was scientific fact that God is not, my theism is unreasonable. But now your challenge to P2 is, it doesn't matter? Or that it is not true?
Can I get a direct answer to a direct question please, is the new P2 true? The existence or non existence of God is not a scientific fact.
Direct answers make this go much faster.
The universe either accounts for its own existence, or something beyond it does. The atheist doesn’t accord with the second option, since a creator beyond the universe is what we call God.
Quoting S
But it's not an argument, lol. Only arguments can have argumentative fallacies. It doesn't make any sense to apply argumentative fallacies to things that aren't arguments.
Quoting AJJ
Not at all. In fact, I explicitly wrote above that if there were a god, that god would be a part of the universe per how I use the term "universe." Didn't you read that when I wrote it above?
There can't be anything beyond the universe per my usage of universe, because whatever there is, whatever its nature would be--including gods--it would be part of the universe. All I'm doing there is telling you how I use a term.
Quoting AJJ
That's not a third option. Either the god always existed or it appeared from nothing.
The two things you're having an issue with here have absolutely nothing to do with an argument re whether a god exists or not.
I wasn't saying anything about the "nature" of anything. I simply said that logically, there are only two options no matter what. Either "always existed" or "appeared spontaneously."
I choose to speak for myself alone, so when I say it is a tautologically true statement that the Universe either accounts for its own existence or something beyond it does, I attend the statement to a rational thinking subject without any other qualifiers, insofar as no one should have logical ground to falsify that statement.
So why exactly.....or even how, for that matter.....does an atheist NOT accord with it? Well, actually, he doesn’t, because he can’t.
It isn’t the ends of that statement with which he finds exception; it’s the means. So in effect, you are insisting the magical thinking on atheistic display derives from the fact he doesn’t agree with a specific kind of creator beyond the Universe which theists think to be the cause of it, when he is actually only stipulating that it must be something possible, and that IFF the Universe doesn’t or can’t account for itself.
OK, fine. Wonderful, in fact. Now all a theist has to do is substantially demonstrate how the creator beyond the Universe must be any less magically thought than the atheist who substantially demonstrates the opposite.
Your definition requires that your conclusion - that there is nothing beyond the universe - is true. That makes your definition question-begging; no need to be concrete about it.
Quoting Terrapin Station
And I explained that God, according to classical monotheism, is not a creature within the universe, but rather an entity beyond it. A god that was part of the universe would not be God, because it would be subject to the magic that accounted for its existence.
Again, whether there is something beyond the universe is what is under discussion; to define it away begs the question.
Quoting Terrapin Station
God, according to the arguments for theism, is eternal by virtue of being beyond the universe, and so beyond time. This is different to simply being an inexplicably necessary part of the universe.
Because God has the quality of eternality by virtue of being beyond time, not just because. The atheist, by contrast, must rest his belief about the universe on precisely that ”just because”.
As Carl Sagan would say, why not just say that the universe always existed, instead of saying that some God that always existed created the universe?
Because applying eternality to the universe is arbitrary and completely lacking in explanation. God, by virtue of being beyond time, is necessarily eternal.
Is that what an atheist rests his belief on? The Universe exists just because the Universe exists? If that’s true, I’m sure as hell not sending him any get-well-soon cards, that’s for sure.
Can you....do you have the capacity.....to explain the concept “beyond time”, such that anyone considering the phrase as the result of magical thinking, would have to change his mind?
But then one could say it is no more arbitrary than invoking an additional eternal entity.
Yes, unless I’m missing something the atheist is forced to believe that.
Beyond time, not subject to time, does not begin, does not end, does not change.
It's just what the word means. I use the word the same way as him, as do lots of other people.
It’s invoked as an explanation in the absence of one, arrived at through various logical steps, and not simply created to suit an already settled outlook.
Sorry, ignore that, I answered too quickly, and then edited my comment, but obviously not in time. Please see the edit.
Using it that way in the context of an argument about the existence of God makes it question-begging; it assumes that there is nothing beyond the universe, the issue under discussion.
Then I am missing something as well, because I don’t agree that an atheist is forced to think the Universe exists just because. Only the rationally deficient thinks a thing without a reason for it.
Do you see that upon any examination by anybody on anything whatsoever, such examination automatically and necessarily subsumes its object under the concept of time?
“...intuitions without concepts are empty; concepts without intuitions are blind...”
It's not a conclusion. It's a stipulation about how I'm using a term.
Let's try to get one thing sorted out at a time so that I don't have to keep repeating myself.
Do you understand the difference between a conclusion and a stipulation about how I'm using a term?
"Beyond the universe" is what we call a contradiction in terms.
I would prefer it if you addressed what I've already said about your argument. Regarding your first premise, yes, obviously there are theists, and obviously there are theists who fit your description. It would be much more productive if you addressed the parts of your argument which I've made it known that I object to, and have provided reasons for these objections, setting aside what we've resolved.
I [i]could[/I] go back over it, but that would take some effort, and I don't really feel like doing that right now. I'll await your reply.
p3. There are arguments – based on reason – that God does not exist
Agree?
The arguments for theism demonstrate the existence of an entity beyond the universe; that is what you’re up against when you argue in opposition to theism. If you define the universe as “everything”, you define away precisely what is under discussion; that’s called begging the question, because your conclusion is there within your argument.
Only if you’re using your question-begging definition of the universe.
In my comment about how I use the word "universe," I'm not arguing anything, for or against. Do you understand this?
I agree, but that doesn't mean that they're reasonable (by the definition I go by). As I've said, even fallacious arguments are based on reason, yet fallacious arguments are unreasonable. It's possible that [i]none[/I] of the arguments for theism are reasonable.
You are, implicitly. Do you understand this?
I don't agree with that, no. How am I implicitly arguing something?
Your definition of the universe precludes that there can be anything beyond it, the issue under discussion. Your implict argument runs: “The universe is everything, so there can be nothing beyond the universe, because the universe is everything.”
This is your problem, not mine. If you want to avoid the contradiction, then use a different word instead of the word "universe", because the word "universe" means everything that exists.
That's not understanding the difference between (a) an argument for or against anything, and (b) a stipulation about how I'm using a term.
I'm not saying anything at all (in these comments about how I use the term "universe") about what does or doesn't exist, what can or can't exist. I'm simply making a declaration that whatever exists, I'm going to call it "part of the universe."
It would be no different than if I were to say that I'm going to say that everything is part of "shplabeeblewaffle." I'm simply announcing that I apply a sound to anything that exists, whatever it is, including gods, including timeless things--whatever imaginable it might be.
I know, right?
But God is God precisely because he is not a part of anything. If he was, he would he subject to a higher encompassing reality, and so vulnerable to the same criticisms you can make against necessity in atheism.
No, it’s yours. Because your definition is question-begging and mine is not.
Incorrect. I'm telling you how I use the word. I use the word in the way that is commonly understood. And I'm pointing out that, going by this meaning, your statement is a contradiction in terms.
If you go by a different meaning, then so be it. If so, then I think you should use a different term to distinguish your meaning from the commonly understood meaning.
Then the way you’re using it is question-begging, and the way it is commonly understood is also question-begging, in the context of this argument.
Incorrect.
Oh right, sorry, didn’t realise.
And you probably still don't. Apology accepted.
Agree
Let's just move on to the conclusion. You don't need my acceptance of your premises, we can just assume that for argument's sake.
Now, setting facts and scientific facts aside for the time being, you can either say something about theism not being in conflict with "reason", which is trivial given your meaning of "reason" as distinguished from reasonable, and which misses the point; or you can say that it's reasonable, which doesn't follow from your argument. So it's lose-lose.
Conclusion:
Therefore theism as defined, is not in direct conflict with scientific fact. Theism, as defined is not in
direct conflict with reason, since by reason alone there are positions both for an against.
Accept?
I accept it (with the addition of some minor qualifications). Now, are you going to address the problems with it?
The reason is that on atheism there is nothing beyond the universe to account for its existence, so it has to account for itself, and for no reason.
Quoting Mww
Does it? God’s timelessness necessarily means he has no beginning, no end and does not change. By describing him this way God is not “subsumed under the concept of time”, and such a description seems perfectly intuitive to me.
No, you don't seem to understand. I asked whether [I]you[/I] are going to address the problems with it:
Quoting S
If you're happy to, then please go ahead.
Terrapin has also made that first point, more or less.
If you have an issue with the difference between a position based on reason, and reasonable. Do some work, state your position clearly and make an argument.
I don't read anyone here not respecting that you believe theism is a reasonable belief. They're arguing that theism is not a reasonable belief, not that you're not allowed to believe it is.
You do have a problem. I have agreed with an argument which misses the point, also known as irrelevant conclusion or by the Latin [i]ignoratio elenchi[/I].
Quoting Rank Amateur
It has been made by myself multiple times, and it has been made by Terrapin. Why should it be repeated? Argument from repetition? That's an informal fallacy, you know.
A position which rejects a contradiction in terms is somehow less reasonable than a position which entertains and accepts it. Good argument.
What next? Square circles?
It’s only a contradiction in terms if you’re using your question-begging definition of the universe.
You're suggesting that we should make a special exception so that a word means something completely different just so you can avoid a contradiction in terms and make your argument which concludes that God exists. That's unreasonable and clearly driven by your motive.
Correct, I've never seen "Rick and Morty". I've been too busy refuting arguments for theism and getting shwifty.
I’m suggesting that you shouldn’t use a question-begging definition in your argument. It’s unreasonable and clearly driven by your motive.
And highly likely that what ever I chose to address would be the wrong one, or there was more to it, or or or
So how about in one place, you make a succinct and complete argument with support and I will be happy to address
You're suggesting that we should make a special exception so that a word means something completely different just so you can avoid a contradiction in terms and make your argument which concludes that God exists. That's unreasonable and clearly driven by your motive.
Your turn.
A two-wheeled handcart used especially by street vendors, an ancient burial mound, or a male pig castrated before maturity.
Look. Here’s the first definition of “universe” from my Dictionary app: “the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space”. This definition does not assume or preclude the existence or non-existence of God.
Here’s your definition: “everything”. This definition assumes there is no God (because God is necessarily beyond the universe), and also precludes the possibility that He exists. It is a question-begging definition, and not even in my dictionary app.
Looked it up:
OK, guess you better talk to a real atheist, or at least somebody who actually gives a crap about stuff outside time and space, cuz you’re not giving me anything to work with here. Such blanket, catch-all ideas like outside time, beyond time, not subject to time......beyond the Universe......just ain’t got no substance. Easy to say, easy to believe, pretty damn hard to explain.
To each, and all that.
Of course you’ve been given things to work with. Simply characterising them the way you do is a cop-out.
Either the universe accounts for its own existence - by some inexplicable magic - or an entity beyond it does, which necessarily has the attributes of being timeless and immaterial. They are not arbitrary predications, and simply calling it nonsense does not make it so.
The only "things" I know of which could possibly qualify as having those attributes are concepts. If you're going to suggest that God is not a concept, and that God is a special exception, then you have a burden to justify that.
No, my friend, I have not been given anything except that which appears to me as nothing but blanket, catch-all generalizations. And I don’t cop out because of them; I simply don’t know how to respond. The concepts as you present them are completely foreign to me, and, I think you are mistaken in your characterization of atheism the doctrine.
Edit: I see you’ve qualified the “Universe accounts for its own existence”, by adding “by some inexplicable magic”. I don’t know if atheists in general call it inexplicable magic, but I do know theoretical astrophysicists certainly do not. Solving 4 of Einstein’s 10 field equations for GR gives rise to the possibility of quantum singularity at t0, from which the origin of the Universe as we know is given. Maybe.
Now you're being all Aspieish about "part." That's not the idea. If there is an x--whatever imaginable x is--I label it as "the universe"
If there are timeless and immaterial things, per how I use language, the universe has timeless and immaterial things.
And, on the face of it, that makes sense. If there were no universe, would there be timeless and immaterial things? I think that most people would think that there would be nothing.
God is a logical alternative to atheism’s universe-by-magic. If the universe is not the source of itself, then its source is beyond it, and so necessarily timeless and immaterial. The argument for God is an argument for, and a justification for believing in, a spaceless, timelss Creator.
That's a dodge. If you expect people to reasonably believe that this supposed alternative possibility is plausible, then you must justify what appears to be special pleading.
Settle down. So if x is a pencil, you label the pencil “the universe”? Perhaps you’ve mistyped.
Quoting Terrapin Station
God can’t be “had” by the universe for the same reason I gave in my last post; he would be subject to it, and therefore not God. And we’ve established that your definition is peculiar using two dictionaries.
Saying it’s a dodge does not make it a dodge.
Correct, it being a dodge makes it a dodge.
If you expect people to reasonably believe that this supposed alternative possibility is plausible, then you must justify what appears to be special pleading. You have yet to do so. What's arguably timeless, immaterial, and outside of space are concepts. If God is not a concept, then justify what appears to be special pleading.
(Sigh)
Saying it’s magical thinking doesn’t make it magical thinking.
It's part of it if you think there's more than that thing in it. If you think there's only that thing in it, then it's the universe. I'm not being persnickety about that. I'm not being persnickety about grammar. I don't care about that. Everything that exists in any manner, whatever its nature, is the universe in my usage of the term.
Quoting AJJ
All I care about at the moment is that you understand how I personally use the term "universe"--it should be like a kindergarten-level thing to explain, but it's amazingly difficult to get it across to you. At any rate, so I'm not interested in making any sort of ontological claim at the moment at all. So, if you have a god and you also have things (or just one thing--whatever your ontology is) that the god isn't subject to, which is what you're suggesting above, then per the way I'm using language, there's a part of the universe that god isn't subject to, but there's also the part of the universe that's god. (or maybe a subpart of god that's the other stuff that he's not subject to--again, whatever your ontology is)
It's fine if my definition is peculiar. I never claimed otherwise. I'd be fine if I'm the only person in the world who is using it. I couldn't care less. Nevertheless, that's the way I use the term. It's not difficult to understand that that's the way I use the term.
Magical thinking, according to the interwebs, is the belief that one's own thoughts, wishes, or desires can influence the external world. It is common in very young children. A four-year-old child, for example, might believe that after wishing for a pony, one will appear at his or her house.
These two ways of thinking are not the same. It's misleading to call the former magical thinking.
What's more, magical thinking seems much more like believing that there's a timeless, immaterial, creator of the universe who is conscious and beyond space.
My justification is that to avoid atheism’s universe-by-magic, you must posit a source beyond the universe, which, being beyond the universe, is necessarily spacless and timeless, not arbitrarily so, because it is beyond the universe, of which space and time are a part. To have creative power it must also be conscious, because as I think you’ll agree, concepts have no creative powers per se. The name we give to this entity is God.
No, but believing that the universe accounts for its own existence is, in my humble opinion, magical thinking.
That's not a justification, because atheism doesn't posit a universe-by-magic, and your supposed alternative possibility to atheism is implausible and an instance of special pleading. A concept can't create the universe. A concept can't take actions. And a concept is all I have reason to believe might have these attributes you mention.
What is this magic of which you speak? :lol:
I’m not misunderstanding the way you’re using the word. Your definition is problematic because it makes it impossible to speak properly about God, who is beyond and the source of the universe as commonly defined. He’s not beyond, but part of, but not subject to the universe, however you define it, because that’s just heap of contradictions.
My usage of the term wouldn't change anything whatsoever about anyone's ontology. It just changes whether we're saying that something belongs to the universe or not. God would simply be beyond the source of the rest of the universe.
Is such a thing as a singularity a scientific fact? Does it rise to the level of scientific theory, which I assume you know has a specific meaning, think theory of gravity?
Consider this, if you please: the Universe can account for its own existence, but cannot be supposed as the cause of its own existence. The former carries the mandatory presupposition the Universe already exists, from which the account for it would logically be contained in it. The latter, on the other hand, falsifies the almost mandatory principle of cause and effect, which as far as our human intelligence is concerned, is categorically self-defeating.
Accepting these conditions (or some equivalents) permits your causal hypotheticals, but as soon as you objectify them, by bringing them out into the world, you have to justify them with something stronger than overly generalized assertions, in just the same way non-theists justify theirs.
To say the universe brought itself into existence, or has always existed for no reason is magical talk. You’ll have to explain why it’s special pleading.
Quoting S
I know, that’s why the source of the universe can’t be simply be a concept, as I said. Again, you’ll have to explain why what I’ve posited is special pleading.
Yes.
Quoting AJJ
So God's a concept? But wait, God can't be, that wouldn't make sense. So God's a special exception? But wait, there's no justification for that. So we shouldn't believe that God, defined as such, exists.
Gnarly dude, that. Fuzzy hair, no socks......and a brain the size of Montana, I swear.
How is it "magical talk" when those are the only options?* If you introduce god, either he has always existed (maybe in timeless existence if you think that makes sense), or he suddenly appeared at some point.
(*footnote: it's more "spontaneously appeared" for the first option)
No it isn't, and that's a false dichotomy. What about there's no [i]known[/I] reason?
Quoting AJJ
I have, so I interpret that as a request to needlessly repeat myself, which is a request I refuse, as I refused Rank Amateur when he tried that shit with me earlier.
Quoting AJJ
Then you must justify the special exception to the rule, which you have yet to do.
Ever feel like you're going around in circles?
Which is nonsense, because God as defined by classical theism is the source of the universe, all of it. Your strange definition makes it impossible to argue properly about God.
He is posited as the source of the universe, so necessarily exists, and is necessarily timeless, so He can’t possibly have begun to exist, and therefore must always have existed.
Yes, I think it’s called the Big Bang Theory, which has its roots in.....can you believe it? A Catholic priest’s?......essay on “the hypothesis of the primeval atom”, and no, the singularity is not a scientific fact because we have yet to experimentally replicate even the possible conditions for one.
It’s all mathematical, and apparently, if complex mathematics isn’t magical enough, throw a bunch of words at the blank spots and call it good.
Dog.
Meet tail.
Have fun!!!
The reason is either within the universe, in which case the universe is its own source, or it is beyond the universe, in which case it is God. Unless you can think of one, there is no other option.
Quoting S
I’m calling BS on that then. There are no unfavourable aspects of my case that you’ve pointed out and I’ve ignored. What I’ve said is itself a justification for believing in God; asking for a justification of the justification is silly, so unless you can be specific with your objections, rather than throwing alleged fallacies around, I’m bored and don’t want to argue about this anymore.
Which is in line with the notion that either something always existed or that whatever exists spontaneously appeared.
That's simply using "universe" in a different way, which is fine. That's just not the way I use the term. The way I use the term doesn't change anything other than a word we're applying to things.
Yes, but God has always existed by virtue of his own, necessary, nature. The universe, if it has such a nature, cannot have it necessarily, but rather by some kind of magic.
It changes everything. As I’ve pointed out and demonstrated, it makes it impossible to talk properly about God.
Why not?
Quoting AJJ
Wouldn't you be able to talk "properly" about God without even using the word "universe"?
You haven't provided anything that I accept to be a justification for what would otherwise be special pleading, and I explain why I don't accept your attempt at justification further down this post.
And we don't know anything about any possible "event" - if that's even the right word - prior to the Big Bang, or even if there [I]was[/I] a "prior" to the Big Bang.
Quoting AJJ
Your attempted justification relied on a dichotomy between, on the one hand, magical thinking, which is not the explanation that has been proposed, and not an accurate description of the explanation proposed; and on the other hand, something which has a certain set of attributes which I only know can arguably apply to concepts. You rule out the first option based on a mischaracterisation, so that option remains for consideration, and I consider it more plausible than unnecessarily positing a fantastical being which we're to simply accept as a special exception to the rule [i]just because[/I].
This part I am not sure of, but I think general relativity breaks down before singularity into quantum mechanics. Where the physics is now, is trying to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics.
God is necessarily timeless, and has his eternality by virtue of this. The universe is not timeless, so if it has eternality then it just has it, for no reason, as if by magic.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Yeah. But you can’t talk properly about Him using your definition of “universe”.
"The universe has always existed by virtue of its own, necessary, nature."--what does that have to do with "timelessness"?
Quoting AJJ
You could say exactly the same things sans the word "universe."
Well if there wasn’t anything prior to the Big Bang then either the universe brought itself into existence or it was created.
Everything else you said was assertion and prejudice. You’ll disagree, of course, but I’m bored and I don’t care.
Nothing. But that’s exactly what I’m calling magical thinking.
Quoting Terrapin Station
I’ll just say it again. Your definition of “universe” makes it impossible to talk properly about God, as I’ve said, and demonstrated.
That's merely based on an "if", so it's no refutation. Back to the drawing board you go.
Quoting AJJ
Sure, [I]I'm[/I] the one who's making bald assertions and saying stuff out of prejudice. Your accusations of magical thinking are perfectly reasonable and reflect your impartial judgement. :ok:
If either side of the choice of "always existed" or "spontaneously popped into existence" is "magical thinking," then " magical thinking" is unavoidable, and what of it?
Quoting AJJ
You just said that we could talk properly about god without even using the word "universe." You can do that under the way I use universe, too--you can talk properly about god without even using the word "universe." So in that regard it's the same. My usage of the term would make no practical difference.
Hey....you asked me if there was a theory; common decorum mandates that I answer.
Yeah, odd isn’t it? GR points to a sub-Planck dynamic but falls apart as an explanatory device once it gets there.
There may be no philosophical difference in the conceptual imaginings, but there is a significant difference in the verification in the phenomenal aspect of those imaginings. Even if it is said such verifications are themselves based on a form of philosophical theory, it remains much more objectively manifest than any other. Pretty hard to argue the objectivity of gravity philosophically after falling out of a tree.
Yeah, fine.
It’s magical, and God isn’t. You’ll disagree, of course, but I think we’re about finished with this argument for the time being.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Your definition does make a practical difference, as I’ve said, and demonstrated. Again, I’ve demonstrated it, it’s a problem, as I’ve demonstrated.
You’d have to be a bloody fool to, so go ahead.
Roger that. But I’m a metaphysical kinda guy, so it’s fine with me. Still, there was a time when mathematics wasn’t associated with off-planet possibilities, but now Voyager2 is out of the solar system, and hasn’t fallen apart or disappeared like it never was, so.....maybe Tegmark was right after all.
Besides, I got me one of those bigger-than-really-necessary backyard telescopes, and when I point that sucka anywhere in the up direction.......(gasp).....sufficient reason to think empirically, if you ask me.
You're right, I should be more level-headed, like you, and believe in a timeless, spaceless, eternal, conscious, immaterial, transcendent, yakety yak baloney.
So I have to wonder how you're defining "magical." What does that refer to, exactly? What are the criteria for a claim being magical versus not-magical?
Magical because it exists for no reason, by virtue of nothing except its own inexplicable nature. Call that something else if you want, I call it magic; or worse, since there isn’t even anyone holding the wand.
So in the case of God, the reason is?
He exists as the universe’s explanation and his timelessness makes him eternal.
Wait, so the reason that god that exists is that he's the explanation of the universe, so that his existence hinges on that? God didn't exist prior to the universe?
He’s eternal. I meant he’s posited as the explanation for the universe.
Relativity works, where it works and doesn't work, where it doesn't work. About a million years ago in a some physics class I was told to just to the calculations. Don't argue which machine is right, or better, or anything. Pick the right one for the job, plug in the numbers and turn the crank. As you can see that stayed with me.
(Chuckles to self) Wasn’t it Feynman that said, “shut up and calculate!!!”? Maybe Wheeler. I can’t remember. One of those theoretical eggheads.
You know....we’ve never been where relativity doesn’t work. We’re pretty sure there are those kinda places, but we won’t have that first-person direct experience for awhile yet, methinks. And I have to say, I don’t think we’ll ever be in a place where a supernatural explanation will be necessary for anything GR doesn’t explain already.
Graham Oppy is a distinguished atheist philosopher of religion, don’t know how well known he is, but he simply believes that there is a necessary part of the universe, while accepting that theism is reasonable also.
Crap. Forgot the EPR spooky action. OK....I’ll grant your counterpoint. You know that’s up to 14 miles now, last I read about anyway. Chinese did it a few years ago.
Here's the problem: that's not an argument against atheism, or agnosticism if you prefer. It's just an argument against one possible atheistic position out of multiple possible atheistic positions. Even if you manage to refute this one position, you still will not have refuted atheism.
It's actually an even bigger problem than that, because you base your reasoning for concluding theism on ruling out atheism. So, with the failure to rule out atheism, your whole argument for theism collapses.
The obvious alternative, which I've pointed out to you previously, and which you have found too challenging to refute, is that there's no [I]known[/I] reason.
Scepticism beats theism.
This is the kind of crap which always seems to turn up in these debates about 'God'. Who on earth is the "we" you are referring to in your last sentence?
2 billion theists are Christian, which means that for them 'God' sent his son to earth who spoke to his twelve disciples about his father's will. About a billion are Muslims, which means that for them 'God' is the entity which spoke directly to Mohammed providing him with certain instructions on how to live and what comes after death. There's about 14 million Jews for whom 'God' parted the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to flee Egypt and then instructed Moses on how to live. There are 900 million Hindus for whom 'God' is any of a number of entities governing the eternal cycle of birth and rebirth.
Given the number of people on the planet, there's not a lot of room for a group who think 'God' is just a spaceless and timeless entity beyond the universe (whatever the hell that means) and nothing else.
Yes, a classic confusion between that which can be said (by virtue of stringing some words together) and that which has any actual meaning for either party.
Despite protestations to the contrary, I still maintain the evidence from religion is that what 'God' means to most theists is much closer to Zeus than it is to a theory in astrophysics as it is so often worded.
Thank you and this is my first post.
Leave Britney alone! Stop being so critical! She can shave off all of her hair and attack people with an umbrella if she wants to! I just can't come up with a strong enough argument, so I'm resorting to an appeal for sympathy and giving up! :clap: :lol:
Yes, I agree. I'm convinced that, in truth, it boils down to an emotional yearning. Underneath it all is the Sky Daddy, the Holy Coping Mechanism. What I say is, throw away the crutches, you might just discover that you can walk perfectly well without them. These people have yet to discover that God is dead.
That's fine, but weren't you talking about the reason for God's existence? Why/How God exists in the first place? You're not saying that the reason for God's existence is that He's posited as the explanation for the universe, are you?
He’s necessary, which means that He can’t not exist. Through various logical steps, and I’ve tried to demonstrate some of those as well as I can, He is shown to be the necessary source of the universe.
But that's magical thinking on your definition.
Even if by chance he was necessary, that says nothing about whether he was sufficient. Logically speaking then, he has no more power for the causation of the Universe than natural law.
No, because of everything I’ve already said.
He does, because of everything I’ve already said.
So if we were to say something like "the universe is necessary for our experiences" that wouldn't be magical thinking re the universe (sans God) necessarily existing?
If you’re gonna pick a fight, at least come to the battlefield as well prepared as those you pick a fight with. Showing up and saying Hey, I’m here, now y’all go ahead and give up right now.....is a good way to get your helmet handed back to you in pieces.
Come on now, guys. Allow him some respite. There's only so much criticism he can take before his coping mechanism kicks in.
Fuck it, let's continue. Now, one argument from him I've seen is that God is necessary as an answer because atheistic answers are ruled out. But by his argument, he would've only ruled out one such answer. So it doesn't follow that God is necessary as an answer.
I think what AJJ was saying is that there is logic which demonstrates that if there is a universe there is necessarily God. We observe that there is a universe, therefore there is God.
Why couldn't the same logic say that if there is our experiences there is necessarily a universe?
I think what Terrapin was saying is that, since there is logic which demonstrates that if there are experiences, then there is necessarily a universe (sans God), and since there are experiences, there is a universe (sans God), therefore God isn't necessary, then AJJ's logic is effectively countered and cancelled out.
Your reply doesn't progress the debate, it just brings it around full circle. A "do-loop", as Rank Amateur would say.
It wouldn't be "the same" because there would be different premises. But once the necessity of the universe is proven we can go on to prove the necessity of God.
Quoting S
The only thing which makes God "necessary" is the logic. So if you don't bother with the logic then God won't be necessary. So to take TS's example, if you don't bother with the logic, then the universe won't be necessary for experiences.
It doesn't counter or cancel out AJJ's logic, it just demonstrates that it is possible to ignore the logic. And, since necessity is produced by logic, ignoring the logic is ignoring the necessity. But ignoring the logic does not make the necessity go away though, for those who do not ignore it.
I have a hunch that you're going to keep failing to realise that your reasoning can be used against you, and is thus ineffective. We're still in that situation now with the above.
It's a psychological thing, I think. And I'm not a psychiatrist, so I'm not qualified to treat this problem of yours. But I wish you a quick recovery.
How specifically would the premises differ (and in terms of logic)?
Yeah....there have been metaphysical antinomies for centuries.....whatever can be thought under one set of conditions can be counter-thought under a different set of conditions. Sometimes the original thought survives, sometimes the counter overthrows it. It’s just a matter of how much power the arguments have to convince.
I think this whole necessity snafu thing is taken from Aristotle’s “That which exists exists necessarily”, which was never meant to quantify any causal closure whatsoever, which makes the assertion some diety is therefore necessary for that existence, barely more than post hoc junk.
Even if both sides invoke the principle of cause and effect as the legislative governance for the existence of the Universe, at least one side escapes the post hoc fallacy by stipulating a lack of knowledge as to cause. On one hand, a diety caused the Universe and we don’t have to say anything more about it, and on the other, something probably caused the Universe and that’s all we can say about it right now.
And the beat goes on.
There is no relevant difference. The reasoning is of the same logical form. He'll just say that with his argument, it's true, and with yours, it's not. But, of course, you could just say the same thing, only swapping the truth values around.
His is not an argument through reason, it's an argument through bald assertion.
Good luck getting through to him.
At this point, I don't really care if my reasoning can be used against me. I don't even know what you mean by that. Care to explain?
AJJ uses a premise concerning the universe, and proceeds to conclude the necessity of God. You use a premise concerning human experience and proceed to conclude the necessity of a universe. See the difference?
Quoting S
I agree that the reasoning is of "the same logical form". But I don't understand your claim that the reasoning can be used against me. TS reasons from the premise of human experience to the conclusion that there must be a universe. AJJ takes that conclusion as a premise and proceeds to the further conclusion that there must be God. So where's the problem?
Agree - however that is not where it is left. Where this usually ends is, "your un created creator is wrong, because science is right, and science say "we don't really know". Basically my I don't know trumps your belief, because I don't like your belief. It is just an elevation of science to religion. The believers have faith that science will have the answer. To be clear, I have no issue at all with that faith, my point is it is not all that different from most other beliefs by faith.
No, not logically. You'd need to specify the logical difference. Spell it out. Show your work.
Are you claiming that the premise "there are human experiences", is no different from the premise "there is a universe"? I see a big difference, don't you?
It is important to remember what physics is, basically just a model of reality as we observe it. That is really all it is. Turn observation into math. This allows you to plug in new variables and if the model is good it will have some predictive capabilities both going forward and backwards on the time line we observe. That is basically all physics is.
The problem is that you can use the logical form to do just about anything, which really means that it does nothing. If you say that the universe necessitates God, then I can say that the universe necessitates anything else whatsoever or no God. We'd just be making shit up and playing with logic.
So you need an additional justified reason for doing it your way as opposed to innumerable other ways, which I don't think that you can provide.
What is wrong with you that you can't simply spell out/specify what you take the logical difference to be when I request for you to do that?
Oh, I dunno.....anybody putting opinion into print usually feels sufficient reason justifying it. In the case at hand......or was til he quit.....I personally didn’t feel the sufficient reason was anywhere sufficient enough. He did, and nothing changes.
Exactly, that's what mention of the singularity is getting at. For that reason, we don't know, but some people are deluded otherwise. And no, science is based on reason, not faith. That claim is absurd. I'm not an astrophysicist, but an astrophysicist could give you a lengthy and reasonable explanation relating to what you mention.
I don't think he's too great when it comes to logic. He did acknowledge in my exchange with him that they share the same logical form, but with you he seems hung up on the semantic difference.
I spelled it out. They have different premises. One argument proceeds from the premise that there are human experiences to the conclusion that there is a universe. The other proceeds from the premise that there is a universe to the conclusion of God. Do you, or do you not, recognize that this is a "logical difference"?
Quoting S
No, that's just the nature of logic, it is constructed so as to allow us to do as much as possible (what you call "just about anything") so long as we stay within the confines of validity. Because of this, it is very important to ensure that we proceed with sound premises. If we can use unsound premises, then we probably could do anything we want.
Quoting S
Sure, you can make up whatever premises you want. The problem is that they would likely be unsound. The premises which lead from the existence of the universe to the necessity of God are found in the cosmological argument. You can look that up and judge the soundness of the premises for yourself. I haven't read the entire thread and do not know if AJJ presented these premises.
Isn’t the prospect? No, because the math justifies the prospect of the one and has nothing to say at all about the other, and the human experience with math suggests its reliability. The actual reality of either one, of course, is another matter.
I understand the limits of science. Puulleease!!! I also grant the contingency of human knowledge. Nonetheless, what is objectively satisfactory in science is altogether lacking anywhere else in doctrinal systems. Bottom line....everyone has to accept the instance of contradiction in objective domains wherein knowledge is proven mistaken, but no one has to accept self-contradictions in subjective domains wherein beliefs are shown to be inconclusive.
Let me define faith as I use it here. It is taking a 100% commitment to a belief where the reality is a matter of probability. You have a 100% belief that science will know at some point the cause of the universe, The reality is that at this moment of time that is still a matter of some probability.
Sure, we're not really disagreeing here. There would be a problem if you have no additional justified reason relating to soundness, which is what I expected. If that were the case, then it would be anything goes. But I see that you've now mentioned the cosmological argument.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yeah, someone should make a discussion on that. I don't really create discussions, I tend to just get stuck into the discussions of others.
I was expecting Metaphysician Undercover to simply define or assert or include in the concept the necessity of the existence of God, because that's what he has done before. That's what I was getting at. But I see now that he has referred to the cosmological argument, which is a much better approach.
I understand where the math goes, and there may well be such a thing as a singularity, and it is perfectly reasonable to believe they could exist or existed.
But you must admit it is a wild idea to try and get your head around if you really think about it.
I was just trying to clarify what I believe AJJ was saying.
This is a false equivalence.
Quoting Rank Amateur
No, that's a straw man actually. It might do, it might not do. All I know here is that we don't know, and that the scientific method has been very successful in the past, so if it did somehow result in an answer, I wouldn't be absolutely flabbergasted. I would be absolutely flabbergasted if we somehow discovered that God exists, because nothing whatsoever points towards that except the weakest of evidence and very old and problematic arguments in philosophy.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Straw man, I'm afraid. Better luck next time.
But you're not being charitable, so why should I put more effort in? For example, I covered the probability in relation to reason topic earlier in the discussion, so it's not as though I've given you nothing to go by, yet you come out with a complete straw man. You have absolutely zero basis to attribute this position to me. Show me where in this discussion I've made such claims. I don't know why you would expect me to put undue effort into dealing with your straw man points.
Honestly.....hell no I can’t grasp the fact of one dimension. But I don’t have any problem grasping the concept of one; the problem comes with assigning an object to it. It’s easy to say...a point in space exists necessarily because lines are a succession of points and lines in space are possible. But from conceiving a point to giving the conditions necessary for a point’s reality as an object, is impossible. Same for infinite gravity. It’s easy to think all the gravity there could ever be, but trying to do any more with the conception than that, gets you all mixed up in illusions and contradictions.
I for one am not going to commit to thinking science is eventually going to discover the cause of the Universe. I’m more inclined to think there are some things humans are just plain not equipped to learn.
Small point, pun not intended, points only exist in 2 dimensions. The only thing we can now say exists in one dimension is time.
Quoting Mww
I have no issue with that at all.
Quoting S
I don't have faith in any relevant sense here. I only have unconscious expectations for which I can't be held responsible. I can't help it if I slip into thinking that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Rank Amateur just throws around false equivalencies like there's no tomorrow and has a selective memory.
Kind of why I like faith is where a 100% commitment is required, like jumping out of the plane, where the actual outcome is a matter of some probability.
So, putting it in our discussion, if one wants to commit to it that 100% that God is not, while the current state of affairs is there is some unknown probability that either God is or God is not, part of your belief is based on faith.
You're looking for an easy target, and I am not one. I wouldn't consciously commit 100% to anything whatsoever, unless I thought that it was 100% certain. That's not the case with regards to anything that you've confronted me with, so you can't rightly accuse me of having faith.
So, would it be fair to say then, that you believe there is some chance, there is such a thing as God?
What....can’t a point be thought of as located on any one axis of a Cartesian system? Only a geometric figure requires two dimensions; lines and points can be conceived as having but one, because if you spin a line as if you were looking at it end-on it shouldn’t just disappear, so you could think of it as seeing a point. Conceptually speaking.
Time has no dimension at all. It may be considered *AS* a dimension, a condition for referencing spatial locality in conjunction with relative motion. Then there’s always the metaphysical time.......pretty much just as contentious as politics and religion.
By the definition in your argument - a supernatural entity or being - sure. Unless I become aware of a contradiction, I will think that there's a chance, however slim, as per logical possibility. It's also possible that unicorns and goblins and space tea pots actually exist, provided we don't rule that out by defining them as fictional. Possibilities and remote probabilities are trivial in this context.
This is basic shit. I'm not unreasonable. I've never been a strong atheist, except where there's a contradiction ruling out the existence of God.
That's not a logical difference. Logically, both are simply that x implies the necessity of y.
No, sorry each and every point is, by definition, a point in space described by a x and y coordinate. All the points on the x axis, have x= to something and y = 0. With the 0 only meaning no change along the y axis, in relation to wherever we decided to say 0 was.
The formula for a line is y=max+b, Same thing goes as above all lines have an x and y value.
Close enough- good with that.
So what’s the difference between this and any other dialogue with opposing views? Do you see you’re working from a location in space where a point can be found, but I’m working from a conceivable description of what a point is? No need to be sorry.
So, you accept that there's no faith in such a position, and you're going to stop saying otherwise? If not, where oh where is this illusive faith of which you speak?
So, hence forward, you're going to rephrase your claim to make it clear that your equivalence is only between strong atheism and theism, yes?
One big problem here Terrapin, they're not both x implies y. One is x implies y, the other is y implies z Do you know about the law of identity, a principle of logic? There is a logical difference between two distinct things.
No. It's not a logical difference to plug different elements into variables.
Different elements are logically different, by the law of identity.
Jesus Christ. They're the same [i]in the relevant sense[/I]. They have the same logical form. Antecedent, material implication, consequent. P?Q.
The 'P' and the 'Q' are variables, so they can be replaced with anything that fits. [I]'x implies y'[/I] & [I]'y implies z'[/I] are the same in this way.
If they're not self-evident, and if no justification has been provided, then there's no more reason to accept that [I]'a universe implies God'[/I] than to accept that [I]'experience implies a universe'[/I].
I think that that's all that's being said. You two just aren't communicating with each other well enough.
Metaphysician Undercover has referred to the cosmological argument as a justification. Although, if he was trying to clarify for AJJ, it's specifically the Kalam cosmological argument. So maybe move on to that?
I can live with that.
What other problems can we solve? Red pill, blue pill?
Eh? But why would you think otherwise? Nothing's impossible unless there's a contradiction. Why would you assume that I thought that it would be impossible, as opposed to lacking sufficient evidence, as I'm [i]frequently saying[/I] in these discussions. The former is a really strong claim.
That's uncharitable of you, I think. Strong atheism is the weaker position in a lot of cases, including the one under discussion, so you shouldn't assume it by default. Should I assume that you're a Biblical Literalist until you say otherwise? Question you about whether the world was created in seven days?
It [i]isn't[/I] reasonable, to the best of my knowledge, but I've not once denied that it's a possibility (adding "real" doesn't do anything, except mislead, given that it's more fantastical than realistic), except in the case of your argument when I believed there to be a contradiction! This has come entirely from [i]you[/I] the whole time. If [i]you've[/I] been reading things into [i]my[/I] position, that isn't my fault.
The objective meaning of one's life is their own life.
How is it subjective?
Haha, no. How could you even do logic with variables then?
Are you (plural) really using logic to determine the existence of God?
Are you really debating the objective existence of God in the scientific space-time universe?
Now might be worthwhile to consider how much you know about God? :chin:
You know that there is more than one form of logic don't you?
When I say "A is different than B", would you say that this is illogical, or would you say that this judgement is made without the use of logic? I would say that the judgement is made with the use of logic, because we must determine what "different" means and judge A and B to see if they qualify as different.
No. Your comments are directed at the wrong person if they're directed at me. I was just using logic to analyse Rank Amateur's argument. That argument was only about God as defined by him for the purpose of his argument about theism. It says nothing whatsoever about God outside of those parameters. And I accepted that if God is supernatural, then science can't be used to discover the existence of God, unless God intervenes in nature. But the argument didn't say anything about intervention. As an atheist, I don't believe in God at all, nor do I believe in anything supernatural. I don't know anything about God except as a concept or a definition, and then what I can reasonably determine from that. For example, if the existence of God entails a contradiction, then I know that God doesn't exist. God couldn't exist in that case. So I'm a strong atheist in cases like that.
It's alogical. Or in other words, it doesn't have anything to do with logic. Logic is about inference/implication--what follows from what, basically.
As one of the (plural) you’s in attendance.....not me. Logic is just a set of rules for descriptions of true statements; it doesn’t determine anything existential.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
Again, not me; I just don’t care. But if one is debating the objective existence of a thing, he must be doing so from the domain of a scientific space-time Universe; there isn’t anyplace else to find an objective existence, as far as we’re concerned.
I don’t know a damn thing about what is commonly referred to as “God”. But I sure as hell have a lot of experience with my fellow men who think THEY know about it.
Right, so we have a word, "different", and we know what that word means. Then we compare A and B, and make the inference A is different from B. Why would you say that this is not a logical inference?
You asked if "A is different than B" is logical/illogical. The answer is that no, it isn't. "A is different than B" has nothing to do with logic.
You could ask if "Just in case A isn't identical to B, then A is different than B" is logical. Would you like to ask something like that instead?
Exactly. :up: [And this from a Believer, not an atheist.]
Agree - why I have never made the the claim that God is. I have only made the claim - I, as a matter of faith, believe God is. And this belief is not in conflict with fact or reason.
When I compare a brick to a cinder block, I’m not sure I’m inferring anything. Why can’t I just be observing a difference, without having to logically infer there is one?
Are you saying sensual awareness itself involves logical inference? Metaphysically speaking.....which I suspect you are wont to do......I suppose you could say perception A is the major premise and perception B is the minor, in a cognitive syllogism, from which the conclusion that the brick is different than the cinder block is rendered valid deductively, but.....who does that!!!!
I bet you’re gonna get in a bunch of trouble by stipulating “not in conflict with fact”. Not in conflict with reason, sure, no problem; you had to reason to your conclusion, after all. While you are absolutely privileged to your own reason, from which a valid belief may follows, you are not so priviledged to your own facts, which suggests fact regarding faith is not the same as fact regarding empirical reality. Even so, it would appear you invite a whole world of explanatory hurt in trying to justify how a fact could ground something so subjectively dominant as faith.
My only point by saying not in conflict with fact is, no one can say Rank, your faith in God is misplaced, because it is a fact that God does not exist.
What they all have in common is that they value their life.
[I]Scientific[/I] fact, and it's arguably in conflict with what's [i]reasonable[/I]. And also, this all hinges on the meaning of "conflict". If scientific fact says there's no basis for belief and you believe anyway, then that's arguably a conflict.
Oh hell no....I’m not arguing for or against anything I haven’t convinced myself I know something about.
I guess I see where you coming from here. Not in conflict with fact because there isn’t a fact to be in conflict with, and that’s all cool and stuff, but I’m a fan of knowledge myself, and where knowledge isn’t attainable.....or I’m just not interested in pursuing it......I’m just as happy being ignorant, rather than inject a subjective explanatory placeholder.
He already has done. It took many pages of discussion to finally reach a resolution, and he's forgotten it already! This is one of those moments where you don't know whether to laugh or bang your head against a wall.
Threw me for a loop, no doubt. When I read “belief not in conflict with fact”, many years of cognitive prejudice comes to the fore and I wanna say....WHAAATT???
He got all tricksies on us hobbittses.....he said a thing (faith) is truthfully based on not-fact, which is of course, quite possible.
Yes, you've made that pretty clear multiple times, but that would be unwise for anyone who is a soft atheist, as they don't have that burden. You should be directing that comment exclusively at strong atheists. Will you change your ways? I'm not hedging my bets. I think you're a creature of habit.
There's definitely a fact. Of that I am certain. As per the fundamental laws of logic, either God is, or God is not. It can't be both or neither. That's metaphysics. If we don't know either way, that's epistemology. Please, let's not confuse the two.
Whether it's in conflict is open to debate.
Yes, faith can be absurd. There are no restrictions on faith. But reasonableness is different. If we're being reasonable, then we can't permit absurdity. Rank Amateur and I established earlier that if he's being reasonable, then his claim has to be about [i]scientific[/I] fact, not fact [I]simpliciter[/I]. And if he's not willing to be reasonable, then why are we even having this discussion with him? Faith nuts who want to engage in rational debate about their nutty faith should be shunned as though they have the plague!
What is not a scientific fact, and is being acknowledged as true, is the existence in the Universe, or acts as the cause of the Universe, of the thing Rank claims to have faith in. Conflict with what doesn’t exist, is impossible.
All empirical science has a metaphysical ground. Metaphysics without empiricism is transcendent (mystical), empiricism without metaphysics is stagnant.
Fundamental laws of logic have no rule over faith-based cognitions, the prime example being transferring the being of some supernatural necessity from phenomenal in the world to ideal in the mind.
You know as well as I, that illogical arguments are still manifestations of logic, just as unreasonable thinking is still reason. Reason is way too subjective to chastise too rigorously. Enough to disagree, but not enough to ridicule. Among otherwise reasonable people, I mean. Nutjobs get no respect, throw the fools on the fire, I say!!!
Are you saying that it's not a fact that what he has faith in (namely that there is some form of supernatural being or entity) exists in the universe and/or acts as the cause of the Universe? And are you saying that because you believe that some form of supernatural being or entity can't exist in the universe because the universe is natural? And that if it doesn't exist in the universe, then it must not exist at all?
In short, if x is supernatural, then x doesn't exist?
And if it's not a fact, then we can't rightly say that anything conflicts with it [i]as a fact[/I]?
Quoting Mww
Seems about right. I'm an empiricist, but not an extreme empiricist like Berkeley or Hume. I agree with Hume quite a bit, but my position might be closer to Locke or Kant.
Quoting Mww
Yeah, you could've stopped at, "Fundamental laws of logic have no rule over faith-based cognitions". No example necessary. I completely get it. Faith has no restrictions and can permit absurdity. It's [i]the worst possible[/I] way to approach the stuff of philosophy. It is anathema to it.
Nietzsche has some of the best quotes about faith.
:up:
.......yes, although I’m more agreeing with Rank saying it than saying it myself.
Quoting S
A.) because you believe that some form of supernatural being or entity can't exist in the universe because the universe is natural?
.......By definition, yes; what I believe is irrelevant.
B.) And that if it doesn't exist in the universe, then it must not exist at all?
.......No. B does not follow from A necessarily. Complete knowledge of the Universe as effect does not give any conception of its cause.
C.) And if it's not a fact, then we can't rightly say that anything conflicts with it as a fact?
.........That which is not a fact can be conflicted, but only by another fact. That which is not a fact cannot be conflicted by a faith-based proposition. To whit: that I am having breakfast tomorrow is not a fact, and you cannot conflict with that by supposing I am going to when tomorrow gets here. But you sure can after tomorrow gets here and I do or do not get my breakfast.
Quoting S
Absolfreakin’lutely. You’d make a fine Kantian, I must say.
“......I cannot even make the assumption (...) of God (...) if I do not deprive speculative reason of its pretensions to transcendent insight. For to arrive at these, it must make use of principles which, in fact, extend only to the objects of possible experience, and which cannot be applied to objects beyond this sphere without converting them into phenomena, and thus rendering the practical extension of pure reason impossible. I must, therefore, abolish knowledge, to make room for belief....”
Every generation has stood on its top rung of scientific knowledge, amazed at their own brilliance, and looking down at the errors of those on the lower rungs, without acknowledging all of them felt exactly the same way in their time about the quality of their knowledge. And in general the folks who feel this the least, are the actual ones doing the science
So S what you are left with is an absence of belief,
Science says I don't know,
And jerks like me keep offering up "rocks" with God written on it, and you pick it up, look at it
Turn it around and then throw it away, the proof isn't good enough, bring me another rock, and I'll let you know if that one is any better
You sit in a metaphorical limbo, waiting for science to know, and have no determined position on anything until then.
As I explained, you are clearly wrong. Whether A is different from B is a logical judgement. This is because one needs to proceed with a knowledge of what "different" means, and make the judgement accordingly. That is a judgement of logical.
If you really believe that this is not a logical judgement, then what sort of judgement do you think it is, just a random guess?
Quoting Terrapin Station
No I would not like to ask that. I would like to ask you what sort of judgement is the judgement that A is different from B, if it's not a logical judgement?
Quoting Mww
The point is that "different" has a definite meaning. And, if you are judging that a brick is different from a cinder block, then you are inferring that these two things qualify for the relationship called "different". Simply seeing a cinder block, and seeing a brick does not constitute judging them as different. My dog sees these things, and I do not know what sort of judgement my dog makes when seeing them, or how my dog perceives them, but I am quite sure that my dog does not judge them as "different". She never told me that things are different, so I don't believe that she knows how to use this word.
Quoting Mww
Actually I am saying quite the opposite. I am saying that we ought to be careful not to conflate these two, sensual awareness and logical inference. Being sensually aware is one thing, but putting words to the things which we are aware of, is a completely different thing. And, we ought not say that putting words to things is just a matter of being sensually aware, because there are all sorts of creatures who are sensually aware yet they do not put words to things. The difference I believe is that putting words to things is an act of reason, rather than an act of sensation, and acts of reason are referred to as logical, or illogical if mistaken.
You start your post with a true observation of science, but you turn that into somehow trying to prove your validity in argumentation because you offer up something that should be swallowed just because science hasn't proved something yet?
The ones doing true science, the ones who are actually constantly in search of real answers are the ones never happy with the answers they get, but also, they do not take things with questionable logic as answers to anything. Just because scientists don't know something, doesn't mean they accept wild fantasies before finding the true answers.
It's also wrong to say that science is wrong all the time and build on correction. Answers in science that are proven theories are proven theories and they build new theories on top of them. This is why the unification theory is so hard since you can't erase the proven theories of either side, you need to find a theory that combines them all.
Quoting Rank Amateur
This requires there to be proof in the first place. Questionable logic that is based on assumptions and fallacies does not count and all arguments so far, for any supernatural beings, have failed to reach that level of deduction.
This applies to all sides, but scientists are probably the only ones who keep demanding themselves to be better constantly. If religious apologists were ever that disciplined in trying to prove their ideas, things would look very different.
I agree almost completely with this. Faith based beliefs are not philosophy and I have never, or at least never intentionally portrayed them as such.
I like Bertrand Russell's quote:
All definite knowledge - so I should contend - belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack by both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy.
No it's not. You don't know what logic is. Learn 101 level stuff like that first.
Agree - I am not asking for any scientific acceptance of God at all if that is what the last sentence is saying.
Quoting Christoffer
Granted, and maybe I liked the metaphor too much, but be careful what you accept as proven theories. As an example nothing can move faster than the speed of light, well maybe there is ?
Quoting Christoffer
The rock thing was pure metaphor.
Also, be careful using this as a counter-argument to arguments that use science as a basis for its conclusion. I've seen lots of counter-arguments from people that use this to counter anything science-based, however solid its foundation is, in order to put the argument into the notion that its a fallacy and by that create the notion that their own counter-argument is more or equally valid.
Quoting Rank Amateur
For proof?
I'm not interested in your unrealistic definition "logic". Any instance of reasoning is using logic. So answer the question, if it's not a logical judgement then what is it?
I'm more for keeping burden of proof towards any argument for God.
Otherwise there be teapots in space
I’m not sure it has a meaning. Or at least a cogent one. Different is a relational condition. We never describe “different”; we describe a relational discrepancy and label it a difference. The logical inference is the purview of judgement, true, an act of reason, but all that does is quantify the discrepancy by deducing that the properties for A are not the same as the properties for B. And THAT is all we can say about “difference”.
Maybe we think words need definitions or meanings just because we use them to communicate consistently.
You don't think "different" has a cogent meaning? How would you judge that A is different from B if "different" did not have a cogent meaning? That the meaning of "different" is relational is irrelevant. Isn't all meaning relational? Let's say it means "not the same". The judgement that A and B are not the same is a logical judgement. Even if "that is all we can say about 'difference'", I think that this is saying something logical.
I’m saying I don’t even need the word “different” to understand relational dissimilarities; it’s just an instance where language mitigates confusion. When I’m working stuff out in my head “difference” is never brought to my attention, even while I’m busy cognizing relative judgements. Still, in a dialogue, the word “different” and it’s variations is used in order to show the participants understand there is in fact some relational disparity between them.
I made a mistake by insinuating properties into the A and B duality in this conversation, when A and B are really logical syllogisms whose premises are grounded in A by self-imposed definitions, and in B by existential circumstance, neither of which have actual properties. My bad, and all that.
AJJ constructed his syllogism based on the definitions intrinsic to a favored discipline, and even if the form of the logical argument is valid in the holding to its definitions, the premises are not known to be true, which makes the conclusion unsound (the Universe exists necessarily because a timeless eternal thing created it).
TS, on the other hand, has constructed a logically valid syllogism where the major premise is indeed true, and from which the conclusion is sound (the Universe exists necessarily because we’re in it).
You say (pg15) logic is what makes this timeless eternal thing necessary and if one skips the logic, the principle of necessity is negated in both A and B. I disagree, insofar as it is merely the definitions grounding the logical argument A, re: “posited to exist timelessly and eternally”, which make the thing ipso facto necessary, and that is henceforth incorporated into the argument, and in B it is the absolute impossibility otherwise which grounds the principle of necessity.
On the other hand, because the human cognitive system is predicated on a priori rules from which the principles of logical thinking follow, deleting logical thought does negate the principle of necessity. But only in thought, which immediately falsifies all our judgements about the world, but says nothing about the facts of the world.
See the.......er.....difference?
Yes, but the point is that if you were seeing in your head, some relational dissimilarities between A and B, and you were not seeing A and B as different, then you would not say that A and B are different. You would only say that they are different if you were seeing them as different (unless you're lying).
Quoting Mww
TS proceeded from the premise "there are human experiences" to the conclusion that "there is a universe". Another premise is required to necessitate the conclusion. That "other" premise is not sound, as Descartes demonstrated. And now we have multiverse speculations, which if true would indicate that there is not "a universe". TS's conclusion is not sound.
Quoting Mww
No, that's not the case, deficiencies in human capacities deny the possibility of such absolute certainty (principle from Descartes).
Quoting Mww
No, I don't see the difference. The claimed difference is based in an untrue principle, that the human being has absolute certainty about one's experience. I will however admit, that since AJJ's premise is TS's conclusion, there is a higher degree of certainty in TS's premise than AJJ's.
No. I would only say they are different if I cognize them as different. We do not think simultaneous thoughts. Instantaneous in succession, yes, simultaneous, no. Then, it is correct to say I judge each object presented to understanding as each representation appears to it. There is no method to compare sequential objects to each other until they are cognized, and then only when reason calls for a determination. Only then will I say whether the cognitions are similar or not. Of course, the system works so fast, it seems like it is perception doing all the work, when in actuality, it isn’t doing much of anything except deliver the goods. And, in the empirical world we live in, this is why philosophy is so ill-received. Philosopbabble, doncha know.
I’ve gone as far as I care to go in speaking for others. People weren’t talking to me directly on this so I wasn’t paying that much attention, and I’ve already got myself in deeper than I have the right to be. Still, I’m interested in what you think TS’s argument actually is, and why you think it is unsound.
So in the interest of this discussion, what is the missing premise, and what does ol’ René have to do with it? You must be aware that he proved conclusively that absolute certainty is possible, right? And if a thing is possible, and the principles grounding it are followed, other certainty is also given. To wit: the reality of external experience is every bit as undeniable as our internal experience and is necessary for it.
“....Problematical idealism which makes no such assertion, but only alleges our incapacity to prove the existence of anything besides ourselves by means of immediate experience, is a theory rational and evidencing a thorough and philosophical mode of thinking, for it observes the rule not to form a decisive judgement before sufficient proof be shown. The desired proof must therefore demonstrate that we have experience of external things, and not mere fancies. For this purpose, we must prove, that our internal and, to Descartes, indubitable experience is itself possible only under the previous assumption of external experience....”
As a 36 year veteran of a subjective existence the only thing, at this precise and exact moment in time, that i know for a fact is conciousness (my conciousness) is everything!
So to the question (which is a hypothetical one) "if there was an objective meaning of/to life, what is it" ...... probably everything ever done, said, created, destroyed etc etc....
For me it is quite simply gaining a higher conciousness. If we are in fact gods then i will do everything my conciousness allows to be a better god than the ones we all have been taught about.
But the universe wasn't defined that way in the argument. Do you think that it's implied somewhere that the universe is natural? What definition are you going by?
Quoting Mww
If the universe is natural, and God is supernatural, and what exists can only exist in the universe, then God can't exist. That's a valid argument.
Quoting Mww
We disagree on the semantics here. I think that it's understandable to call that a conflict of a sort. That faith would conflict with what's reasonable to believe. There's a conflict - [i]a confrontation[/I] - when the two proposals "meet" (and they can "meet" through a simple comparison) because they're found to be incompatible, i.e. lead to a contradiction.
Quoting Mww
Hmm. Kant is perhaps the biggest philosophical challenge I've encountered. :chin:
Do you even know what claim you're disputing? Apparently not. What I said was that scientific fact says there's no basis, per the science, for belief, and the belief that I was referring to was obviously [i]not[/I] that the universe is finite and had a beginning, but rather the belief of theists, as per your argument, namely that there is some form of supernatural being or entity. [I]Even if[/I] the former is true, it is certainly not a [i]sufficient[/I] basis (which is what I meant) for the latter by any [i]reasonable[/I] standard.
The A, B, and C, in the comment were in response to your request for what I thought, in general. I took that to mean over and above whatever is included in the conversations on these pages. Nevertheless, with respect to B, yes, it may very well be a logical argument, but it is not one for which I would volunteer; I do not acknowledge the necessity of the supernatural, therefore arguments with respect to it are superfluous.
Quoting S
What’s reasonable to believe is at the sole discetion of the subject. I don’t think I’d consider a mere difference in understanding to be a confrontation, the word carrying the implication of alternative value it doesn’t deserve. It’s no different than this logical argument snafu: you can’t blame a guy for coming to a conclusion from his premises any more than you can blame a guy for coming to a faith from his understandings. Now, if you and a faith kinda guy were in a house fire and you had a water hose and he had faith in a thunderstorm.....well, that might be a confrontation.
You mention Nietzsche the other day. You didn’t find him all that difficult?
No, I throw rocks at [i]you[/I] because I'm a bigger jerk then you'll ever be. :razz:
(And I take everything literally because I'm King of the Aspies).
I'm more on your side, at least in a sense, than the strong atheist on that one, provided the existence of God is at least a possibility. But the "noseeum" argument factors into an argument about [i]what's reasonable to believe[/I] about the existence of God, and it works [i]against[/I] the [i]belief[/I] that God exists.
:lol:
Explain.
The metaphysics, in itself, is insignificant. It's our knowledge that matters. Or at least matters [I]more[/i].
There wouldn't be any of significance, as I've just suggested. I made a distinction between what is or isn't the case, and what we know. A big discovery like that would change the way that some people think, feel, and behave. It simply being the case does nothing whatsoever without there being a connection to anyone.
Yeah.. let's laugh instead of providing arguments. Laughing at positions we disagree with is for the most philosophically and intellecutally inclined. We appear smart without making any effort.
Quoting Mww
Well Objectivism is called Objectivism because it's supposed to be objective.
The metaphysics of Objectivism is that reality is what it is. The world exists independently of man's consciousness. A = A. Fact are facts. Wishing for reality to be different won't make it different.
Epistemologically, Objectivism holds that the only way for a consciousness to know reality or a truth is with reason in accordance with logic. You cannot know something based on how you feel. You cannot magically know the right answer because God told you. There must be evidence and reasoning for you to actually know something.
Ethically (and this is where it answers this threads questions: the objective meaning to life). Life's purpose is to live, to flourish, and to be happy. Everything has its own nature and it must do what is good for its nature. Plants need sunlight to eat. Animals need to hunt and gather to eat.
In order for man to live he must first choose life. Do you want to live or not? Most people say yes. And then of course he must hold reason as his absolute so he can deal with reality properly. If you go about life without seeing reality for what is it, you're basically committing suicide. How do you find the food you need without reason? You can't magically know where food is. You can't magically wish for food to appear in front of you. But the mystics and faith believers will tell you otherwise because reality is subjective. And interpreting reality is subjective. Life doesn't have to be life. Life doesn't need food to live. You don't need to know how to find food. Food can appear in front of you if you wish it. If you die from starvation, it won't matter because there's an afterlife anyway. If you resist death, you may fail God's test of having faith. And a bunch of other nonsense. This doesn't have to be with finding food, it could be any problem you have with your life. The question is, will you deal with it realistically, orr will you make something up?
I need to learn more about philosophy and read about other philosophers in depth, but what I know so far, every other philosopher denies that there is an objective reality. Except maybe Aristotle and maybe Aquinas to some degree. Especially ever since Immanuel Kant came about – he said that we cannot actually perceive reality. That reason and logic fail because our senses distort reality. So basically we're subjective. Any conclusion of reality cannot be of actual reality. So there is no objectivity. Obviously Ayn Rand disagrees.
Every other philosopher after Kant – Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidaggar is all similar in the sense that reason is faulty. They build off Kant in their own subjective way. Hegel says that Aristotelian logic and the individual is not good. It's okay to have contradictions in your thinking. The collective is more important than the individual. Marx just says the same thing. Kierkegaard says that you need a non-rational way to know the truth. Nietzsche just says this thing about the will to power. You just feel what is right with the use of instinct. And that using your mind and logic is for people who are afraid of an irrational reality.
Obviously people can decide for themselves about what is objective because I guess there is no objective, but it seems clear to me that there's an objective purpose to life if you care about life and happiness.
Good idea. Now why didn't I think of that?
Quoting AppLeo
It might well seem clear to you, but you have failed to provide a reasonable basis for believing that there's an objective purpose. You don't really put forward an argument, you just make a whole bunch of statements which are disconnected logically from your bald assertion that there's an objective purpose. I care about life and happiness, and I most likely share many of your values and priorities: reason being one of them. Reason helps people survive. A = A. Facts are facts. I don't believe in God either. I reject magical thinking. So bloody what? This doesn't reasonably support the belief that there's an objective purpose.
OK. Understood.
Logic and reason don’t fail, but rather the thinking subject misuses them. We are all subjective, but not entirely so.
Any conclusion of ours about reality cannot be KNOWN to be of actual reality. It very well may be, but we have no means to prove it absolutely. It’s not that we cannot perceive reality, but rather we cannot know the reality we perceive is as it really is.
Quoting AppLeo
Maybe you have some references to sustain that assertion, but I present these to deny it:
“....The simple but empirically determined consciousness of my own existence proves the existence of external objects in space....”
(Which can only be given us by means of perception)
“.....For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect our senses?.....”
“.....The postulate concerning the cognition of the reality of things requires perception, consequently conscious sensation, not indeed immediately, that is, of the object itself, whose existence is to be cognized, but still that the object have some connection with a real perception, in accordance with the analogies of experience, which exhibit all kinds of real connection in experience....”
——————————————
I personally do not hold with an objective meaning *OF* life. Meanings IN, sure. Objective purpose to....I guess. The expression of moral code and all that. Meaning OF....not required.
The purpose of life is life. Life does what it can to live. Planets get sunlight to live without thinking. Animals hunt to live based on instinct. Humans think to live.
You think to live, how do you live life without the facts? You can't pursue life if you don't use reason. That's an objective truth. How do you live without reason? You can't.
Do you think engineers consult with God to build a bridge?
You think doctors have mystical experiences on how to heal people?
You think businessmen just get lucky and have money fall into their hands?
Everything we do in life that propels us forward was started by a consciousness and one that could think and reason. It's not a matter of what you value.
So, the objective meaning of life is life. And the objective way to live life is reason. Rational self-interest. You cannot hold values outside of your rational self-interest if there is an objective meaning to life.
How do you know a conclusion of reality cannot be known to be of actual reality if you don't know what actual reality actually is? Because you say that actual reality cannot be known.
Quoting Mww
I don't know how those assertions deny that.
What if our conclusions actually are of reality and you're just being skeptical of them because you don't want to know reality; you would rather believe in something else than what is right in front of you.
My conclusion of reality says God doesn't exist because there is no proof, but I can't actually know reality, so God can still exist. What a bunch of nonsense.
Quoting Mww
I don't think the OP meant meaning of life in just that way. But what is the purpose of life? What should you do with your life? Why should you live this way?
You desctibe the physiological condition of humans only. We physically cannot experience continual ecstasy, or even mere beaming pleasure. But I see no reason to call the state of being in conitunual pleasure "spoiled". Would you create hard times , I wonder, for "enlightenment"?
is it even possible to reflect "logically" on one's life?
Going through hard times will either break you or make you stronger. No cliche intended.
To make this happen, you need to experience both comforts and ''hard times'' otherwise your whole focus will be directed at the tough things and have no time to reflect.
Same with continual pleasure.
Spoiled kids-teenagers don't reflect on their life realistically since their only focus is on what the pretty girl they wanna bang today will dress or what Gucci clothes he should buy next to be more accepted in his friend groups.
I don't have any advanced English learned soi don't know the word to use for the ''logically reflection of one's life''
What I mean is to reflect on your life, not in the present time but in general. What can make me more enlightened as an individual and what can make me a more ''happier person''
Not thinking from others perspective, not thinking from your opinion or others.
You said Kant said we don’t actually perceive reality, and I give three examples where he says we do. Assertion properly denied....until something is presented to affirm the assertion that he said we don’t actually perceive reality.
Quoting AppLeo
Because we don’t have anything to compare our conclusions to.
———————————-
Major difference between being skeptical and understanding my limitations.
You see a bunch of nonsense; I see a basic logical argument.
I suppose the OP can mean lots of things to lots of people.
All those are rhetorical questions, right?
But if there are no tough times there is no need to reflect!
Okay then...
Bummer. There I was, a die-hard Kantian, lookin’ to duke it out with a pesky Randian.
Sucks to be me.
pffff... Kant sucks.
I don't believe there is an objective meaning of life. But if there was, I think it would answer the big questions. Such as why are we here? Why are conscious. Why are we on this forum right now discussing it. It would explain explain you whole entire life and why you were placed on this earth. And not just a mechanistic historical explanation. It would be a totally different kind of explanation.
What would you say the basis for the objectivity of that claim is?
That makes no sense. Perhaps try wording what you mean differently.
Quoting AppLeo
That's just a description, not a purpose. Perhaps try looking up the meaning of "purpose".
None of the rest of your post provides reasonable grounds for concluding that there is an objective purpose to- or meaning of- life. Remember, bald assertion is not argument. You're just doing that thing again where you make a whole bunch of statements which are disconnected logically from your bald assertion that there's an objective purpose or meaning.
Quoting AppLeo
That's a non sequitur and is false in light of counterexamples. Let's say the meaning of life is to act in your own self-interest. Does that mean that I can't hold values outside of my self-interest? No. Are there real people in the real world right now who hold values outside of their self-interest? Yes, obviously so. Have you never heard of aid workers? Or have you just deceived yourself into believing that they're all just acting based on their value of self-interest?
It makes perfect sense. Life is an end in itself.
Quoting S
No that is the purpose. Your purpose is to live. My purpose is to live. That's everyone's purpose. No one's objective purpose is death or destruction.
Quoting S
You keep saying that but you don't explain why it's a bald assertion, so I don't care. And OP didn't specifically mean meaning. They meant what is the right purpose or philosophy.
Quoting S
You can hold values outside your rational self-interest obviously. But that's why people's lives suck because they aren't valuing what's important to their life. They're valuing things at the expense of themselves. Which goes against the whole point of life, which is to live for yourself. Life is an end of itself, not something to be justified by other means.
It makes [I]more[/I] sense wording it that way, but very far from perfect. To make sense of valuing life, there must be [i]something about[/I] life that one finds valuable, but that then becomes the reason and not life in and of itself.
Quoting AppLeo
Where's the supporting argument for these claims? One that [i]concludes[/I] with these claims. I would be interested to see whether you can put together a logically valid argument.
Our drive for survival is descriptive by default. If you're going to make an additional claim that it's our [i]purpose[/I] to survive, then you have a burden to back that up.
Quoting AppLeo
If I'm mistaken in my assessment, then it shouldn't be too difficult to [i]show me[/I] where I'm mistaken. Just quote yourself where you think that you've presented a supporting argument. I am not seeing one. As I said, I just see a number of logically disconnected statements sitting next to a bald assertion. That they're in close proximity to each other doesn't mean that they logically relate in the relevant way. A logically valid argument is what I'm after.
And whether it's meaning or purpose or value or whatever, my beef is with the claim that [i]it's objective[/I]. How so? You never really explain that. You just assert that it's such-and-such. When you attempt to explain it, you just end up talking about descriptive facts without demonstrating how they validly lead to the relevant conclusion.
Quoting AppLeo
But that's just your opinion. You haven't given me any reasonable basis for thinking that it's anything more than that. I translate the above along the lines, "I think that the lives of these other people with different values to me suck! I think that other things are more important!". If only you'd recognise that that's all these comments from you amount to... but you're stuck in your blinkers.
Alright, there is no objective purpose to life. I’m wrong.
I think the purpose of life is life, but it doesn’t make it objective. It’s my own subjective interpretation.
(“John Galt”, in Rand, 1957)
Please, someone inform the used car salesman, the pension fund schemer, the Manila street-side vendor of ill-disguised monkey meat.......you are examples of the highest moral respect delegated by your fellow man.
Or.....how to put lipstick on a pig and think it worthy of your daughter’s 16th birthday present.
I think you're missing the point of what she's trying to say.
Traders are individuals who recognize property rights. Individuals are responsible and independent. People who are not traders don't value property rights. Instead of being a free man of trade, you are a master or a slave. You use and abuse and people use and abuse you.
A doctor, businessman, and an engineer are also examples of traders. I can see why you would purposely leave them out to make what Rand was saying as a bad thing.
If this, Quoting AppLeo, is what Rand was trying to say, how can I be blamed for missing it when neither it nor anything resembling it, was included or hinted in the passage, nor any passage remotely adjacent to it? I don’t, for the same reason, think I can be blamed for proposing you simply made that up.
Just about anybody can take what Rand says as a bad thing, when Galt’s somewhat less than sustainable rant is mistaken for the foundation of a philosophy.
That there are decent tradesmen is completely irrelevant from the perspective of the proposition “The symbol of all relationships....”, they being merely exceptions to a generally toothless rule.
Interested parties can view the subject matter here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x08QhNX_a1iB5Dt5uEC21q_GMvrM0sbd6zba2UOb6c0/mobilebasic#!
You can be blamed for missing it because you haven't actually taken the time to read and understand her.
Quoting Mww
Well that's your opinion.
Quoting Mww
All traders are decent and are moral. Doesn't matter if it's a car salesman or an engineer. And you fail to understand why because you specifically chose "negative" traders.
Wow. Every single one of them? That's absurd. If that's supposed to be an accurate reflection of Rand's philosophy (or of Objectivism, if you make that distinction), then you're doing a terrible job of making a persuasive case in its favour.
How?
No it doesn't.
And you are so bold as to say I haven’t read and don’t understand Rand, when you don't know I haven’t and I don’t? Because we disagree means I’m wrong? Wouldn’t it be better if you showed me how I was wrong, instead of claiming it despite the demonstration of a particular passage appearing to lack as much consensual philosophical merit as the entire message?
It has been long established that Rand both follows Kant is some regards, and demonizes him in others. But either way, the chances of her even being remembered as anything but a half-way decent fiction author, is directly related to her attacks on Kant, but hardly for a successful refutation of him.
The fact you don’t understand my use of the trades I chose, shows a distinct lack of understanding of the denial of a categorical assertion, which should have no exceptions, with a mere viable possibility. I summarily reject any philosophy that tells me what, who, and even why......but make no effort to tell me how, either from itself or from its proponents.