I'm curious to hear informed responses to this. At the risk of sounding really, well, exclusive, I'm hoping to hear those with a head for logic and critical thinking respond to this quote. Here it is:

“We have been unable to show that reason requires the moral point of view or that really rational persons need not be egoists or classical immoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me. Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.” -Kai Nielsen


Lookin' forward to responses. But please refrain if you can't rationally defend your position.

peace.

is reasonable but immoral (and certainly depressing).

“We have been unable to show that reason requires the moral
>point of view or that really rational persons need not be
>egoists or classical immoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here.
>The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one.
>Reflection on it depresses me. Pure practical reason, even
>with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to
>morality.” -Kai Nielsen

I be interested in knowing what kind of reasoning Mr Neilsen used to reach his conclusions.

to remove 'rational' thought from the Christian model of right/wrong.

..there is no rationale in Christian Right Wing Thought. Unless its getting rich and killing people in the name of the lord. Oh yeah and breeding and practicing real religios bigotry. Your supposed to analyse the quoute, not offer an preconceived opinion.

>..there is no rationale in Christian Right Wing Thought.
>Unless its getting rich and killing people in the name of the
>lord. Oh yeah and breeding and practicing real religios
>bigotry. Your supposed to analyse the quoute, not offer an
>preconceived opinion.

*Check the bracing hypocrisy in this post*

Anyway, how is it possible to analyse, if not subjectively?

..more rhetoric from the snake in the garden. Analysis is supposed to be an objective activity from a rational position. Otherwise its interpretation. Just keeping you slithering boy.

So this was an objective analysis?!

>..there is no rationale in Christian Right Wing Thought.
>Unless its getting rich and killing people in the name of the
>lord.


>..more rhetoric from the snake in the garden. Analysis is
>supposed to be an objective activity from a rational position.
>Otherwise its interpretation. Just keeping you slithering
>boy.

If you genuinely believe it is possible to analyse 'objectively' then you truly are an ignoramus!

..if I analyse your statement from an reasonably objective position I can perceive that you have no desire to engage with me in any kind of conversation that goes beyond childish insults and/or the proving of points to satisfy your ego. This is an objective statement based upon my experience of exchanging messages with you on this internet forum. Calling you a cocksucking little bitch who couldn't make an argument stand up without crutches is a subjective expression of a similar sentiment.

is a fallacy that pervades both the arts and sciences. This fallacy also informs InVerse's religious outlook. Just because you write 'reasonably' objective it doesn't automatically make your OPINION any more objective.


>..if I analyse your statement from an reasonably objective
>position I can perceive that you have no desire to engage with
>me in any kind of conversation that goes beyond childish
>insults and/or the proving of points to satisfy your ego. This
>is an objective statement based upon my experience of
>exchanging messages with you on this internet forum.

You attacked me first in both forums!!

Calling
>you a cocksucking little bitch who couldn't make an argument
>stand up without crutches is a subjective expression of a
>similar sentiment.

Inbox remember.

..outbox forget. Objectivity. Only a hypocrit would deny objectivity. Analyse this statement. "Man gets shot in the head and dies. Police have made an arrest". Compared with this statement "Man brutally murdered by gun-totting hoodlum from the ghetto. Police have captured the maniac responsible." Science is based upon Objectivity. The fact that it denies Subjective influence is why it is out of control.

>..outbox forget. Objectivity. Only a hypocrit would deny
>objectivity. Analyse this statement. "Man gets shot in the
>head and dies. Police have made an arrest".

This first statement is still subject to mediation by its author. It is a matter of degree of subjectivity.

...who said I am promoting objectivity? A purely Subjective universe is the postmodern universe. The game of deconstruction has been played out. I live within an objective reality and form my ideas and opinons and my own objectivity from this. I am also a subject and this colours how I see this objective reality. A hypocrite would also refuse to engage in a discussion within this understanding since he would soon find everything he says are lies (i.e. subjectity) which has no grounding in objective reality.

>...who said I am promoting objectivity?

You did: 'Only a hypocrit(sic) would deny objectivity'


A purely Subjective
>universe is the postmodern universe. The game of
>deconstruction has been played out. I live within an objective
>reality and form my ideas and opinons and my own objectivity
>from this. I am also a subject and this colours how I see this
>objective reality.

No, no, no! You are an object and your ideas and opinions form your subjective reality

A hypocrite would also refuse to engage in
>a discussion within this understanding since he would soon
>find everything he says are lies (i.e. subjectity) which has
>no grounding in objective reality.

?!?!?!?!?!

>No, no, no! You are an object and your ideas and opinions form
>your subjective reality

who has objectified me? And what right do you have to question my own internal logic? I am not an object. I am a subject of Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth the Second. In another sense of the word I the subject refuses to be held as either an object of desire or any other subjective emotion. there is no subjective reality beyond emotions desires and fears. The only truth that remains in your comment are that yes I could be thought of as a physical being, i.e. am object, (but this word is usually reserved for inanimate objects, chairs furniture etc. most people i.e. subjects would perceive me as the same as them, not something to be analysed and or lusted after/feared), but since I am not in your presecne the only way I could be perceived by you is as a thought. Is this thought subjective or objective?

>>No, no, no! You are an object and your ideas and opinions
>form
>>your subjective reality
>
>who has objectified me? And what right do you have to question
>my own internal logic? I am not an object.

So you have a metaphysical existence? Slap yourself across the face. This will prove you are an object!

>I the subject refuses to be held as either
>an object of desire or any other subjective emotion.

Would you say this if a beautiful woman offered to suck your cock?!


there is
>no subjective reality beyond emotions desires and fears. The
>only truth that remains in your comment are that yes I could
>be thought of as a physical being, i.e. am object, (but this
>word is usually reserved for inanimate objects, chairs
>furniture etc. most people i.e. subjects would perceive me as
>the same as them, not something to be analysed and or lusted
>after/feared), but since I am not in your presecne the only
>way I could be perceived by you is as a thought. Is this
>thought subjective or objective?

What differentiates you from an 'object' in the inanimate sense is your ability for SUBJECTIVE thought. 'I think therefore I am'.

who has objectified me? And what right do you have to
>question
>>my own internal logic? I am not an object.
>
>So you have a metaphysical existence? Slap yourself across the
>face. This will prove you are an object!

the I in question is the I of the subject. We are engaged in a literal situation

>>I the subject refuses to be held as either
>>an object of desire or any other subjective emotion.
>
>Would you say this if a beautiful woman offered to suck your
>cock?!

you aint a beautiful woman

>What differentiates you from an 'object' in the inanimate
>sense is your ability for SUBJECTIVE thought. 'I think
>therefore I am'.
>
I think therefore I am thinking. Nothing more or nothing less. I do not prescribe to your Empirical ways of thinking.

..and why only select half of the quote? do you have nothing more to say of science? the two statements were for the purpose of comparison. All your trying to do is "prove" your belief in the dominance of subjectivity. Is this not an objective? Can it be said your objectivity is subject to your beliefs that objectivity has no place in the modern world?

>..and why only select half of the quote?

Because the point was fully made without the other half.

do you have nothing
>more to say of science?

I am sat next to a peer who has a Masters in the History of Science, Technology and Medicine and he agrees that the objectivity in science is an historical fallacy.

the two statements were for the
>purpose of comparison. All your trying to do is "prove" your
>belief in the dominance of subjectivity.

See above. The point was made. I think you know this

Is this not an
>objective?

What a piss-poor semantic trick. Completely different context of the word!! I HOPE you know this too.

Can it be said your objectivity is subject to your
>beliefs that objectivity has no place in the modern world?

Can it be said that you are writing quasi-philosophical drivel?

Because the point was fully made without the other half.

the point that objectivity is coloured by subjectivity? that was my point.

>I am sat next to a peer who has a Masters in the History of
>Science, Technology and Medicine and he agrees that the
>objectivity in science is an historical fallacy.

I have no respect for the honours system in the British Education system. He's probably never made an original discovery in his life and is merely a highly trained technician.


>What a piss-poor semantic trick. Completely different context
>of the word!! I HOPE you know this too.

Your sharp today. It doesnt' matter either way. With objectivity and reason the world is the mad house that it is today. You are merely an example of a mind that conforms to it's "standards". I have no respect for your opinions.

This first statement is still subject to mediation by its
author. It is a matter of degree of subjectivity.

NO tthe first statement is a statement of fact in objective language.

p.s. Im a writer, not an author. Roland Barthes killed the Author in the same way Neitzche killed God.

in this sense. The author will always have influence. He simply wished to put more focus on the SUBJECTIVE interpretation of the reader.

..well what the fuck. I'm not the author of this statement. I typed it. I would not claim authorship of this, since it has no great meaning for me.

..ive never even read the book. I just like the title and the statement it made. same as God is Dead. there is enough in these comments to make me think for years and years instead of regurgitating the mainstream interpretation of these ideas.

You are the 'author' of anything you write!!!

Never read the book and yet you comment on it?! That would be like writing that Monster's Ball provides a better reflection of race relations in the States than Crash, having never seen Crash.

Oh dear.

..can a writer write a book? Again I see you are prescribing to your own preconceptions about the world and the people in it. I can see the cogs in your brain turning. You may be educated but you've never learn anything.

What's your point?

..why do you insist on calling me the author? And why do you read every post I make and try to use it for ammunition?

>..why do you insist on calling me the author?

Because you are.

And why do you
>read every post I make and try to use it for ammunition?

Because you constantly seek to deny your conveyed stupidity and hypocrisy. What's the problem? On the ropes kid?

>>..why do you insist on calling me the author?
>
>Because you are.

no I am not.
>
>Because you constantly seek to deny your conveyed stupidity
>and hypocrisy. What's the problem? On the ropes kid?

No problem. Sitting in my chair.

'Lemon Kid is the author of his downfall'?

Don't sit in the corner, throw in the towel. You're punch-drunk kid.

>'Lemon Kid is the author of his downfall'?
>
>Don't sit in the corner, throw in the towel. You're
>punch-drunk kid.
>
I dont subscribe too your subjective interpretation of this exchange. You've alreay denied the validity of objective analysis so I cant say you did that. I dont really care about syntax and grammar. I pay no mind to the rules of English Language. I also dont feel guilty for enjoying myself when Im speeding at warp factor 8.

...and anyway I'm a poet...

...are you done banging your head against the great wall of china yet?

>..there is no rationale in Christian Right Wing Thought.
>Unless its getting rich and killing people in the name of the
>lord. Oh yeah and breeding and practicing real religios
>bigotry.

Is not subscribing (the word is not 'prescribing') to YOUR own preconceptions about the world. Do this and you will win the argument.

Is not subscribing (the word is not 'prescribing') to YOUR own
>preconceptions about the world. Do this and you will win the
>argument.

I dont care whether I win the argument. I dont see why I should jump through hoops for some who believes I am an ignoramus.

Is not subscribing (the word is not 'prescribing') to YOUR own
>preconceptions about the world. Do this and you will win the
>argument.

"subscribing"=subjective? I have no preconceptions about the world I make discoveries.

>"subscribing"=subjective? I have no preconceptions about the
>world I make discoveries.


Another Okayplayer who thinks his ideas are objective because they are 'the word of God'!!!!!

So you make discoveries and I make preconceptions? Fuck off with that stupid bullshit.

Another Okayplayer who thinks his ideas are objective because
they are 'the word of God'!!!!!

So you make discoveries and I make preconceptions? Fuck off
with that stupid bullshit.

I said they were objective. Not objective truth. But then again you have restorted to calling me stupid and using expleteives. So maybe I do speak the truth. The word of God, by the way, is silent and unwritten.

What are you gonna do? Bleed on me?

*Last post*

>What are you gonna do? Bleed on me?
>

Laugh at you. And then damn you to hell ya faggot. DOnt be calling me a fucking star. When you'd rather I didnt exist. Go and fuck yourself or whatever poor desperate woman you can find. You took too much. Burn those notes baby boy they aint worth shit. And the fact you'll come back with another post of bullshit means you know exactly what Im talking about. Is that clear enough?

..and for a further point. I doubt the validity or relevance of Walter Benjamins Essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproducton" for our own situation, where I am reasonably sure this work would have come from...i.e. the idea of the Author as Producer. Perhaps Barthes reached similar conclusions...I have read the book whilst at art school and I probably failed to understand it because it was not relevant to my own context. Or maybe Im just a pseudo intellectual like everybody else in here.

>..there is no rationale in Christian Right Wing Thought.
>Unless its getting rich and killing people in the name of the
>lord. Oh yeah and breeding and practicing real religios
>bigotry. Your supposed to analyse the quoute, not offer an
>preconceived opinion.

What a ridiculous attempt at objectivity. Try the Bible if you want Christian rationale, not the propaganda. peace,

>>..there is no rationale in Christian Right Wing Thought.
>>Unless its getting rich and killing people in the name of
>the
>>lord. Oh yeah and breeding and practicing real religios
>>bigotry. Your supposed to analyse the quoute, not offer an
>>preconceived opinion.
>
>What a ridiculous attempt at objectivity. Try the Bible if
>you want Christian rationale, not the propaganda. peace,

Who was trying to be objective? Know your enemy eh?

>>What a ridiculous attempt at objectivity. Try the Bible if
>>you want Christian rationale, not the propaganda. peace,
>
>Who was trying to be objective? Know your enemy eh?

Oh.. well that's stupid.

This quote is made by one of the most vociferous, leading Atheistic philosophers, and it's ADMITTING that there is you CANNOT explain to someone "Why they should be good" by pure reason.

Rationality will not take you to morality.

dig?

Attempting trying to see if you could rationally explain why a moral lifestyle is better than an immoral lifestyle. And you cannot...

so...

Why be good??????

..what rewards does it grant me if I am "good".

So I will ask you again... why be good?

is completely divorced from morality.

..true. Ethics and Morality exist in the field of rationality, where the knife of reason has no place.

Why be good?????????

..define good? Can murder be an act of good? (for example).

The point of the original post is that here is one of the world's leading atheistic philosophers admitting that there is no rational way to explain why people should be good.

So... either we must abandon the idea that "we should be good" - and shut this whole activist board down - OR we must explain ...

"Why be good?"

dig?


You ask me if a murder can be good?
I answer with a question. Can ANYTHING be good?
If you say yes, I'm going to then ask you "how", and then we've come right back to the quote that I originally posted.

See how it comes together (or falls apart)?

So basically without a belief in God or some greater being than yourself it is impossible to be good?

ANYONE can be good, and a lot of people are.

HOWEVER, without God, there can't be any such thing as "good".

SO, a person who does not believe in God, CANNOT rationally explain why their "goodness" is preferable to badness.

..so in that case can it be explained irrationally? Is not the fact that this philospher has decided to examine the issue and answer it with honesty and truthfulness (since i believe he is being honest with himself, so therefore his answers, unless he is lying for whatever reason, will be true) a good in itself?

>..so in that case can it be explained irrationally?


That is a contradiction in terms. You cannot "explain something irrationally"... to do so would be the equivalent of "not explaining it".


>Is not
>the fact that this philospher has decided to examine the issue
>and answer it with honesty and truthfulness (since i believe
>he is being honest with himself, so therefore his answers,
>unless he is lying for whatever reason, will be true) a good
>in itself?


I believe it is. I believe his honesty is wholly admirable, and the first step to us figuring out anything about the nature or origin of our notions of goodness. He's a huge, giant leap ahead of those that have not examined their own personal philosophy enough to realize that you cannot explain man's inclination toward goodness by means of pure reason.

You cannot explain to someone, purely rationally, why they "should be moral".
Because the word "should" presupposes an existing moral notion. You're appealing to morality to explain why morality should be practiced. It's begging the question. It's fallacious. It's faulty reasoning.

Without God, there can be no such thing is real goodness.

We must choose. Either we are activists, and believe in a good God, or if we don't believe, yet still claim to be activists, we are illogical hypocrites.

I challenge anyone on this board to show otherwise. Not for the purposes of being antagonistic am I saying this, but for the purpose of getting at TRUTH.

Someone, earlier in this post said something to the effect of "it's totally impossible to be objective". Yet, he assumes that what he's saying is objectively true. He's contradicting himself. Dig?

peace.

...One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it...

God produces a small Italian car?

haha... Mr. Russel...

No hate though, I've done it too man.


This is an obselete objection. Plato's dichotomy is false.

Something is good not because God says it is, nor does God say it is good because it is good.

Goodness is the very NATURE of God, and there is good reason to believe that goodness is chronologically prior to evil (as the story of "the fall" suggests).


peace.

you arrogant snot.


>This is an obselete objection. Plato's dichotomy is false.
>
>Something is good not because God says it is, nor does God say
>it is good because it is good.
>
>Goodness is the very NATURE of God,

Oh, so goodness is not defined by God's fiat, it's defined by man's fiat! Still this enforced synonimy doesn't seem to improve matters. The statement "God is good" is just as empty under this definition, and for essentially the same reason.

>and there is good reason
>to believe that goodness is chronologically prior to evil (as
>the story of "the fall" suggests).

Chronologically prior? I don't exactly see the relevance of that statement. However, you give us an opportunity to ask why, if goodness (and therefore God, according to your definition) is "chronologically prior" to evil, and God is taken to be all-powerful, why did He allow evil to come into being?

(Not to mention the fact that chronology is an entirely physical concept. There is no reason, other than conceptual rigidity, to use it in this situation.)

>you arrogant snot.


Can you not do that? Please?
I'm quite aware of the possibility that tone or intention can get lost in translation by way of caps or exclamation points (like "your a cut and paster!!"), or even just the intensity of demonstration or debate (like relentlessly going at someone's fallacy or assumption or whatever)... but so far as I know (and I'm open to correction on this), I'm not swearing and name-calling, am I? I don't know why you do this.

Believe it or not, I had a smile on my face when I typed "you're a cut and paster!!". How could I not? I've done it too. I will probably do it again, even within this post.

I didn't realize the ellipses signified a quote, thanks for filling me in on this. I know now.

I just don't think the swearing and just general belligerence is called for. We're all adults here right? We can argue rigourously and even joke (again, we should be careful, as it's hard to "come across" in text) and we can do all of this without sayin' stuff like "get the f___ over yourself" and "you arrogant little snot".

I'll be the first to admit I've capped some text and addes exclamations, but so far as I know (and again, correct me) I refrain from flat-out insulting people. Am I wrong on this?

anyway...



>Oh, so goodness is not defined by God's fiat,

No, by God's nature. God's commands flow naturally from who/what God is.


>it's defined by
>man's fiat!


No, but it will continue to look that way as long as you remain under the assumption that no human could possibly know any truth about God. So I understand why you think that.


>Still this enforced synonimy doesn't seem to
>improve matters. The statement "God is good" is just as empty
>under this definition, and for essentially the same reason.


I would argue that the word "good" is meaningless (that is, devoide of any real, objective meaning) in a worldview that does not acknowledge God

"God is good" is only empty because you choose not to acknowledge God.



>Chronologically prior? I don't exactly see the relevance of
>that statement.

Well, dualists tend to think there are two infinite, eternal powers in this world... Good and Evil. And I only mentioned it to point out that there seems to be some sort of hint to the idea that "evil" is not "as old" as "good" in just sort of examining what we mean when we talk about evil. It's usually an "indecent means to a decent ends". What I mean is, there doesn't seem to be anything inherently wrong with long life, financial security, abundant resources, etc... it's just the "means" by which some of these things are gone after that we consider "evil". It seems that evil is a perversion of good, not concept as original and eternal as good, but rather "chronologically prior" (and I see this was a poor choice fo wording, but like you said... "conceptual rigitity"... I believe it works for that) but do you see what I'm getting at?

>However, you give us an opportunity to ask
>why, if goodness (and therefore God, according to your
>definition) is "chronologically prior" to evil, and God is
>taken to be all-powerful, why did He allow evil to come into
>being?

That seems to be the "question of questions" doesn't it?

Will you give me a hearing if I speak (and quoting) on it for a moment?

To begin with...
Notice that the problem is not: "Why do we suffer?"
The problem is really: "If Christianity is true, why do we suffer?"

Lewis says,
"Christianity is not the conclusion of a philosophical debate about the origin of the universe. It is a catastrophic, historical event. It is not a system into which we have to fit the awkward fact of pain. It itself is one of the awkward facts which has to be fitted into any system we make. In a sense it 'creates' the problem of pain. For, pain would not be an intellectual problem, unless side by side with our daily experiences of this painful world, we had received what we think was a good assurance that ultimate reality was, in fact, righteous and loving."

So the problem is not just "pain".
The problem is "a loving God, and pain".

This, in fact, is the only "strong" argument for atheism.
(When Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologica, he wrote 4,000 pages of carefully reasoned argumentation, always trying to be utterly fair to his opponent by listing all possible objections an opponent could offer on every one of thousands of questions addressed. "Three" is the minumum number of objections that he offers to each of his arguments. In other words, he is rigorous. Every article in the book has at least THREE objections to it, except the most important article in the whole book... the first one: "The Existence of God". Aquinas can find only TWO arguments against the existence of God in the entire history of human thought. One of these arguments doesn't even claim to be an argument, for if it did, it would be fallacious, an "Ignoratio Elenchi" ("Science can't prove that there is a God, so there's not"). Obvioulsy that would not prove that there is not one.)

The only argument that even CLAIMS to prove that there is no God is the one we are discussing on this board: The Problem of Pain (suffering, evil, etc.).

So this is big.

So what's the problem?

The Syllogism goes:
1. If God were good, He would wish to make His creatures totally happy.
2. If God were almighty, He would be able to do whatever he wished.
3. But we, His creatures, are not totally happy.
4. Therefore, God lacks either goodness, power, or both.

As a Christian, I firmly believe that God is all good, all loving, all powerful, and all wise.

But then, how come we're so miserable? How come the problem of pain?

Well,
Consider that there are three components of an argument:
1) terms (that mean something)
2) propositions (that are either true or false)
3) Inference (the logic of the argument, which claims to prove the conclusion)

Then Logically..
There are also three things that can go wrong with any argument:
1) The TERMS may be ambiguous (their meaning may not be clear)
2) The propositions may be false (remember, you can prove anything with false premises)
3) The inference may not be tight enough (not sound, or invalid)

So what do we make of the "Problem of Pain" argument in light of this?
The logic seems to be extremely tight,
and the premises certainly seem to be true.

So, the only possibility of answering this argument would be showing that the "terms" (all good, all loving, and all powerful) were, in fact, ambiguous.

Lewis says...
"For it must be admitted from the outset that if the meanings attached to these words are the popular meanings, the argument is unanswerable".

It becomes necessary then to make sure that the terms aren't ambiguous. We have to explore this argument at it's most basic level, the terms... how Socratic.



I - All Powerful (omnipotence)
What does it mean when we say that God is "all-powerful"?

Omnipotence is the power to do "all that is possible", but not to do the "intrinsically impossible".

Lewis says...
"You may attribute miracles to God, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power. But if you choose to say 'God can give his creatures free will, and simultaneously withhold free will from them" you've not said anything about God at all. Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we add to them two other words, 'God can'. "

For instance, If you or I could do miracles, we could walk through a wall. However, even if we could do miracles, we could not both "walk through a wall" and "not walk through a wall" at the same time.
That's a meaningless combination of words. It's nonsense.

So if God chose to give us free choice, He could not at the same time take it away and force us to choose Him. It's one or the other. He either creates beings like the plants and animals, innocent, and incapable of sin (because they have no choice) or else he creates beings like us (or the angles) who have the freedom of choice. And if they have the freedom of choice then they have the freedom of choice, dig? The freedom of choice means that you can choose God, but also that you can choose against God.

So IF that is the origin of all evil, then evil is certainly possible.

Therefore, once you recognize that you exist and are thankful that you exist as a human, with choice, a free being... you can't complain that God is not exercising his omnipotence in eradicating all evil from the world. It would take away one of (if not the central) attribute of your being, choice. It's asking God to do nonsense. (It's like that stupid "quandry" about whether or not God could make a rock so heavy that He could not lift it. There is no such thing as a rock so heavy that God can't lift it. It's nonsense. The argument fails at it's most basic level, the term.)

So the usual argument proceeds then...
"So God decided to give us free will... we used it badly... we sinned... sin came into the world and that's our fault, not God's".

Which works as an explanation. This after all, is the myth contained in the fist two chapters of the Bible. The totally good God creates a totally good universe, and after each of the days of creation He announces that everything He has made is "Good" (including making us). He calls it all good.

So this is all fine, tenable and well but... "what about evil"?
How can this possible cohere with God's "all goodness"?




II - Evil
Evil then did not come into the world because God is evil ("in him there is no darkness, only light"), nor because anything He created is evil (because He called it ALL "good").

Therefore, evil is not a "THING".
Evil's not stuff.
It's not dark "stuff" that fights with light "stuff".
It's not stuff at all, all stuff is "good".

It is, in fact, "wrong choices".
He didn't do it. We did it.

This explains "sin" (moral evil). But what about physical evil?
It's easy to get God off the hook for sin... but what about pain?

The stock answer is quite profound if you consider it seriously.
Consider that we are not just physical creatures, but spiritual creatures too. We are at the same time physical and spiritual. Our body and our soul are not two "things" like a captain and a ship or a ghost and a machine. Rather, they're like the words you're reading here, and the meaning of the words you're reading here. If you change one, you're gonna change the other. You can't alter the words without altering the meaning. My body is like the words, my soul like the meaning. So when my soul fell into evil, by way of sin (choosing against God), my body falls with it, necessarily, into pain, suffering, and mortality.

Lewis says takes this idea even further, saying...
"In order for us to exercise our free will, we have to live in a world that we can make choices 'about'. To have free choice is to choose about something or other."

If we're sinners, and have wills that are not in harmony with God's will, then we're not gonna be in harmony with each other either, and there is going to be competition. Something that may be convenient for me may be inconvenient for you, if there's a "thing" there. So, once God creates a material world and free souls, and they fall into sin, pain follows logically.


III - Divine Goodness (omni-benevolence)

God is totally good?
The problem it seems is that a human being, who was totally "good" wouldn't do (much less allow) the kinds of evil that God allows. But, God allows it. Why? Would a "good" God do that?

A parent who casually looked on as his child ran out into the street while a mack truck was speeding towards would not be a "good" parent. But isn't this similar to what God does in allowing evil to befall us?

Obviously this is a really serious problem.

Lewis addresses this with...
"By the 'goodness' of God, we mean, chiefly, his 'lovingness', and in this we may be right. But by 'love', most of us mean 'kindness', that is, 'the desire to see others happy'... just happy. What we would really like would be a God who said, of anything we happened to like doing, 'What does it matter as long as they are content?'. We want, in fact, not a 'father in heaven', but rather a 'grandfather in heaven'... a senile benevolence who, as they say, 'likes to see the young people enjoying themselves', and who's plan for the universe was that it might be truly said at the end of each day that 'a good time was had by all'. Not many people, I admit, would formulate a theology in precisely those terms, but a conception not very different lurks at the back of many minds. I do not claim to be an exception. I should very much like to live in a universe which is governed on such lines. Let's be honest, wouldn't you? But since it is abundantly clear that I do not live in such a universe, and since I have reason to believe, nevertheless, that God is love, I conclude that my conception of love must need correction."

Has anyone noticed that we question God by our concept of love, rather than questioning our concept of love by God?
And if we did (do the latter) what would would we deduce?
Possibly we would deduce that kindness is a part of love, but not all of it.
We're kind to strangers, but people we love we're more than kind to.

If some stranger came to you and said "life is meaningless man, I think I'm gonna just say "f--- it" and pick up an ecstacy, heroin and coke habit"... of course you're going to offer something in the way of advice that they shouldn't do so. But if this stranger persisted, and then went on about their way (and you'd never see them again) after your attempts at advice failed, of course you'd worry for them, and be saddened, but that might be the extent of it. Now, if your son, daughter, mother, brother, sister, or best friend came to you and said this same thing, you're reaction would be wholly different. You wouldn't "let it go" after a mere argument. You'd do everything. You'd shout and scream.
Your protest wouldn't cease. Love is more than kindness.

Love is more mysterious than kindness. Kindness is very clear. Everyone has a desire for pleasure and aversion to pain. We all understand this to be the case. But we also have other desires... goodness, honor, righteousness, perfection. If we desire for others what we desire for ourselves, then we desire MORE than just pleasure for them. We desire for them to be made better. Precisely because we love them.

So if God designed all those more mysterious desires, and our desire for them, and if God truly loves us, the whole of us, the best of us, then His love is bound to by mysterious. Sometimes the lower good has to be sacrificed for the higher good. We know this maxim, it's why we go to the dentist.

I think we know, more than we let on, that love may very well cause pain to it's object, but ONLY if that object needs alteration in order to become more lovable.

I will refuse to unlock the door to the room in which my friend going through heroin withdrawals is, painfully screaming and writhing, precisely because I love that friend. That friend my hate me for what I'm doing, even scream at the top of his/her lungs that I'm wholly evil, a heartless tyrant, but it would only be because of their condition that they thought so.

Correlatively,
An animal caught in a trap thrashes wildly, hissing and scratching, refusing to let the approaching human come any closer out of fear. But only because this animal does not know that the approaching human is coming to FREE him. The animal is stuck, and it's pain cannot stop until it allows itself to be saved from its predicament.



IV - Human Happiness, and How Human Wickedness Impedes It

So we see that it is intellectually conceivable that love may cause pain to it's object, if that object is in need of alteration.
Love does not reconcile itself to imperfection.

The question then is WHY do we need so much alteration?
(Cause either we do, or we don't. But pain persists, so we must.)

The Christian answer to this is -
-that we have used our free will to become very bad. This doctrine (original sin) is well known, and hardly needs to be expounded.

However, back when the apostles preached the gospel, just after Jesus' departure, they could preach this doctrine of "being saved" because everyone (jew, gentile, and pagan) believed in a real moral law, and that transgressing it deserved "divine anger". It is evident in every myth of every culture. They believed in objective morality. Sin is only possible if there is objective morality. To sin is to violate the moral law... to do something you know is wrong. Today though, the gospel of "being saved" is up against a greater challenge... for men no longer believe in a moral law. Freud taught us that "morality is relative" (a logically untenable position), and now we believe we can do no wrong because there is no "real wrong". Well, if there's no moral law, then there's no sin, if there's no sin, then there is no need for being saved, if there's no need for being saved, then there is no need for what Jesus claimed He came here, singularly, to do. But now "divine anger must be preached before "divine forgiveness"... the diagnosis before the cure... the bad news before the good news. For years pop-psychology and nihilist philosophy as tried to erase from men's minds the notion that there might really be something "wrong" with them, and yet here we have our world with "wrong" all around us, real wrong, objective wrong, and we KNOW it. Who will save us? A new economic system? A new tax plan? Howard Dean? Think deeper.

Why do you think Christianity (the real thing), is so unpopular in modern America? Because it makes no sense to the modern American.
Jesus is the saviour. "From what?" will be the the reply. Poverty? Ignorance? Voting for the wrong guy? No. Sin! "What's that? That's not real. I don't like that word" will come the reply.

The bad news has got to be understood before the goodness makes any sense. "Sin" is the bad news.
It's the thing that no one wants to believe and yet, ironically, it is that peculiar Christian doctrine that is completely, wholly emperically verifiable. How? Just look around! Why is there a lock on your door? Your car? Why are there courts? Why are there cops? Just look. It's right there staring us all in the face.

Lewis says...
"I believe sin to be a fact, and I notice that the holier a man is, the more aware of that fact he is".

Who's the authority on how good we are, bad people, or good people? Good people.
Who is a more reliable source on how sober we are, drunks, or sober people? Sober people.
Then, ask the saints how good we as people are, and you will hear "we're all terrible sinners".
Paul (the apostle) referred to himself as the "chief of sinners".

Lewis says...
"Perhaps you have imagined that this humility among the saints is a pious illusion that wins God's favor. This is a most dangerous error. For it makes you identify a virtue, which is a perfection, with an illusion, that is an imperfection. "

Ok, so we're sinners, and we need a lot of alteration that we don't understand. But how did this state of affairs come about?

Lewis says...
The point of "The Fall" is that man as a species spoiled himself, and that "good" to us in our present, fallen state, must therefore mean remedial or corrective good."

We're broken, we've got to be restored.

So what part "pain" plays in such a remedy or correction now has to be considered.

Divine providence is not just "God has a great plan for your life". It is more, it is "God is straightening you out".

Lewis says...
"God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks to us in our conscience, and shouts to us in our pain. It is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world".

And also...
"A bad man who is happy is a man without any inkling that his actions do not answer, that is, who is unaware that his actions are not in accord with the laws of the universe. A perception of this truth lies at the back of the universal human feeling that
'bad men ought to suffer'.

It's not just vengeance. It's not even just justice. It's charity. We need truth. If I'm bad, and I don't know that, then what's not charity is having that illusion fostered.

That's one use of pain. There's a second.

Lewis says...
"If the first operation of pain shatters the illusion that all is well with us, the second shatters another illusion, namely that what we have in this world, however good it is, is our own and enough for us. We've all noticed how hard it is to turn our thoughts to God when everything is going well. Now, God who has made us, knows what we are and knows that our happiness lies in Him alone. Yet, we will not seek it in Him alone as long as he leaves us any other resort where it can even plausibly be looked for."

But this raises a really obvious question
If God is "supreme joy", why would we look for it in anywhere but Him, going so far as to concsiously avoid him and pursue it where it can't be found.

The only answer to that is "because we're nuts" (The Fall).

Lewis says...
"While what we call our own life remains agreeable to us, we will not surrender it to Him. But He made us such that that surrender is the only way to our happiness. What then can God do in our own best interest but make our life LESS agreeable to us and take away these plausible sources of false happiness. It is just here that God's providence seems, at first, to be the most cruel... We are preplexed to see to see misfortune falling upon decent, inoffesive, worthy people. How can I say with sufficient tenderness what here needs to be said? Let me just implore the reader to try to believe, if only for the moment, that God who made these deserving people, may really be right when He says that their modest worldly prosperity, and even the happiness of their children, is not enough to make the fully blessed (eudymonic), that all of this must fall from them in the end."

and

".... The Christian doctrine of suffering, I believe, explains a very curious fact about the world we live in. The settled happiness and security which we all desire, God withholds from us by the very nature of the world. Any one of us might fall into death, suffering, a horrible accident, tragedy, at any moment. But joy and pleasure, He has scattered broadly. We are never safe, but we have plenty of fun, even ecstacy. Why? I think it is not hard to see why. The security we crave would teach us to rest our hearts in this world, and make it very hard to return to God. But a few moments of happy love, or a landscape or a symphony, or a merry meeting with our friends, or a bath or a football game have no such tendency. Our father refreshes us on the journey with some very pleasant inns, but will not encourage us to mistake them for home. "

>>you arrogant snot.
>
>
>Can you not do that? Please?
>I'm quite aware of the possibility that tone or intention can
>get lost in translation by way of caps or exclamation points
>(like "your a cut and paster!!"), or even just the intensity
>of demonstration or debate (like relentlessly going at
>someone's fallacy or assumption or whatever)... but so far as
>I know (and I'm open to correction on this), I'm not swearing
>and name-calling, am I? I don't know why you do this.

Well, as far as the cursing goes, fuck off. We're on okayplayer. My cursing is hardly outside of the general idiom here. But you'll at least be happy to learn that when I called you an "arrogant snot," the choice of that last word followed a certain amount of self-censorship.

As for the name-calling, this behavior is not generally justifiable even on okayplayer, but in this case, I'm doing it for a reason. When I say "get the fuck over yourself," or, "you arrogant snot," or, "get the fuck over yourself you arrogant snot," I'm calling you out on the fact that you are not approaching this discussion with the humility it deserves. You have repeatedly claimed that a rational justification exists for Christianity, I've even seen you specifically refer to yourself as a philosopher. So when you bring up issues related to the justification of Christian faith, it is natural for us to treat such discussion as a rational debate. However in the practice of the discussion, it is clear that all of your appeals to "logic" and "rationalism" are nothing more than a poorly developed facade.

More concretely: you are not here to debate, you are here to reveal what you consider to be absolute truth. This is not the behavior of a philosopher, it is the behavior of a missionary, a propagandist. If you were to admit that you are here to describe your own deeply held personal feelings of faith, everything would be alright. You would make your posts, and I and others would say to ourselves "whatever, dude's a nut" and move on to some other thread. But you seem to realize the weakness in this state of affairs, and adopt the trappings of rational debate. This seems to class up your point of view, as long as nobody notices that you are not paying the fair price for these trappings.

If you are having a rational discussion, you must be willing to admit at all stages that your point of view might be completely unjustified. The goal is not to reveal truths, it's to present your understanding of the situation. At most you can hope that your understanding is more compelling than whatever alternatives are presented.

So it seems we can view your behavior in either of two ways:

You are a dishonest propagandist, appealing to rationality only when it supports your thesis, and evading rationality when it does not (something I've seen you do a few times in this thread, by the way).

Or we can give you the benefit of the doubt, as I have, and view your behavior as that of someone who really does want to rationally debate, who thinks he's proven to himself that any rational debate must lead to the acceptance of Christianity, and when things aren't going his way, chalks it up to his opponent's inability to understand the argument. In other words, an arrogant shit.




>I just don't think the swearing and just general belligerence
>is called for. We're all adults here right? We can argue
>rigourously and even joke (again, we should be careful, as
>it's hard to "come across" in text) and we can do all of this
>without sayin' stuff like "get the f___ over yourself" and
>"you arrogant little snot".

I think you mean to use the word "vigorously," not "rigorously." We're hardly being rigorous here.



>anyway...

anyway...


>>> Goodness is the very nature of God.

>>Oh, so goodness is not defined by God's fiat,
>
>No, by God's nature. God's commands flow naturally from
>who/what God is.

The issue is how goodness is defined, not where it "flows" from. If it is defined without even implicit reference to God, then God is no longer seed of all creation. If it is defined simply to "be" that which flows from God (the view which you seem to hold), then you have two problems, the statement "God is good" becomes a tautology, and you must also be careful not to simply define "evil" as the set-theoretic complement of "goodness," or else, again, if there is such a thing as "evil," God is again not the seed of all creation. Such a careful construction of evil seems to be a major focus the sermon you've given us in post 211. But even if your construction holds any water (and I intend to express a couple of doubts), the tautology remains.

>>it's defined by
>>man's fiat!
>
>
>No, but it will continue to look that way as long as you
>remain under the assumption that no human could possibly know
>any truth about God. So I understand why you think that.

There you go again, pretending to know what I'm thinking. You arrogant shit.






>>However, you give us an opportunity to ask
>>why, if goodness (and therefore God, according to your
>>definition) is "chronologically prior" to evil, and God is
>>taken to be all-powerful, why did He allow evil to come into
>>being?
>
>That seems to be the "question of questions" doesn't it?

Well, I actually don't think so anymore. I, in a moment of complete stupidity, raised one of the famous silly, childish questions, and you seem to be giving me the standard answer. That is, as I understand, that God, despite being all-powerful (whatever that means) has given mankind the capability of free will. With this capability comes a certain creative ownership over our own decisions. In this sense it is possibile to say that certain (at least intellectual) structures were created by man and not by God. One can then take this viewpoint and say that evil was a creation of man, and that for God to stop it, while it was indeed within His power, would have required the placement of further limits upon our free will.







>So the problem is not just "pain".
>The problem is "a loving God, and pain".
>
>This, in fact, is the only "strong" argument for atheism.

There you go again, "knowing" the "truth." You arrogant, whatever...

>(When Thomas Aquinas wrote his Summa Theologica, he wrote
>4,000 pages of carefully reasoned argumentation, always trying
>to be utterly fair to his opponent by listing all possible
>objections an opponent could offer on every one of thousands
>of questions addressed. "Three" is the minumum number of
>objections that he offers to each of his arguments. In other
>words, he is rigorous. Every article in the book has at least
>THREE objections to it, except the most important article in
>the whole book... the first one: "The Existence of God".
>Aquinas can find only TWO arguments against the existence of
>God in the entire history of human thought. One of these
>arguments doesn't even claim to be an argument, for if it did,
>it would be fallacious, an "Ignoratio Elenchi" ("Science can't
>prove that there is a God, so there's not"). Obvioulsy that
>would not prove that there is not one.)

Well, it depends on how we view experience. If one only sees it as a tool to communicate a Platonic ideal, something that exists, um, objectively, regardless of experience, and then uses the word "reality" to refer to that ideal, then I agree with you.

If instead, one takes the more streamlined viewpoint that the word "reality" refers only to experience itself, the view that moot seems to be taking, and that I tend to prefer, then indeed God only exists to the extent that He can be experienced. If He is not experienced, then by definition, He does not exist.


>The only argument that even CLAIMS to prove that there is no
>God is the one we are discussing on this board: The Problem
>of Pain (suffering, evil, etc.).


>I - All Powerful (omnipotence)
>What does it mean when we say that God is "all-powerful"?
>
>Omnipotence is the power to do "all that is possible", but not
>to do the "intrinsically impossible".

The problem is that you must then make a listing of what is "intrinsically impossible." In what follows, you and Lewis construct examples using word games. You build up actions which appear to be self-contradictory, and appeal to logic to do the work of limiting His abilities. Trouble is, God doesn't have to answer to your silly logic, I presume you view logic itself as God's creation. It isn't clear that anything is "intrinsically impossible" in this way to a God who is also capable of choosing which of the many mathematically consistent logical systems to make relevant to the problem at hand. That's a mouthful...I'll discuss this in the context of your example of walking through a wall.

>Lewis says...
>"You may attribute miracles to God, but not nonsense. There
>is no limit to His power. But if you choose to say 'God can
>give his creatures free will, and simultaneously withhold free
>will from them" you've not said anything about God at all.
>Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire
>meaning simply because we add to them two other words, 'God
>can'. "

Well, "He" does withhold a certain amount of free will from us. I can't travel to the moon and back instantaneously, for instance. Lewis's statement seems entirely ill-conceived here. This is actually, in my view, an important criticism of this argument. We clearly have only a limited amount of free will. Why doesn't God limit it in such a manner as to remove the possibility of evil, but leave us with whatever free will remains? Perhaps this would be impossible, but I would like to see an argument.

But still, that's not the issue which interests me the most at the moment. This issue is more easily illustrated by your example --

>For instance, If you or I could do miracles, we could walk
>through a wall. However, even if we could do miracles, we
>could not both "walk through a wall" and "not walk through a
>wall" at the same time.
>That's a meaningless combination of words. It's nonsense.

Actually, it's not nonsense. Or rather, it's only nonsense because you are assuming it to be so when you choose to work with a bivalent logic system. In the world of physics, for instance, it is entirely possible for a particle to pass through a wall as it is not passing through that wall. This state of affairs is referred to as "quantum entanglement" and it has been confirmed not only by theoretical arguments but also through repeated experimental verification. As well as we know anything in science, we know that the quantum state of any system does not precisely conform to a classical logic. There are two standard ways of dealing with this state of affairs.

1.) The standard view among practical physicists is that the world which we experience is not related to any objective reality, that our own personal, subjective analysis of experience is the only thing which provides any structure to the world. My guess is that you disagree with this viewpoint, in which case you'll be happy to learn that I do as well.

2.) That a logic does apply to objects in a "real" world, but it is simply not a classical logic. By a "classical" logic, I mean a system built on the standard nontrivial arithmetic over Z_2. By Z_2, I mean a set with only two elements, in math they're usually called 0 and 1, in other logical applications they're more commonly referred to as "false" and "true."

In fact, mathematically, one can build consistent arithmetics on sets which contain more elements than 0 and 1 (in fact, the most famous arithmetic is over the "real numbers," a continuum of elements). If we translate our terms from those of mathematics to those of logic, we obtain a consistent logical system in which statements can take on more values than simply truth and falsehood.

Physicists have developed a few such nonclassical logics, which they have come to call "quantum logics," for use when describing physical systems.

So now the question is available to us: if the nature of God can be discussed rationally, what kind of logic should the debate follow? The type of contradictions which you and Lewis are dealing with are inherently connected to classical logic, and they do not seem to follow under less specific assumptions.

>So if God chose to give us free choice, He could not at the
>same time take it away and force us to choose Him. It's one
>or the other.

One or the other. Exactly. Why should we assume this?

>He either creates beings like the plants and
>animals, innocent, and incapable of sin (because they have no
>choice) or else he creates beings like us (or the angles)

Angles? dictionary.com: "A Germanic people that migrated to England from southern Jutland in the 5th century A.D., founded the kingdoms of Northumbria, East Anglia, and Mercia, and together with the Jutes and Saxons formed the Anglo-Saxon peoples."

Just playin'.

>who
>have the freedom of choice. And if they have the freedom of
>choice then they have the freedom of choice, dig?

You're offended by my use of curse words, I'm offended by your use of the word "dig."

>The freedom
>of choice means that you can choose God, but also that you can
>choose against God.

I'm tempted to start arguing with you about abortion policy here. But I don't think we can handle the distraction.

tried to tell me that I should be a greater linguist than Webster? Just curious...

But I wasn't saying you needed a better dictionary, I was saying the dictionary wasn't relevant in that context.

You requested that I "define the word 'exist'".

I used a dictionary.

You tried to define "existence" using a dictionary!

And apparently you're still not embarrassed by that.


Hey, how does Webster define "symplectomorphism"?

how do you define existence? obviously you don't agree with myself or webster or mankind.

>how do you define existence?

I can't. Neither can you. The difference is that I'm not pretending to completely understand fundamental "truths."


We're retreading an ancient argument. Let it die and get to the subject at hand.

you really don't know me.

I'll drop it, mr. scientist.

>you really don't know me.

Yeah, thinking that you might be levelheaded enough to get over an argument you lost months ago. I don't know you. But as for the cracka comment, I do know that much.

>
>>you really don't know me.
>
>Yeah, thinking that you might be levelheaded enough to get
>over an argument you lost months ago. I don't know you.

Scientists.

But
>as for the cracka comment, I do know that much.
>

Right, the product of two biracial parents is a cracka... idiot.

>>
>>>you really don't know me.
>>
>>Yeah, thinking that you might be levelheaded enough to get
>>over an argument you lost months ago. I don't know you.
>
>Scientists.

Crackas.

>>So the problem is not just "pain".
>>The problem is "a loving God, and pain".
>>
>>This, in fact, is the only "strong" argument for atheism.


>There you go again, "knowing" the "truth." You arrogant,
>whatever...


Pain is not a problem until the notion that "there should not be pain" exists.
An all-powerful, all-loving God provides the only conceivable grounds for such a notion.
Therefore, the "problem of pain" is not a problem until God is introduced to the picture.



>Well, "He" does withhold a certain amount of free will from
>us. I can't travel to the moon and back instantaneously, for
>instance.


I would ask you whether that's really an example of holding back "free will" from you or not. You can't do anything "instantaneously", can you Strav? Is there any such thing as "instantaneously"? Does not any event require the fabric of time to take place in? And if an event takes place in the fabric of time, then it "takes some time"... some, at least, even if a moment, doesn't it? Now, are you asking why you cannot fly to the moon and back "really fast"? Is that what you mean by "instantaneous"? If that's the case, the answer is "cause you havn't figured out the technology yet"... I don't see how this has anyting to do with God withholding your free will from you. Could you explain?



>Lewis's statement seems entirely ill-conceived
>here. This is actually, in my view, an important criticism of
>this argument. We clearly have only a limited amount of free
>will. Why doesn't God limit it in such a manner as to remove
>the possibility of evil

because doing so would remove the possibility of love.


>Actually, it's not nonsense . Or rather, it's only nonsense
>because you are assuming it to be so when you choose to work
>with a bivalent logic system.


What particular type of particle is this Strav? By that I mean, one that you're sure really exists or one that exists insofar as it provides you wtih a good model for observable phenomenon?



>to pass
>through a wall as it is not passing through that wall. This
>state of affairs is referred to as "quantum entanglement" and
>it has been confirmed not only by theoretical arguments but
>also through repeated experimental verification.


I have to say, I hardly believe that what's being perceived is what is actually the case.

Even if it is though, it's interesting that you're not a supernaturalist in light of it... or at least a "subnaturalist"...lol.


>As well as
>we know anything in science, we know that the quantum state of
>any system does not precisely conform to a classical logic.
>There are two standard ways of dealing with this state of
>affairs.
>
>1.) The standard view among practical physicists is that the
>world which we experience is not related to any objective
>reality, that our own personal, subjective analysis of
>experience is the only thing which provides any structure to
>the world. My guess is that you disagree with this viewpoint,
>in which case you'll be happy to learn that I do as well.
>
>2.) That a logic does apply to objects in a "real" world, but
>it is simply not a classical logic. By a "classical" logic, I
>mean a system built on the standard nontrivial arithmetic over
>Z_2. By Z_2, I mean a set with only two elements, in math
>they're usually called 0 and 1, in other logical applications
>they're more commonly referred to as "false" and "true."
>
>In fact, mathematically, one can build consistent arithmetics
>on sets which contain more elements than 0 and 1 (in fact, the
>most famous arithmetic is over the "real numbers," a continuum
>of elements). If we translate our terms from those of
>mathematics to those of logic, we obtain a consistent logical
>system in which statements can take on more values than simply
>truth and falsehood.
>
>Physicists have developed a few such nonclassical logics,
>which they have come to call "quantum logics," for use when
>describing physical systems.
>
>So now the question is available to us: if the nature of God
>can be discussed rationally, what kind of logic should the
>debate follow? The type of contradictions which you and Lewis
>are dealing with are inherently connected to classical logic,
>and they do not seem to follow under less specific
>assumptions.


So would you suggest that we EITHER use a non-bivalent system OR none at all when explaining quantaum entanglement?



>>So if God chose to give us free choice, He could not at the
>>same time take it away and force us to choose Him. It's
>one
>>or the other.



>One or the other. Exactly. Why should we assume this?


Because two contradictory statements cannot both be true.




>Angles? dictionary.com: "A Germanic people that migrated to
>England from southern Jutland in the 5th century A.D., founded
>the kingdoms of Northumbria, East Anglia, and Mercia, and
>together with the Jutes and Saxons formed the Anglo-Saxon
>peoples."


lmao. yes, them.



>You're offended by my use of curse words, I'm offended by your
>use of the word "dig."


It's part of the standard idiom here at OKP.


>I'm tempted to start arguing with you about abortion policy
>here. But I don't think we can handle the distraction.


How might you begin that? I'm all ears.

>>>So the problem is not just "pain".
>>>The problem is "a loving God, and pain".
>>>
>>>This, in fact, is the only "strong" argument for atheism.
>
>
>>There you go again, "knowing" the "truth." You arrogant,
>>whatever...
>
>
>Pain is not a problem until the notion that "there should not
>be pain" exists.
>An all-powerful, all-loving God provides the only conceivable
>grounds for such a notion.
>Therefore, the "problem of pain" is not a problem until God is
>introduced to the picture.

The fact that you can't "conceive" of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


>>Well, "He" does withhold a certain amount of free will from
>>us. I can't travel to the moon and back instantaneously,
>for
>>instance.
>
>
>I would ask you whether that's really an example of holding
>back "free will" from you or not. You can't do anything
>"instantaneously", can you Strav? Is there any such thing as
>"instantaneously"? Does not any event require the fabric of
>time to take place in? And if an event takes place in the
>fabric of time, then it "takes some time"... some, at least,
>even if a moment, doesn't it? Now, are you asking why you
>cannot fly to the moon and back "really fast"? Is that what
>you mean by "instantaneous"? If that's the case, the answer
>is "cause you havn't figured out the technology yet"... I
>don't see how this has anyting to do with God withholding your
>free will from you. Could you explain?

Alright, let's get precise! My clock says 8:35 right now. The causal structure of spacetime does not allow me to travel to the sun and return before the same clock, remaining here on earth, reads 8:36 (the moon, I think, would actually be possible within a minute, in principle). And this is not just a matter of "figuring out the technology." With the right technology, I *could* travel to the moon and back within a minute, but I couldn't do it within a nanosecond. This is a standard result of the theory of relativity, and it lies at the foundation of everything we know about the, um, objective world.


>>Lewis's statement seems entirely ill-conceived
>>here. This is actually, in my view, an important criticism
>of
>>this argument. We clearly have only a limited amount of
>free
>>will. Why doesn't God limit it in such a manner as to
>remove
>>the possibility of evil
>
>because doing so would remove the possibility of love.

Awwww, thweet.

>>Actually, it's not nonsense (walking and not walking through
>a wall at the same >time). Or rather, it's only nonsense
>>because you are assuming it to be so when you choose to work
>>with a bivalent logic system.
>
>
>What particular type of particle is this Strav?

Any. Even you, all of your material structure. Quantum theory governs the behavior of all the matter we have ever observed.

>By that I
>mean, one that you're sure really exists or one that exists
>insofar as it provides you wtih a good model for observable
>phenomenon?

To the extent that scientists know anything about an objective reality, we know that all matter exists in an entangled quantum state. Doubting this fact is no different than doubting evolution by natural selection. Oh, wait...

>>to pass
>>through a wall as it is not passing through that wall. This
>>state of affairs is referred to as "quantum entanglement"
>and
>>it has been confirmed not only by theoretical arguments but
>>also through repeated experimental verification.
>
>
>I have to say, I hardly believe that what's being perceived is
>what is actually the case.

The fact that you can't conceive of something doesn't mean it isn't so.

>Even if it is though, it's interesting that you're not a
>supernaturalist in light of it... or at least a
>"subnaturalist"...lol.

See that's the idea of science. When we see something that's hard to understand, we don't just attribute it to some anthropomorphic myth, we consider it in detail until it doesn't seem so strange anymore.

>>As well as
>>we know anything in science, we know that the quantum state
>of
>>any system does not precisely conform to a classical logic.
>>There are two standard ways of dealing with this state of
>>affairs.
>>
>>1.) The standard view among practical physicists is that
>the
>>world which we experience is not related to any objective
>>reality, that our own personal, subjective analysis of
>>experience is the only thing which provides any structure to
>>the world. My guess is that you disagree with this
>viewpoint,
>>in which case you'll be happy to learn that I do as well.
>>
>>2.) That a logic does apply to objects in a "real" world,
>but
>>it is simply not a classical logic.
>
>
>So would you suggest that we EITHER use a non-bivalent system
>OR none at all when explaining quantaum entanglement?

See, that's why I only said there were two "standard" ways of dealing with the situation. If you can, uhh, conceive of a third possibility you're welcome to suggest it.


>>>So if God chose to give us free choice, He could not at the
>>>same time take it away and force us to choose Him. It's
>>one
>>>or the other.
>
>
>
>>One or the other. Exactly. Why should we assume this?
>
>
>Because two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

Oh, you mean because 1 = 1. Again, your statement is not a "truth," it is a definition of the word "contradictory."

altruism is good.

like universal truths? you cut you bleed etc...

Altruism definiton (The freedictionaty.com)
(al.tru.ism)
n.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology - Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

>Altruism definiton (The freedictionaty.com)
>(al.tru.ism)
>n.
>1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
>2. Zoology - Instinctive cooperative behavior that is
>detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival
>of the species.
>
So perhaps within the definitions of the discussion this is in fact bad. It is animal behaviour, be part of the pack or the herd kind of thing. Does good not rely on reason?

That depends on whether you view self - interest as rational or not. For egoists (Stirner etc.), altruism is simply an animal response and theres reason to looke outside yourself for guides to your behaviour, but for Hume and others we can see our own long - term interest in altruistic behaviour. Its rational to co-operate with others as we will benefit from their co-operation with us.

..two different understandings then. Similar to the comparisions between Fascism and Communism in their "classical" models.

Interstingly though, it was Karl Marx who read the egoists and incorporated them into his writings. Communism its classical form is not moral.

..as proved by Communism when enacted by the Marxist principles, or Stalinist, I'll confess I read Marx very young (16-17) and couldnt digest his work, but studying political history, Marxism seems to have caused as many problems as it has solved. A scientific answer for social problem..y'know. Might as well be the final solution. Marx is a German, German thinkers tend to look on the dark side of life and have a seriousness that is sometimes difficult to take seriously for me.

Why be good???????????

its accurate in that "reason does not decide here".
reason is a means to many things, amongst them; morality.
However it is apparent that moralistic reason often has a great effect whereas pure practical reason is of less consequence.
---------sig-------
"you have always been and will always be tiresome as long as your goal is not productive thought but self-aggrandizement. I've never once read a positive or constructive comment out of your simplistic, black and white mind."
WheatToast spreading love on okactivist

..nice cut.

?
------sig------
"you have always been and will always be tiresome as long as your goal is not productive thought but self-aggrandizement. I've never once read a positive or constructive comment out of your simplistic, black and white mind."
WheatToast spreading love on okactivist

Why be good?????

..why does the sun shine?

of a host of uniform laws of nature which cause it to do so.

Moral law, however, is peculiar, in that one has a CHOICE whether to follow it or not.

So I'll pose my question to you again and hope for something more than a faulty analogy this time...

Why be good??????

..question to answer for yourself. I don't actually believe a moral life is entirely good.

But you do believe there is good and not-good, else you'd have a really hard time explaining why you hang around an activist board.

So..

I'll asky you again...

Why be good???

>
>But you do believe there is good and not-good, else you'd have
>a really hard time explaining why you hang around an activist
>board.

So being politically consciouss and intellectully active is good but shit talkig in General Discussion is bad?

>So..
>
>I'll asky you again...
>
>Why be good???

Why be bad?

"Activism" presupposes that there is a "real, objective GOOD" in this world that should be fought for.

It "presupposes" that, it assumes "objective good", else it would simply be dogmatically asserting the whims of one group of people, over another. You can't "make the world a better place" is there is NO moral point of reference, no "real good".

So, I'll ask again... Why be good?

What is the moral point of reference?

>
>"Activism" presupposes that there is a "real, objective GOOD"
>in this world that should be fought for.

yes life as it is naturally lived is good in my understanding. Argumenst of morality arose when life was not being lived naturally obviously. How do you fight this.

>It "presupposes" that, it assumes "objective good", else it
>would simply be dogmatically asserting the whims of one group
>of people, over another. You can't "make the world a better
>place" is there is NO moral point of reference, no "real
>good".

Perhaps if good was better defined i might be able to make my mind up.

>So, I'll ask again... Why be good?
>
>What is the moral point of reference?

The Bible?

How you look at one person who is "behaving in an evil manner"

and another who is "behaving kindly, philanthropically, charitably, justly, or whatever" and call one of these persons "better than the other"

How do you rationally call ANY life/action/behaviour any better than any other?



you say "perhaps if I had a better definition of good..."

but THAT's just it! I'm challenging ANYONE here to define "good".

And you you/they/we can't.... What is an activist?
It certainly CAN'T be someone who works for "betterment", cause rememebr, they can't even say what "good" is... so nothing can be "better".

>
>How you look at one person who is "behaving in an evil manner"
>
>
>and another who is "behaving kindly, philanthropically,
>charitably, justly, or whatever" and call one of these persons
>"better than the other"
>
>How do you rationally call ANY life/action/behaviour any
>better than any other?

Because an "evil" Exploitative system only begets further evil acts...be that violence, exploitation, etc. etc. Now if I smacked you over the head with a shovel is an act of violence good? Might be good for me but it sure as shit isnae good for you.

>Because an "evil" Exploitative system only begets further evil
>acts...be that violence, exploitation, etc. etc. Now if I
>smacked you over the head with a shovel is an act of violence
>good? Might be good for me but it sure as shit isn't good for
>you.

EXACTLY!
So...

On what grounds does the person getting smacked over the head with the shovel tell the person doing the smacking that he SHOULDN'T. If it's "good" for the smacker, Why should he NOT do it?

If there is no REAL good (independent of both's opinions about shovel smacking), then to what standard does the person getting smacked appeal to in order to convince the smacker to stop!?

EXACTLY!
So...
>
>On what grounds does the person getting smacked over the head
>with the shovel tell the person doing the smacking that he
>SHOULDN'T. If it's "good" for the smacker, Why should he NOT
>do it?

There is no reason. Unless the smacked can convince him otherwise or his guilt for commiting an evil act forces him to make ammends for his evil ways.

>If there is no REAL good (independent of both's opinions about
>shovel smacking), then to what standard does the person
>getting smacked appeal to in order to convince the smacker to
>stop!?

he appeals to his "good" side asking why he has to be smacked over the head with the shovel..or gets a helmet. But what if the person being smacked is a lunatic who does not respond to reason? might it be a good, to commit a "bad" act, to make him see? Dodgy territory since it rests upon the "good" that is the ultimate goal being universally agreed up by both parties. An Evil person would not listen to pleas or arguments to stop hitting people because he feels good doing it. Whether it is Good (in a true sense, to be a Good person to know etc.) or not is dependant on your own morality and beliefs and values.

>he appeals to his "good" side asking why he has to be smacked
>over the head with the shovel..


But if "good" is a subjective thing, different for everyone, then no such appeal could EVER be made.

..there in lies the problem that most probably prompted the soul searching that led us to this fullstop.

"The good" is objectively real. You don't have to worry that morality is subjective/relative. That position cannot be defended.

The even better news is that what's behind this objective good is a real, loving, caring, all-powerful God that's holding this whole thing together.

Without Him there could be no science, no logic and no morality.

peace.

you can appeal to reason, & morality is derived from reason. you can offer the shovel-smacker money, food, etc, or threaten to hurt them even worse. you're only in a bind if the person you're dealing with is irrational. basic tenets of morality stem from man's primary concern: his own survival. i don't want to die. from this one can logically assume other humans do not want to die. thus, killing other humans (under most scenarios) is wrong.

>you can appeal to reason, & morality is derived from reason.


So you disagree with the man who's quote began this post?


>you can offer the shovel-smacker money, food, etc, or threaten
>to hurt them even worse.

What if he's not hungry and stronger and faster than you? What if he knows kung fu?


>you're only in a bind if the person
>you're dealing with is irrational.

No, clearly you're in a bind if the person knows kung fu. Whether they are rational or not is clearly not gonna help you unless there is an appeal to on OBJECTIVE morality. Without that, you're stuck.

back to you.

has no motive for his aggression? then yes, i consider that irrational.

>has no motive for his aggression? then yes, i consider that
>irrational.


No. My contention (along with the man quoted above) is that there is no way you can successfully explain to the aggressor why he should stop aggressing in purely reasonable terms. He could be the MOST reasonable person in the world, and still there is NO REASON why he must stop hitting you.....

.....
.....

UNLESS....

There is a real, objective (meaning God-given) moral law among humans. Note, the presence of said law does not mean that he'll stop hitting you... obviously. The point is that its (the moral LAW's) presence is the ONLY thing that could make an appeal to his "reason" valid.

If there is no God... ALL is permissable.

peace.

it's 'why should he start?' i maintain that a reasonable person would not initiate aggression as a result of his rational moral code. the code that derives from "i do not want to receive harm, therefore others do not want to receive harm." but as i said, there are exceptions to this code.

>it's 'why should he start?'

He has started.

>i maintain that a reasonable
>person would not initiate aggression as a result of his
>rational moral code.

Then you're not involved in the current debate going on between you and I. For the question at hand is "IS there a rational moral code?".... that is... is there a way to arrive at the necessity of morality by "pure reason". The answer is no, and the atheist originally quoted has conceded this.

But I suppose you'll now attempt to show that morality can be reached by reason alone... let's see what you say...


>the code that derives from "i do not
>want to receive harm, therefore others do not want to receive
>harm." but as i said, there are exceptions to this code.

There is NO reason to believe that just because others receive harm, that I will receive harm. ONCE AGAIN, if I'm stronger, faster, quicker, craftier and have an army full of uber-men universal soldiers that can kill you in any of a thousand ways, there IS NO WAY YOU CAN APPEAL TO REASON TO GET ME TO STOP OPPRESSING/HURTING/BEATING/RAPING/KILLING YOU.

Reason, again, will not get you there.

*the quote can be found in his address to the united nations*

http://www.rzim.org/publications/essay_arttext.php?id=13

Ravi Zacharias’ Address to the United Nations’ Prayer Breakfast
10 September 2002
Please note: Prior permission to copy or reprint this message must be obtained from the offices of Ravi Zacharias. Thank you.

What an honor it is for me to be here, to have these few minutes of sharing with you what I trust that God has laid on my heart. You are men and women accustomed to a lot of words, ideas, speeches, and profound reflective thought. When the invitation was first given to me, I wondered what I would really have to say that would move you in any direction that you have not already given thought to before. But I think the marvelous plan of our God Himself is that He takes and uses some of the weakest of this world to help challenge even the wise.

I have selected for my theme “If the Foundations Are Being Destroyed, What Shall the Righteous Do?”, as every sober minded man and woman realizes we are living in some very uncertain times. I think, for example, of all that has happened even in the last year, and how demanding that has been on your minds and the mind of the common person. I think—in a somewhat lighthearted manner—of a humorous story told of the famed world-boxing champion, Mohammed Ali. Ali, of course, was known for his quick wit and his very catchy sense of humor. But on this occasion within an instant he was going to be outdone. Reportedly, he was on a plane that had hit moderate turbulence. Anyone of you who flies knows that moderate turbulence is a euphemism for “start praying.” And as this plane was hitting moderate turbulence, the flight attendant ordered everyone on board to fasten their seatbelts. Everyone complied except Mohammed Ali. So she went over to him and asked him to please put on his seat belt, at which point Ali looked at her and said, “Superman don’t need no seat belt.” She looked at him and quipped right back, “Superman don’t need no airplane either.”

However super we might feel as men or women, we have suddenly come to the realization that we do not have all the answers. I recall growing up in India, and as a young teenager going and seeing a famed Indian movie brilliantly done on the pathos and the ethos of Indian civilization. The movie was called Mother India. One of the most powerful songs in that movie was sung by the lead player, and translated from the Hindi it literally meant: “Since I have come into this world, I must live. If living means drinking poison, I have to drink it.” I recall as young teenager seeing it as fatalistic—take life by the throat; grin and bear it. But in the context of that drama and the struggle for existence in that village, this strong woman who raised her family at the end just had this to say, “If living means drinking poison, you’ve got to drink it, and take whatever life brings to you.”

About ten or fifteen years went by and I find myself in the West, reading one day the famed English journalist Malcolm Muggeridge, possibly one of the greatest journalists of all time. He himself said, “If there was anything he had to ask God forgiveness for, one of them was for being fatally fluent.” Muggeridge described the world situation in these words: “It is difficult to resist the conclusion that twentieth-century man has decided to abolish himself. Tired of the struggle to be himself, he has created boredom out of his own affluence, impotence out of his own erotomania, and vulnerability out of his own strength. He himself blows the trumpet that brings the walls of his own cities crashing down until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, having drugged and polluted himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.” Those words alone are worth thinking about—“vulnerability out of our own strength.” How strong we think we are sometimes, and yet how vulnerable we have become. “Having created imbecility out of all of our education”—we know so much today, yet there is nothing so vulgar in human experience for which we cannot find some academic from somewhere to justify it.

So you hear those under the weight and burden of survival. You hear the cynic who has been a journalist crisscrossing the globe. And though it’s easy to dismiss it, I am called to attention most seriously in a survey conducted in Canada, the homeland of my wife. I recall how surprised I was at the survey’s results. When the question was asked of the Canadian young person, “What is it you long for most in life, at this stage of your life?”, the overwhelming answer of the Canadian youngster was, “Somebody I can believe.” Somebody I can believe. Someone whom you can take at face value, whose words conform to the way reality actually is, and whose life conforms to that kind of truth. That is sobering.

On the basis of that, I begin my address to you this morning. “In the 1950s, kids lost their innocence. They were liberated from their parents by well-paying jobs, cars, lyrics and music that gave rise to a new term, ‘the generation gap.’ In the 1960s, kids lost their authority. It was the decade of protests. Church, state and parents were all called into question and found wanting. Their authority was rejected, yet nothing ever replaced it. In the 1970s, kids lost their love. It was the decade of nihilism, dominated by hyphenated words beginning with ‘self’—self-image, self-esteem, self-assertion. It made for a lonely world. Kids learned everything there was to know about sex and forgot everything there was to know about love, and few had the nerve to tell them that there was indeed a difference. In the 1980s, kids lost their hope. Stripped of innocence, authority and love, and plagued by the horror of a nuclear nightmare, large and growing numbers of this generation stopped believing in the future.”

The previous description was written at the tail end of the 1980s. Somebody asked me now as a philosopher, if you were to add one more paragraph to that, what would you say has been lost in the 1990s? If there’s one thing I would say, it is that we have lost our ability to reason. The power of critical thinking has gone from induction to deduction and very few are able to think clearly anymore. I have often said the challenge of the truth speaker today is this: How do you reach a generation that listens with its eyes and thinks with its feelings?

Honored members of the United Nations, what an enormous privilege is given to you in a world reeling, knocking itself senseless from one wall to the other. Yours is a very unenviable task, yet such a privileged moment when the world is looking to you. We look to you for wisdom, for guidance, where the power to reason is becoming so scant all around us. Yet the only way we can reach this society and the only reasonable answers that can be given are if we understand the following: what it is that ought to provide the foundation for your existence and mine.

You see, postmodernism plays word games with us. Postmodernism tells us there’s no such thing as truth; no such thing as meaning; no such thing as certainty. I remember lecturing at Ohio State University, one of the largest universities in this country. I was minutes away from beginning my lecture, and my host was driving me past a new building called the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts. He said, “This is America’s first postmodern building.” I was startled for a moment and I said, “What is a postmodern building?” He said, “Well, the architect said that he designed this building with no design in mind. When the architect was asked, ‘Why?’ he said, ‘If life itself is capricious, why should our buildings have any design and any meaning?’ So he has pillars that have no purpose. He has stairways that go nowhere. He has a senseless building built and somebody has paid for it.” I said, “So his argument was that if life has no purpose and design, why should the building have any design?” He said, “That is correct.” I said, “Did he do the same with the foundation?” All of a sudden there was silence. You see, you and I can fool with the infrastructure as much as we would like, but we dare not fool with the foundation because it will call our bluff in a hurry.

How do we determine what are those foundational pillars on which an individual, a family, a society, and our nations can stand? I want to suggest to you that the Bible gives us four foundations. You think about them, reflect upon them, and I think you will agree with them. The first that is given to us is the foundation of eternity. King Solomon said that everything seems so fluid in our time, and yet you, God, have put eternity in the heart of man. Eternity is rooted in your heart. Think about it, even in our experiences, how much we depend on this concept of eternity.

I recall as a young man moving to Canada from my home city of New Delhi, and watching one night in 1968 when the American astronauts were the first ones to go around the dark side of the moon. And as they fired their rockets on their homeward journey, they were vouchsafed a glimpse of this universe that nobody had ever been given before. They saw earth rise over the horizon of the moon, draped in a beauteous mixture of black and white, garlanded by the glistening light of the sun against the black void of space. And these human beings, in getting a glimpse of that, found no poet, no lyricist, and no philosopher to come to their aid to describe that awe-inspiring experience. Only one sentence said it for them, and we heard it across the world: “In the beginning, God….” Only God was big enough to explain the complexity and the intelligibility of this world.

Chandra Wickramasinghe, honored scholar and Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy at the Cardiff University of Wales, and a colleague of the late Sir Frederick Hoyle, has written about the intelligibility of the human enzyme. He says that if you were to take the information density just in the human enzyme and analyze the complexity of information, as a mathematician you will come to the very quick conclusion that the possibility of that language coming together is one in ten to the forty thousandth power. For those of you who are lay people in mathematics, as I am one of them, I don’t think we have the faintest clue of what one in ten to the forty thousandth power means. Just think of the mathematical complexity of that.

I remember my professor of quantum physics at Cambridge University, Dr. John Polkinghorne, talking to us one day. (And his book, One World, is a marvelous exposition of his fascination with the created order.) He said, “Ladies and gentlemen, if you were to analyze just one contingency in the early picoseconds of the universe”—a picosecond is how long it takes the speed of something moving at the speed of light to traverse the breadth of a single strain of hair—he said, “If you look at the early picoseconds of this universe and analyze just one contingent, the expansion and relation to the contraction, do you know how precise that had to be?” He said, “It would be like taking aim at a one-square-inch object at the other end of the universe twenty billion light years away and hitting it bull’s eye.” And then he looked at us with typical English anticlimax and said, “Gentlemen, there’s no free lunch. Somebody has to pay.”

Pause and look at the marvel of this universe and see how the sense of the eternal looms large. But we don’t only see it in our experience, we also sense this quest for eternity in our language. Across every culture, whether you are from the east or the west, you begin to see how we use certain phrases that we take for granted. C. S. Lewis, the famed British thinker, captured it in this little illustration: “We are so little reconciled to time that we are even astonished at it. ‘My, how he’s grown,’ we exclaim, or, ‘How time flies,’ as though the universal form of our experience were again and again a novelty. It is as strange as if a fish were repeatedly surprised at the wetness of water. And that would be strange indeed; unless of course the fish were destined, one day, to become a land animal.” “How time flies.” “How he’s grown.” We use these terms as if we were meant to live on and on, and doesn’t that give us a hint of our longing for eternity?

I buried my father and my mother fairly early in life. It is a terrible sense to suddenly feel orphaned. I recall standing at the grave for the first time of my mom and thinking to myself, “Is this it?” One who I so longed for, needed, cherished, whose words for me rescued me from some of the great messes I’ve made in life—just gone? You look at all the injustices in this world, and you say, “Is that it? Is there no ultimate balance being held someday?” You know whereof I speak, and we all understand it. The dimension of eternity. God has put eternity in your heart and mine.

The second is the dimension of morality—the moral law. Even Immanuel Kant, that so-called skeptical thinker, said two things were always held in his heart: the starry host above and the moral law within. And yet, isn’t it true and terribly tragic that if there’s one thing the world doesn’t know today, it is where to look to for a moral law. Have you ever heard the story of a man who used to go to work at a factory and every day would stop outside a clockmaker’s store to synchronize his watch with the clock outside? At the end of several days the clockmaker stopped him and said, “Excuse me, sir, I do have a question for you. I see that every day you stop and adjust your watch with my clock. What kind of work do you do?” The man said, “I’m embarrassed to tell you this; I keep the time at the factory nearby, and I have to ring the bell at four o clock every afternoon when it is time for the people to go home. My watch doesn’t work very well, so I synchronize it with your clock.” The clockmaker says, “I’ve got bad news for you. My clock doesn’t work very well either, so I synchronize it with the bell that I hear from the factory at 4:00 every afternoon.” If you’ll pardon the grammar, what happens when two wrong watches correct themselves by each other? They will get wronger and wronger all the time. Even a clock that doesn’t work may show you the right time twice a day…but it’s not because it’s keeping time!

What I want to say to you is, How do we understand what is morally right and what is morally wrong? As sobering as it is, as terrifying as it is, isn’t it true that for some, a year ago today was a good day, and for millions of others it was an evil day? How do we find out what is good and what is evil; what is moral and what is transcendently true, that which transcends our cultures? Let me give you a hint. I was on a live radio program in Washington and I gave a simple syllogism to start the program: Objective moral values only exist if God exists. Number two, objective moral values do exist; therefore, God exists. Let me repeat it for you: Objective moral values only exist if God exists. Objective moral values do exist; therefore, God exists. The telephone lines then lit up; I knew they would. I said to one man, “Challenge either my ability to give the argument or the assumptions there.” He said, “I deny your first premise that objective moral values do exist.” I said, “You deny it?” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Sir, so is it alright for me to be a racist? I can hate a man or a woman on the basis of his or her ethnicity? There are no objective moral values to that? That I can despise you or you can despise me purely on the basis of my ethnicity or yours, is that all right?” There was silence and he hung up. The host said to me a few days later, “You will never believe who you were talking to. Do you know who you were talking to?” I said, “No.” She said, “You were talking to a particular person who was the lead voice in a particular lifestyle in this city, and his biggest criticism against those who stood against him was that they were discriminatory. They discriminated against him purely because of his lifestyle.”

You see, one of the grandest things God has given to us is the dignity of my very ethnicity and your ethnicity, and the only way we can argue for intrinsic worth is if God has given that to us in His own sacred will. Society can’t confer it. Laws do not create it. Mindsets do not affirm it. You are of intrinsic worth not because any society has given it to you, but because it is given to you by God Himself. That is intrinsic value.

How do we arrive at a moral law? Listen to the words of Kai Nielsen, the atheistic philosopher: “We have been unable to show that reason requires the moral point of view or that really rational persons need not be egoists or classical immoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me. Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”

So the existentialist told us we would find it with our feelings. Yet John Paul Sartre, dying on his deathbed, said, “My philosophy has not worked.” Rationalists come to you and say, “You cannot really reason your way into morality.” Richard Dawkins of Oxford University tells us it’s all in the DNA; it’s nothing good or bad, no such thing as morality or evil. Said he, “We’re all dancing to our DNA.” I picture the man in Afghanistan whose picture was on television a few days after the tragedies that stuck there. This elderly man was sitting with his face in his hands, and as some people came into his village, he pointed to a grave where his son had been skinned alive by some terrorizing people. They had come and skinned his son alive and put him under some sand. And this elderly man sitting with his face in his hands staring into space and nothingness, as it were—try telling him “they were only dancing to their DNA.”

You see, intuitively we long to say that some things are objectively true whether we like to believe it or not. And the only way they can be objectively true is if they are rooted in the high order of God Himself, a transcendent being. Eternity, morality, and thirdly, the dimension of accountability. If morality goes, how does one become accountable? But morality can’t obviously be understood purely in just horizontal terms, can it? It must be in vertical terms, mustn’t it? Atheistic thinker Hobart Mowrer, one time president of the American Psychological Association, committed suicide in his eighties. He was one time professor at Harvard, instructor at Yale, earned a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins, and he wrote these powerful words: “For several decades we psychologists looked upon the whole matter of sin and moral accountability as a great incubus and acclaimed our liberation from it as epoch making. But at length we have discovered that to be free in this sense, that is, to have the excuse of being sick rather than sinful, is to court the danger of also becoming lost. This danger is, I believe, betokened by the widespread interest in existentialism, which we are presently witnessing. In becoming amoral, ethically neutral and free, we have cut the very roots of our being, lost our deepest sense of selfhood and identity, and with neurotics, themselves, we find ourselves asking, ‘Who am I, what is my deepest destiny, what does living mean?’”

And then goes the folksong:

At three I had a feeling of ambivalence toward my brothers,
And so it follows naturally I poison all my lovers.
But I am happy now I’ve learned the lesson that has taught:
That everything I do that’s wrong is someone else’s fault.

I remember walking through Auschwitz some years ago when I was speaking in Poland; my host, who was medical doctor, took me to Auschwitz. I remember seeing the horrors of thousands of pounds of women’s hair, thousands of suitcases, little toothbrushes, little pairs of shoes. Teenagers were walking out of there with tears running down their faces. It was very sobering. And I saw the words of Adolph Hitler against the gas ovens there, “I want to raise a generation of young people devoid of a conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel.” What happens when you unleash a generation like that—a generation of young people, imperious, relentless and cruel?

You see, when you eradicate eternity, you redefine existence. When you eradicate morality, you destroy essence. When you eradicate accountability, you destroy conscience. Existence, essence, conscience. And the fourth and last one is the dimension of charity. When you lose that sense of charity, you have taken away beneficence. How wonderful it would be if we could even find disagreements undergirded by one undeniable passion: that we have learned to state disagreements in love and love our fellow human beings.

I’m a traveler of the world; I’m a citizen of the world. For thirty years I’ve crisscrossed this globe millions of miles, and I know you’ve done the same. I’ve seen a lot of heartache. I’ve walked in the midst of a lot of pain. As a young man in my twenties, I remember traveling through Vietnam and speaking in the prisoners of war camps—speaking to the American soldiers, seeing burned bodies lying in beds. There were not enough beds to have one person to a bed. As a young man I became very, very serious in my thinking. I know some of you are here from Cambodia. I remember being in Vietnam and Phnom Pen, and seeing the tragedy of all that was happening. Now we lift our eyes and see the scourge of AIDS and all that happens along with that disease, and our hearts become heavy. How do we deal with such a world? Indeed, an Indian sage once said, “In the modern world, the biggest danger is going to be, how do we ward off absolute violence, absolute violence?”

I bring this to a close with my own personal story and it is this: I was a teenager in Delhi on the verge of suicide. I had no hope; I had no meaning. I had no promise for the future, for my life. I was lying in a hospital bed when a man walked in and wanted to speak to me. My mother told him that he couldn’t speak to me—I was in intensive care, I was dying. He gave me a little New Testament and asked my mother to read it to me. Her English wasn’t very good, but in that King James language, he turned to the fourteenth chapter of John and read it to her and asked her to read it to me. And there as I laid dying, I heard the words of Jesus saying, “I am the way, I am the truth, I am the life, no one comes unto the Father except through me.” I prayed a simple prayer and I said, “Jesus, I really don’t know much about you, but if you are the way, you are the truth, and you are the life, enter into my life and change not only what I do, please change what I want to do.” I need to tell you that not a few hours before my suicide attempt my father looked me in the eye and said to me, “You’re going to make nothing of your life; you’re an embarrassment to me.” My dad was a highly placed government officer having served under Prime Minister Nehru, and then under a personal friend of Gandhi. He was powerful and he saw my life heading nowhere, and said those words that I know he himself regretted later. So I asked myself, “Why live?” No hope, no meaning, no truth, until I heard the words of Jesus, “I am the way, the truth, the life, no one comes unto the Father except through me.”

Ladies and gentlemen, in the simplicity and the complexity of that room, I invited Jesus Christ into my life. He changed not only what I did; He changed what I wanted to do. He changed my heart to the profoundest depths of human experience. Why do I see Him as the way, the truth, the life? Listen carefully. There are four questions in life—origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. When you look at the person of Christ, you’ll find all of those answered.

Consider these four pillars—eternity, morality, accountability, charity. Jesus said this: that He was with the Father from the beginning. He was uncreated. This Old Testament prophet said, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.” Notice the words. He didn’t say the son is born. The son never was born; the son eternally existed, and came as a child of a virgin birth. And then in His perfect life, His death and His resurrection, He embodied what it meant to be moral, for what evil is to life, contradiction is to reason. When an argument is contradictory, the argument breaks down. When evil enters your life, life breaks down. He embodied that which was purity without sin. Accountability said, “I’ve come to do the will of my Father.” And Charity went to the Cross. Even Mahatma Gandhi said this, “Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.” Think about it. He offers it to you and to me. To give us a sense of the eternal, to give us the moral, to give us the accountable, and to give us the charitable. And He arose again from the dead to guarantee that.

Here is my closing illustration, and thank you so much for giving me a hearing. It is a parable that comes from the east of a man who owned a lot of paintings, a very wealthy man who had a son. The son used to go into the city streets and would often talk to a beggar. The beggar took a liking to this young man and one day gave this young man a portrait he’d painted of him. So the young man took it to his father who was an art connoisseur and the father thought to himself, “Well, it’s not a very good painting, but we’ll hang it up in the gallery because it’s supposed to be of my son.” Many, many years went by and the young lad stopped coming to visit the beggar. And the beggar finally went to the gates of the palace and said, “I don’t see that young man anymore.” The palace guards said, “Well, he died very suddenly.” The beggar was very unhappy to hear the news and he said, “Can I see his father?” And they said, “Yes.” The beggar said to the father, “I have done another picture of your son, just like the other one. I want you to have it.” He gave it to the father and the father, of course, hung up the painting beside the other one.

Not long afterwards, the father suddenly passed away too, and the beggar heard about it. He also heard that all the art in the palace was going to be auctioned. So he asked if he could go in. An auctioneer came and saw all the paintings on the walls, and the connoisseurs were there and they were all going to bid on them. There in the middle of this collection were hanging the two paintings of his son done by this beggar that were not very good at all. The auctioneer said, “We’re going to have an auction, but the first paintings to go are the ones of the young lad here and then we’ll proceed with the rest.” They said, “We’re not interested in them, just get on with the….” He said, “No, no, we must begin with these.” But nobody bid. So the beggar put his hand in his pocket and took out a handful of pennies, and said, “I want to bid on the young man’s paintings.” And nobody else competed for the few pennies, the gavel was sounded, and he got the son’s portraits.

As the beggar took them and was about to leave, the gavel sounded again and the auctioneer said, “I have some news for you. Behind the paintings of this young man are the words, ‘Whoever bids on these gets the whole gallery.’” He who got the son got everything that the father had to give. I present to you the very Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, who gives you all that His Father has to offer: eternity, morality, accountability and charity. When you know Him, you know the truth and that truth will set you free indeed, for you will live for it, present it, and this generation will listen. May God richly bless you.

Read, and maybe re-read this address to the United Nations by Dr. Zacharias.

for real.

It looks like you didn't come across this quote by reading Nielsen directly, but actually by reading Zacharias quote him without context.

YOU would do really well to figure out where Neilsen actually wrote that, and study him on his own terms. The devil deserves an advocate, right?

In "Ethics Without God". That would sound about right huh

on second thought... seems more likely that that would be something that has been written since "ethics without God" huh...

Firstly, not all human reasoning and subsequent behaviour is rational. Much is emotional.

Secondly, 'good' is a cultural prescription. All notions of good ARE subjective, however there is a cultural uniformity of the definition of 'good' born from group consensus and conformity.

Thirdly, if you choose to break the group consensus, you are likely to break said group's rule of law and therefore will face criminal proceedings.

Finally, activism is not based on an objective truth. An activist follows his subjective conviction in an attempt to change the status quo.

>Finally, activism is not based on an objective truth. An
>activist follows his subjective conviction in an attempt to
>change the status quo.


And dogmatically bend others to his/her own personal subjective notions of how things should be, hypocritically denying them the right to their own notion.

But I'm afraid that also applies to the religious activist.


BTW this quote refers to what I wrote so I will address it...

>Someone, earlier in this post said something to the effect of "it's >totally impossible to be objective". Yet, he assumes that what he's >saying is objectively true. He's contradicting himself. Dig?

Subjectively, I think it is true. Dig?

..so you don't know it is true, as an objective fact? Your just arguing for the sake of arguing, and not really understanding why.

Why can't you let InVerse respond Black Knight?

.

>But I'm afraid that also applies to the religious activist.


It does not. For, a religious activist is acknowledging that there is a REAL right in the world that can be worked towards.

However, a relativist CANNOT say that... therefore any "right" he suggests should be worked for is merely his personal opinion (since moral fact does not exist) and he is then merely dogmatically fighting for HIS moral opinion to usurp other people's moral opinions. But NOTE, if he's right that everything is relative, he is NO right to do this!!! You CANNOT refute this. You can be obstinant or irrational, but you CANNOT deny this reasoning, unless you don't understant reasoning.

peace.

>It does not. For, a religious activist is acknowledging that
>there is a REAL right in the world that can be worked
>towards.


Do you think that by writing 'it does not' without qualification, is sufficient to convince me or anybody else otherwise?

Even IF there is an objective truth (as you suggest), what happens when a man of God interprets this and communicates it to others? It becomes subjective... D'oh!

>
>However, a relativist CANNOT say that... therefore any "right"
>he suggests should be worked for is merely his personal
>opinion (since moral fact does not exist) and he is then
>merely dogmatically fighting for HIS moral opinion to usurp
>other people's moral opinions.


I'm not sure why you keep using bandying dogmatism, when it is a term that traditionally describes the teachings of the CHURCH. See the irony?


But NOTE, if he's right that
>everything is relative, he is NO right to do this!!! You
>CANNOT refute this. You can be obstinant or irrational, but
>you CANNOT deny this reasoning, unless you don't understant
>reasoning.
>

This is poorly written. I can't understand it.


Do you really think God explains the flaw in the uniformity principle? Do you think it makes sense to say that there cannot be an infinite regression of causes, but a God that is infinite?

>Do you really think God explains the flaw in the uniformity
>principle? Do you think it makes sense to say that there
>cannot be an infinite regression of causes, but a God that is
>infinite?

God explains nothing to those who do not believe in him

Omnipresent!

get that one out a christmas cracker?

Or a non-denomination specific festivity cracker.

As some might call it...

go away. This isnt clown class. Honk Honk..very good your comedy nose works. beat it kid.

You intercepted my response to another Okayplayer yet again; as you always do.

So don't be upset when I am forced to expose your inadequacies.

What I have written to InVerse is perfectly coherent. Again, why don't you just allow him to respond?

>You intercepted my response to another Okayplayer yet again;
>as you always do.
>
>So don't be upset when I am forced to expose your
>inadequacies.
>
>What I have written to InVerse is perfectly coherent. Again,
>why don't you just allow him to respond?

what inadequacies would you like to expose?. InVerse can respond to your post whether I respond or not. So what inadequacies would you like to expose?.

Yesterday you stated that Barthes killed the author like Nietzsche killed God.

When I pressed you on his book you conceded that you hadn't read it, but liked the title!

After further exchange you stated that you had in fact read the book in art school but hadn't understood it.

You confess a superficial knowledge and yet you continue with a partisan line of argument!

I've told you before and I will re-iterate it: your semantic approximations do not constitute a cogent style. You are often no more coherent than Defendorf.

IMO your sig. should read; 'I'm not always wrong, but I'm not often right'!

>Yesterday you stated that Barthes killed the author like
>Nietzsche killed God.
>
>When I pressed you on his book you conceded that you hadn't
>read it, but liked the title!
>
>After further exchange you stated that you had in fact read
>the book in art school but hadn't understood it.
>
>You confess a superficial knowledge and yet you continue with
>a partisan line of argument!
>
>I've told you before and I will re-iterate it: your semantic
>approximations do not constitute a cogent style. You are often
>no more coherent than Defendorf.

In answer to all of this, I will say that I am capable of telling lies. Ask me another question, maybe I'll tell you what I really know.

Have you seen Crash?

thats not a question, its a game. ask me a question. or dont you know how?

Anyway, there is nothing I can ask you without you googling it!

But how about this. What is your geniune point of view when it comes to God and so-called objective truth?

>Anyway, there is nothing I can ask you without you googling
>it!

this is a post for philosophy. i wont find any answers in google to the questions I'm looking for you to ask.

>But how about this. What is your geniune point of view when it
>comes to God and so-called objective truth?

What is a genuine point of view?

Are you interested between the relationship between God and Objective Truth and how they relate?

are you asking me if I think God is Objective Truth?

What is Objective Truth for that matter?

Can you define that for me?

>What is a genuine point of view?
>
>Are you interested between the relationship between God and
>Objective Truth and how they relate?
>
>are you asking me if I think God is Objective Truth?
>
>What is Objective Truth for that matter?
>
>Can you define that for me?

And you say that this isn't a game!

Ok, take 'genuine' out of the question if you want. My question relates to the suggestion that there can be an 'objective truth' and it is God's.

I can't really define objective truth because I think it is a fallacy. However, I suppose it would be along the lines of universal unquestionable verity. A place where the endlessly shifting signfier (differance) must end; a place in which reality resides.

Ok, take 'genuine' out of the question if you want. My
question relates to the suggestion that there can be an
'objective truth' and it is God's.

Since you cannot define objective truth how can I answer the question?

I can't really define objective truth because I think it is a
fallacy. However, I suppose it would be along the lines of
universal unquestionable verity. A place where the endlessly
shifting signfier (differance) must end; a place in which
reality resides.

I disagree. And the fact that I disagree is enough to negate your argument. My disagreement is an Objective truth, a fact. I have disagreed with your statement. And I also disagree with the belief that everything is a game.

>Do you think that by writing 'it does not' without
>qualification, is sufficient to convince me or anybody else
>otherwise?

Of course not, that's why I've clearly explained it. In case I've been unclear, allow me to do it again:

A person who believes that "morality is relative" is a hypocrite the moment he becomes an activist or asserts ANY moral point of view as "better", in ANY way shape or form, than another. For, if morality is truly relative, as he says, then NO moral notion can be better than ANOTHER. This person's ideal utopia is NO BETTER than Hitler's Germany. It cannot, in ANY possible world, be better, if he retains his doctrine of relativity.

If you cannot see that, this is pretty much as far as you and I can go.



>Even IF there is an objective truth (as you suggest), what
>happens when a man of God interprets this and communicates it
>to others? It becomes subjective... D'oh!

Really? Let's test that. But let's transpose it to an issue that you do not bring a presupposed, unreasoned skepticism to.... ready?

Both of us are in two seperate rooms, divided two doors, such that for me to get to your room, I would have to open the door leading from my room, traverse a short hall (during which time my door would swing shut) and then open the door to your room and enter it.

Now...

Each of our rooms has a light in it, with an on/off switch.

Suddenly the door to your room opens, and I enter, and I tell you that the light is "on" in my room.

Now, EITHER the light is on, or it is not. My announcing that the light is on, has NO bearing on whether the light is on or it is not. However, my statement EITHER corresponds to reality or it does not.

You are calling my announcement that the "light is on" (subjective/opinion) without acknowledging that it is a statement ABOUT AN OBJECTIVE FACT.

That's ridiculous.

My announcement that "the light is on" does not become "mere opinion" just because "I" announce it. I am walking into the room and conveying an "objective truth" to you. It is EITHER true for both of us or false for both of us.


If I tell you that objects fall at 32 ft/sc squared (?), it is not MERELY my opinion that that is so. It is a belief corresponding to objective fact.
Your statement that it "becomes subjecitve" just by someone saying it is misleading and unreasoned, and disproven.


>>However, a relativist CANNOT say that... therefore any
>"right"
>>he suggests should be worked for is merely his personal
>>opinion (since moral fact does not exist) and he is then
>>merely dogmatically fighting for HIS moral opinion to usurp
>>other people's moral opinions.
>


>I'm not sure why you keep using bandying dogmatism, when it is
>a term that traditionally describes the teachings of the
>CHURCH. See the irony?

LOL! The question is DO YOU see the irony?
I'm quite conscious of using it.. I'm using it for JUST that reason. So the irony get's exposed. For...

Look again. IF morality is relative, then EVERY activist on this board is a dogmatic bigot! For they are simply imposing THEIR idea of wright/rong on other people, which is WHOLLY unjustified if there is no reason to prefer one moral opinon over another (relativism), which precisely their position! They are the unfounded dogmatics then! That is the irony!



>Do you really think God explains the flaw in the uniformity
>principle?

Tell me about the flaw in the uniformity principle and then I'll be happy to answer that.


>Do you think it makes sense to say that there
>cannot be an infinite regression of causes, but a God that is
>infinite?

IF it's true that the universe had a beginning, then there cannot be an infinite regression of natural causes.

HOWEVER

I do NOT propound the "first cause" argument as proof of God's existence. It is invalid. The proof for the Christian God's existence is much more obvious than that.


peace.

>A person who believes that "morality is relative" is a
>hypocrite the moment he becomes an activist or asserts ANY
>moral point of view as "better", in ANY way shape or form,
>than another. For, if morality is truly relative, as he
>says, then NO moral notion can be better than ANOTHER. This
>person's ideal utopia is NO BETTER than Hitler's Germany.
>It cannot, in ANY possible world, be better, if he retains his
>doctrine of relativity.


Absolutely, this person is a hypocrite. I completely understand this notion. Remember it was I that iterated this in the first place. But remember I also wrote that emotion dictates much of our thought. For example, if a community is perceieved as overpopulated to the point that its resources cannot sustain its survival, there are two options. You can kill some, in order to allow the rest to safely survive. This is the rational thing to do. Or you can allow them all to live, hoping that things will turn out ok. This is the emotional thing to do.

This is where your cute analogy fails. The absence of emotional reasoning.


>If you cannot see that, this is pretty much as far as you and
>I can go.


Don't flatter yourself.




>>Even IF there is an objective truth (as you suggest), what
>>happens when a man of God interprets this and communicates
>it
>>to others? It becomes subjective... D'oh!
>
>Really? Let's test that. But let's transpose it to an issue
>that you do not bring a presupposed, unreasoned skepticism
>to.... ready?
>
>Both of us are in two seperate rooms, divided two doors, such
>that for me to get to your room, I would have to open the door
>leading from my room, traverse a short hall (during which time
>my door would swing shut) and then open the door to your room
>and enter it.
>
>Now...
>
>Each of our rooms has a light in it, with an on/off switch.
>
>Suddenly the door to your room opens, and I enter, and I tell
>you that the light is "on" in my room.
>
>Now, EITHER the light is on, or it is not. My announcing
>that the light is on, has NO bearing on whether the light is
>on or it is not. However, my statement EITHER corresponds to
>reality or it does not.
>
>You are calling my announcement that the "light is on"
>(subjective/opinion) without acknowledging that it is a
>statement ABOUT AN OBJECTIVE FACT.
>
>That's ridiculous.
>
>My announcement that "the light is on" does not become "mere
>opinion" just because "I" announce it. I am walking into the
>room and conveying an "objective truth" to you. It is
>EITHER true for both of us or false for both of us.


If you read all of my posts you will discovery that I said it is a matter of DEGREE of subjectivity. There can be validity in subjectivity. A blind man would say the room is dark and a seeing man would say the room is light. In this instance, both assertions are 'true' to each individual, and are based on each individual's capabilities to make subjective assessments. However, it is clear to see in this instance the opinion that is more valid.



>LOL! The question is DO YOU see the irony?
>I'm quite conscious of using it.. I'm using it for JUST that
>reason. So the irony get's exposed. For...
>
>Look again. IF morality is relative, then EVERY activist on
>this board is a dogmatic bigot! For they are simply imposing
>THEIR idea of wright/rong on other people, which is WHOLLY
>unjustified if there is no reason to prefer one moral opinon
>over another (relativism), which precisely their position!
>They are the unfounded dogmatics then! That is the irony!


I have already concurred with this several times. I disagree with the notion that religious activism is any different. You keep avoiding this, so the original irony remains.



>>Do you really think God explains the flaw in the uniformity
>>principle?
>
>Tell me about the flaw in the uniformity principle and then
>I'll be happy to answer that.

>
>>Do you think it makes sense to say that there
>>cannot be an infinite regression of causes, but a God that
>is
>>infinite?
>
>IF it's true that the universe had a beginning, then there
>cannot be an infinite regression of natural causes.
>
>HOWEVER
>
>I do NOT propound the "first cause" argument as proof of God's
>existence. It is invalid. The proof for the Christian
>God's existence is much more obvious than that.
>
>


It is? Pray tell.

The absence of emotional reasoning.

Fiction aside, what is emotional reasoning? As far I as I understand reason is the ability to make descisions unclouded by emotion.




>If you read all of my posts you will discovery that I said it
>is a matter of DEGREE of subjectivity. There can be validity
>in subjectivity. A blind man would say the room is dark and a
>seeing man would say the room is light. In this instance, both
>assertions are 'true' to each individual, and are based on
>each individual's capabilities to make subjective assessments.
>However, it is clear to see in this instance the opinion that
>is more valid.

But the point is is the light on. That is the hypothetical objective fact you are discussing. If it is you can either lie and say the room is dark, or tell the truth if the room is light. Depending on whether the light is on. Fuck blindness, and all that shit...its simple enough.



The rest of its bullshit. In my humble opinion. why dont you pray for forgiveness for pretending to be intelligent.

> The absence of emotional reasoning.
>
>Fiction aside, what is emotional reasoning? As far I as I
>understand reason is the ability to make descisions unclouded
>by emotion.


emotional decision making.
>
>
>
>
>>If you read all of my posts you will discovery that I said
>it
>>is a matter of DEGREE of subjectivity. There can be validity
>>in subjectivity. A blind man would say the room is dark and
>a
>>seeing man would say the room is light. In this instance,
>both
>>assertions are 'true' to each individual, and are based on
>>each individual's capabilities to make subjective
>assessments.
>>However, it is clear to see in this instance the opinion
>that
>>is more valid.
>
>But the point is is the light on. That is the hypothetical
>objective fact you are discussing. If it is you can either lie
>and say the room is dark, or tell the truth if the room is
>light. Depending on whether the light is on. Fuck blindness,
>and all that shit...its simple enough.


So you remove perception from the equation?

Would a cabbage be able to tell you if the light was on?

>emotional decision making.

reason is not simply the making of descisions.

>So you remove perception from the equation?

What equation?

>Would a cabbage be able to tell you if the light was on?

You need me to answer that question for you?

Why don't you push on?

>>emotional decision making.
>
>reason is not simply the making of descisions.
>

Humans think both rationally and emotionally. Their behaviour is a manifestation of the interplay of both. Have you read any Freud?


>>So you remove perception from the equation?
>
>What equation?


For pity's sake it was a turn of phase. You know this.


>>Would a cabbage be able to tell you if the light was on?
>
>You need me to answer that question for you?


*Sigh* It was rhetorical. You know this too.

Push on Black Knight.

and religion is essentially the same. They both pre-suppose objectivity.

Science is based entirely on faith.

peace.

>Absolutely, this person is a hypocrite. I completely
>understand this notion. Remember it was I that iterated this
>in the first place.


My fault, I thought this is what we were at odds on, and might do a bit in explaining why my posts have come across a little a-b-c'ish... I thought you didn't see this inference. So we agree there. Ok.


>But remember I also wrote that emotion
>dictates much of our thought.

But judging by our earlier agreement, I would assume then that you also agree that some emotions correlate to objective, existing moral facts?


>For example, if a community is
>perceieved as overpopulated to the point that its resources
>cannot sustain its survival, there are two options. You can
>kill some, in order to allow the rest to safely survive. This
>is the rational thing to do. Or you can allow them all to
>live, hoping that things will turn out ok. This is the
>emotional thing to do.

What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally satisfying in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and that there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive and the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?


>This is where your cute analogy fails. The absence of
>emotional reasoning.

Um, which analogy? I don't believe I've overlooked this. I've merely pointed out that ONLY if objective moral values exist do "emotions" have ANY valid reason for entering into the deliberative process. No? (This is another mutation of the statement "reason will not take you to morality").






>>If you cannot see that, this is pretty much as far as you
>and
>>I can go.
>
>
>Don't flatter yourself.


Haha... not tryin' to man. But you have to admit that if it really was that first point that was being contended (the mistaken impression I've been under) that there was no hope for further dialogue... I mean.. if someone doesn't see that inference... what can you say? Nuttin...






>If you read all of my posts you will discovery that I said it
>is a matter of DEGREE of subjectivity.


No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective". Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking about the perceived, not the perception.

>There can be validity
>in subjectivity. A blind man would say the room is dark and a
>seeing man would say the room is light. In this instance, both
>assertions are 'true' to each individual, and are based on
>each individual's capabilities to make subjective assessments.


No. You've changed the analogy. The analogy was about "whether the light was on or not". We are talking about the perceived, not the perception.

>However, it is clear to see in this instance the opinion that
>is more valid.

No, if you'll stick with the analogy posed, rather than changing it, you'll see that in this instance ONE opinion is objectively right, and ONE is objectively wrong.





>I disagree
>with the notion that religious activism is any different. You
>keep avoiding this, so the original irony remains.


Cause you're not observing that in the case of the "relativist versus the religious activist"... the first is dogmatically imposing HIS OWN subjective moral notion, and the latter is appealing to what is objectively, right for ALL men.

This is plain as night and day, and if you don't see it, I'm wondering if we really did make any progress on that first point or not.

No doubt you'll say this... "Yes of course I see that, but SINCE the religious activist has no grounds for assuming that his particular religous notion is the one corresponding to what is objectively right in the world, he's STILL merely asserting his own dogmatic opinion over others".

To that I answer this:

There is absolutely NO possible way humans could EVER know ANYTHING aboug God (which includes His will, also called moral absolutes) UNLESS He decided to reveal it to them. If God is God, and humans are humans, they could never know God UNLESS He showed them.

Now the question is nothing more and nothing less than this: "Is there reason to believe He has?"


(As per the uniformity of process "flaw" that you raised, that's not what I'm speaking of. The flaw with all of science is that science begins with PURE faith and yet poses as the antithesis of faith... thus we have all sorts of amateur-skeptic philosophers running around saying that they don't take things on faith, when they, in fact, have no idea what they're talking about)

>>But remember I also wrote that emotion
>>dictates much of our thought.
>
>But judging by our earlier agreement, I would assume then that
>you also agree that some emotions correlate to objective,
>existing moral facts?


Not quite (and I don't want this to become a game of pedantry). I think that emotions largely correspond with the existence of (loosely uniform) subjective impulses.


>>For example, if a community is
>>perceieved as overpopulated to the point that its resources
>>cannot sustain its survival, there are two options. You can
>>kill some, in order to allow the rest to safely survive.
>This
>>is the rational thing to do. Or you can allow them all to
>>live, hoping that things will turn out ok. This is the
>>emotional thing to do.
>
>What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can
>live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally satisfying
>in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's
>anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to
>point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and that
>there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive and
>the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?


But that's besides the point. It is supposed to be a hypothetical situation in which only two options exist.



>>This is where your cute analogy fails. The absence of
>>emotional reasoning.
>
>Um, which analogy? I don't believe I've overlooked this.
>I've merely pointed out that ONLY if objective moral values
>exist do "emotions" have ANY valid reason for entering into
>the deliberative process. No? (This is another mutation of
>the statement "reason will not take you to morality").


The Hitler/activist analogy.

I believe that behaviour is a manifestation of the interplay between emotional and rational impulses. Psychomachia!



>No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective".
>Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking about
>the perceived, not the perception.


What is the difference?


>
>>There can be validity
>>in subjectivity. A blind man would say the room is dark and
>a
>>seeing man would say the room is light. In this instance,
>both
>>assertions are 'true' to each individual, and are based on
>>each individual's capabilities to make subjective
>assessments.
>
>
>No. You've changed the analogy. The analogy was about
>"whether the light was on or not". We are talking about the
>perceived, not the perception.
>
>>However, it is clear to see in this instance the opinion
>that
>>is more valid.
>
>No, if you'll stick with the analogy posed, rather than
>changing it, you'll see that in this instance ONE opinion is
>objectively right, and ONE is objectively wrong.



I'm sorry, but one is subjectively right and the other subjectively wrong! How can anything exist beyond our understanding? We've 'created' the world. Without us, there would be an 'object' world, but no 'reality'. Reality is a subjective concept.



>>I disagree
>>with the notion that religious activism is any different.
>You
>>keep avoiding this, so the original irony remains.
>
>
>Cause you're not observing that in the case of the "relativist
>versus the religious activist"... the first is dogmatically
>imposing HIS OWN subjective moral notion, and the latter is
>appealing to what is objectively, right for ALL men.
>
>This is plain as night and day, and if you don't see it, I'm
>wondering if we really did make any progress on that first
>point or not.
>
>No doubt you'll say this... "Yes of course I see that, but
>SINCE the religious activist has no grounds for assuming that
>his particular religous notion is the one corresponding to
>what is objectively right in the world, he's STILL merely
>asserting his own dogmatic opinion over others".
>
>To that I answer this:
>
>There is absolutely NO possible way humans could EVER know
>ANYTHING aboug God (which includes His will, also called moral
>absolutes) UNLESS He decided to reveal it to them. If God is
>God, and humans are humans, they could never know God UNLESS
>He showed them.
>
>Now the question is nothing more and nothing less than this:
>"Is there reason to believe He has?"
>
>
>(As per the uniformity of process "flaw" that you raised,
>that's not what I'm speaking of. The flaw with all of science
>is that science begins with PURE faith and yet poses as the
>antithesis of faith... thus we have all sorts of
>amateur-skeptic philosophers running around saying that they
>don't take things on faith, when they, in fact, have no idea
>what they're talking about)


This is the way I look at it.

Faith and objectivity are bedfellows.

Both both religion and science seek to discover the truth; to discover meaning. Derrida has this concept called 'differance'. In response to structuralist arguments relating to language he stressed that there is no 'meaning' in the sense that we have always
understood it. For example, if we trace the maening of a word in a dictionary we encounter an infinite deferment of meaning. If we look up any word, it will use other words to define it, so in this sense true meaning is elusive.

Scientists search for meaning. They rely upon the uniformity principle, the belief that what happened in the physical world yesterday will determine what will happen tomorrow. If you trace this so-called 'objectivity' back via the regression of causes then, the scientist must have faith in an infinite regression ( or some bigbang-type variation of it). In this sense, truth or meaning is elusive. Searching for that ever elusive cause is like searching for that ever elusive word in the dictionary. That's where faith comes in.

The same applies to religion. Truth is defined by faith.

But for me, objectivity is faith is dogma.

>Not quite (and I don't want this to become a game of
>pedantry).

thats all you can do>
>
>>>For example, if a community is
>>>perceieved as overpopulated to the point that its resources
>>>cannot sustain its survival, there are two options. You can
>>>kill some, in order to allow the rest to safely survive.
>>This
>>>is the rational thing to do. Or you can allow them all to
>>>live, hoping that things will turn out ok. This is the
>>>emotional thing to do.
>>
>>What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can
>>live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally satisfying
>>in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's
>>anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to
>>point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and
>that
>>there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive and
>>the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?
>
>
>But that's besides the point. It is supposed to be a
>hypothetical situation in which only two options exist.
>

>I believe that behaviour is a manifestation of the interplay
>between emotional and rational impulses. Psychomachia!

do you actually know anything?

>>No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective".
>>Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking
>about
>>the perceived, not the perception.

What is the difference?

The desired outcome. Whether a subjective interpretation or a rational objective truth.


>>No. You've changed the analogy. The analogy was about
>>"whether the light was on or not". We are talking about
>the
>>perceived, not the perception.


>>No, if you'll stick with the analogy posed, rather than
>>changing it, you'll see that in this instance ONE opinion is
>>objectively right, and ONE is objectively wrong.

there is nothing to perceive. To see whether this light is on or not requires nothing more than sensory perception and the neccessarily skills of language to say whether or not the light is on. its not a complex issue. Light On. Light Off. Your playing pedantic games.

I'm sorry, but one is subjectively right and the other
>subjectively wrong! How can anything exist beyond our
>understanding? We've 'created' the world. Without us, there
>would be an 'object' world, but no 'reality'. Reality is a
>subjective concept.

Perceptions of reality are subjective. Reality is matter, material objects. I am real. You said it yourself I am an object. Do you dispute that fact?

There is absolutely NO possible way humans could EVER know
>>ANYTHING aboug God (which includes His will, also called
>moral
>>absolutes) UNLESS He decided to reveal it to them. If God
>is
>>God, and humans are humans, they could never know God UNLESS
>>He showed them.
>>
>>Now the question is nothing more and nothing less than this:
>
>>"Is there reason to believe He has?"

Your are making the mistake of believing that God is a: a subject in his own right and b:
>>
>>(As per the uniformity of process "flaw" that you raised,
>>that's not what I'm speaking of. The flaw with all of
>science
>>is that science begins with PURE faith and yet poses as the
>>antithesis of faith... thus we have all sorts of
>>amateur-skeptic philosophers running around saying that they
>>don't take things on faith, when they, in fact, have no idea
>>what they're talking about)
>
>
>This is the way I look at it.
>
>Faith and objectivity are bedfellows.
>

>The same applies to religion. Truth is defined by faith.
>
>But for me, objectivity is faith is dogma.

So scientists are dogmatists of objective reason then?

I feel like you're clutterin up a thread here. If Moot's replying to me, don't jump in to counter his statements made to me. Please.

>Not quite (and I don't want this to become a game of
>pedantry). I think that emotions largely correspond with the
>existence of (loosely uniform) subjective impulses.




So when you cry cause your kid's kidnapped... it's not cause kid's are not supposed to be kidnapped... it's just cause you, personally, subjectively, didn't want your particular kid kidnapped. But that storm of emotion that you feel when it happens... that has no correspondance to univeral moral law???

This must be where we part ways man.
By the way, you've just invalidated every emotion you'll ever feel, as it corresponds to nothing real.









>>What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can
>>live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally satisfying
>>in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's
>>anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to
>>point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and
>that
>>there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive and
>>the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?
>
>
>But that's besides the point. It is supposed to be a
>hypothetical situation in which only two options exist.


I don't care what it was supposed to be... a hypothetical in which only two options exist does nothing to further your argument if your ignoring a very obvious third option!

Yes, if this is the way you reason, we're quite almost done here.



>I believe that behaviour is a manifestation of the interplay
>between emotional and rational impulses. Psychomachia!

All that is fine and good! But do you believe that emotions themselves, in any way, in any instance, correspond to universal moral law?? If not, where did they come from? Why did slaves write spirituals? Is slavery wrong. or just wrong in the opinions of the slaves?


>>No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective".
>>Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking
>about
>>the perceived, not the perception.
>
>
>What is the difference?



Are you serious man? Do you think that there is no difference between opinion and fact? Cause that is what you just said by asking that question.




>I'm sorry, but one is subjectively right and the other
>subjectively wrong! How can anything exist beyond our
>understanding? We've 'created' the world. Without us, there
>would be an 'object' world, but no 'reality'. Reality is a
>subjective concept.



BRO!!
Line every human being that has ever existed up outside the room with the light on inside. Tell them all to form a quick opinion about whether the room's light is on or not, then open the door and let them all file in and out. Some of their opinions will have turned out to be right, objectively right, and some wrong, objectively wrong.

If you're going to maintain that it's only a subjective truth that the light is on, what you're saying is that two people could walk into the room (with the light on), then walk out, and one could say "it was on, and the other say "it was off", and they'd both be right. That's the implication of what you're saying.



PS - Regarding Derrida and meaning... you should see the very obvious logical self-contradiction there. Just read what you wrote about him again, and think about it in light of what he's trying to tell you. Here's a hint, it renders his own words meaningless, and thus you could not have garnered any truth from them, and thus it would pointless for you to even bring them up. It would also render your participation in ANY rational debate pointless. My conclusion is that you don't really believe what he said, but are only bringing it up cause you don't see this contradiction yet.

everything else I've written?


>So when you cry cause your kid's kidnapped... it's not cause
>kid's are not supposed to be kidnapped... it's just cause you,
>personally, subjectively, didn't want your particular kid
>kidnapped. But that storm of emotion that you feel when it
>happens... that has no correspondance to univeral moral law???

As I wrote earlier, there IS much uniformity in subjectivity a la the cultural norm. Subjectivity does not import the suggestion that everybody has an entirely unique view on everything.


>This must be where we part ways man.
>By the way, you've just invalidated every emotion you'll ever
>feel, as it corresponds to nothing real.


I think therefore I am.


>>>What about a few deciding to relocate so that everyone can
>>>live. Isn't this both emotionally and rationally
>satisfying
>>>in a way your disjunction isn't? I'm not sure there's
>>>anywhere futher to go with this example, I just wanted to
>>>point that out, seems like your dichotomy was false, and
>>that
>>>there is a potential decision that satisfies the emotive
>and
>>>the rational in accordance with objective moral facts. No?
>>
>>
>>But that's besides the point. It is supposed to be a
>>hypothetical situation in which only two options exist.
>
>
>I don't care what it was supposed to be... a hypothetical in
>which only two options exist does nothing to further your
>argument if your ignoring a very obvious third option!
>
>Yes, if this is the way you reason, we're quite almost done
>here.
>

Where do you get this style of writing? Do this ever engender mutuality?


Why don't you define an 'objective moral fact' for me?


>>I believe that behaviour is a manifestation of the interplay
>>between emotional and rational impulses. Psychomachia!
>
>All that is fine and good! But do you believe that emotions
>themselves, in any way, in any instance, correspond to
>universal moral law?? If not, where did they come from?
>Why did slaves write spirituals? Is slavery wrong. or just
>wrong in the opinions of the slaves?
>

I believe there is no such thing as a universal moral law.

Slavery is rational as far as the slave masters are concerned. Depressing isn't it?

>
>>>No, I just read the one that said "It becomes subjective".
>>>Which is not true. It does not, because we are talking
>>about
>>>the perceived, not the perception.
>>
>>
>>What is the difference?
>
>
>
>Are you serious man? Do you think that there is no
>difference between opinion and fact? Cause that is what you
>just said by asking that question.



Does 'fact' or rhetoric win court cases?



>>I'm sorry, but one is subjectively right and the other
>>subjectively wrong! How can anything exist beyond our
>>understanding? We've 'created' the world. Without us, there
>>would be an 'object' world, but no 'reality'. Reality is a
>>subjective concept.
>
>
>
>BRO!!
>Line every human being that has ever existed up outside the
>room with the light on inside. Tell them all to form a quick
>opinion about whether the room's light is on or not, then open
>the door and let them all file in and out. Some of their
>opinions will have turned out to be right, objectively right,
>and some wrong, objectively wrong.
>



>If you're going to maintain that it's only a subjective truth
>that the light is on, what you're saying is that two people
>could walk into the room (with the light on), then walk out,
>and one could say "it was on, and the other say "it was off",
>and they'd both be right. That's the implication of what
>you're saying.


Look, I'm not denying the existence of an object world, but man's view of it BY DEFINITION, is subjective. Remember, I already wrote that there is much uniformity is subjectivity.
>



>
>
>PS - Regarding Derrida and meaning... you should see the very
>obvious logical self-contradiction there. Just read what you
>wrote about him again, and think about it in light of what
>he's trying to tell you. Here's a hint, it renders his own
>words meaningless, and thus you could not have garnered any
>truth from them, and thus it would pointless for you to even
>bring them up. It would also render your participation in
>ANY rational debate pointless. My conclusion is that you
>don't really believe what he said, but are only bringing it up
>cause you don't see this contradiction yet.


Lol, I suggest you read Derrida. In the final analysis, meaning is interpretation. It IS possible for us to walk away from a dictionary with a sense of the meaning of a word. THE MESSAGE IS THAT THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTES.


Edit: In fact this is what I wrote...

>Derrida has this concept called 'differance'. In response to >structuralist arguments relating to language he stressed that there >is no 'meaning' in the sense that we have always
>understood it. For example, if we trace the maening of a word in a >dictionary we encounter an infinite deferment of meaning. If we >look up any word, it will use other words to define it, so in this >sense true meaning is elusive.

He said there is no meaning IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAVE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD IT. His words are not without SUBJECTIVE meaning. You're trying to play silly games with me.

Please define 'objective moral fact' for me.


And BTW Lemon Kid, don't expect anymore responses from me. You write utter bollocks. How can GOD be a subject?! You refer to yourself as a subject. This means that you are under the power of somebody else. Y'know... the Queen's subject. What a fuckin idiot. Try to use language in the correct context.

>And BTW Lemon Kid, don't expect anymore responses from me.

Thank fuck for that. My prayers to an non-existant god have been answered.

>You write utter bollocks. How can GOD be a subject?!

that was your suggestion, or so I gathered from an analysis of your previous mutterings. from reading your previous statement, it looked as if you were inferring God was a subject who could talk to peple.

And I write utter bollocks is your subjective opinion to which you entitled to as an intellectual subject. Or are you an object and I am not? what are you trying to say to me?

>You refer toyourself as a subject. This means that you are under >the powerof somebody else. Y'know... the Queen's subject. What a >fuckin idiot. Try to use language in the correct context.

I also agreed I was an object. Im not the Queen's subject, unless we are talking legal terminology. I've never swore allegiance to any Queen. I was merely trying to widen a very narrow and blinkered argument by being playful with the language. Besides that point (you might require a sense of humour, to read me, y'know) Try reading and actually trying to understand what people have to say, instead of merely sticking words in reasonably coherent sentences without demonstrating any understanding at all. You can't dismiss what I have said with your responses.

>that is what you suggested.
>

Where?

>You refer toyourself as a subject. This means that you are
>under the powerof somebody else. Y'know... the Queen's
>subject. What a fuckin
>>idiot. Try to use language in the correct context.
>
>I also agreed I was an object. Im not the Queen's subject,
>unless we are talking legal terminology. I've never swore
>allegiance to any Queen. Try reading and actually trying to
>understand what people have to say, instead of sticking words
>in reasonably coherent sentences. You can't dismiss what I
>have said with your responses.


Posts back I wrote that you are an object and you responded that you an not an object, you are the Queen's subject. If you agree that you ARE an object, why did you disagree when I wrote it?

>>that is what you suggested.
>>
>
>Where?

In a previous post. If you like I could point exactly where. You did not directly suggest this, but reading between your lines and applying a logical analysis this was the conclusion I drew from your statement.

>Posts back I wrote that you are an object and you responded
>that you an not an object, you are the Queen's subject. If you
>agree that you ARE an object, why did you disagree when I
>wrote it?

There is the second half of the statement That you conviniently forgot. I disagree with you because I disgree with your intellectual position, so therefore I will attack that position from ever conceivable angle. You're like a dog with a bone.

" The only truth that remains in your comment are that yes I could be thought of as a physical being, i.e. an object, (but this word is usually reserved for inanimate objects, chairs furniture etc. most people i.e. subjects would perceive me as the same as them, not something to be analysed and or lusted after/feared), but since I am not in your presecne the only way I could be perceived by you is as a thought. Is this thought subjective or objective?"


So therefore I did not disagree with being an object, i wanted to point out that I am far more than an object. And within the context of human affairs, the only way I have heard of a person being referred to is as an object of something (i.e. desire, hate etc.). A state of affairs that could be described as the subjectivist nightmare of idolatry and narcissism that we live in.

>>>that is what you suggested.
>>>
>>
>>Where?
>
>In a previous post. If you like I could point exactly where.
>You did not directly suggest this, but reading between your
>lines and applying a logical analysis this was the conclusion
>I drew from your statement.


I would like. Point exactly.

>I would like. Point exactly.

There is absolutely NO possible way humans could EVER know
>>ANYTHING aboug God (which includes His will, also called
>moral
>>absolutes) UNLESS He decided to reveal it to them. If God
>is
>>God, and humans are humans, they could never know God UNLESS
>>He showed them.
>>
>>Now the question is nothing more and nothing less than this:
>
>>"Is there reason to believe He has?"

He.He decided to reveal it. You are personifying God as a subject with divine power to bestow knowledge upon people.

>
>>I would like. Point exactly.
>
>There is absolutely NO possible way humans could EVER know
>>>ANYTHING aboug God (which includes His will, also called
>>moral
>>>absolutes) UNLESS He decided to reveal it to them. If God
>>is
>>>God, and humans are humans, they could never know God
>UNLESS
>>>He showed them.
>>>
>>>Now the question is nothing more and nothing less than this:
>
>>
>>>"Is there reason to believe He has?"
>

He he, InVerse wrote this dickhead. Look back again.

oh well guess I'm true to my signature then.

>As I wrote earlier, there IS much uniformity in subjectivity a
>la the cultural norm. Subjectivity does not import the
>suggestion that everybody has an entirely unique view on
>everything.


No, it imports the idea that no idea can be more right, more correct, more in correspondance to reality than any other, which is itself a logical self-contradiction.

You argue that moral notions are only the products of cultural norms, thus your most profound, intense emotions that you have ever had or ever will have, are really meaningless, as they're only conditioned into you by some other people and correspond to nothing objectively real in this world.








>I think therefore I am.



You also beg the question, therefore you beg the question. (It's a joke)


I'm going to put on hold your "hypothetical" about killing people cause there's over population, as you've still not explained to me what purpose the hypothetical serves when it's based on a very obviously non-exhaustive dichotomy. It's also the least of our worries right now... in light of the question you're about to ask me...

here it comes...


>Why don't you define an 'objective moral fact' for me?

Gladly, a moral rule which is so, regardless of opinion about it. Further, "objective moral fact" is the prerequisite for moral debate, activistm, etc. Else we'd just be animals bumping heads. Ever wonder why we have language and rationality in the first place?

Now I'll give you an instantiation: "Raping babies is wrong".

I say that is a fact.

You say that is just an opinion.


>I believe there is no such thing as a universal moral law.


Exactly.



>Slavery is rational as far as the slave masters are concerned.
>Depressing isn't it?


Of course it's rational. It "get's the job done". And as long as "rationality" is ALL there is (meaning, no "objective moral law" for rationality to "be rational about") then there is NOTHING WRONG WITH SLAVERY.

The only thing that's depressing is that your worldview requires you to concede that there is nothing wrong with slavery, and that you're view that it should "not be" is merely your desire to assert your opinion, dogmatically, over everyone else, denying them theirs.

>>As I wrote earlier, there IS much uniformity in subjectivity
>a
>>la the cultural norm. Subjectivity does not import the
>>suggestion that everybody has an entirely unique view on
>>everything.
>
>
>No, it imports the idea that no idea can be more right, more
>correct, more in correspondance to reality than any other,
>which is itself a logical self-contradiction.
>
>You argue that moral notions are only the products of cultural
>norms, thus your most profound, intense emotions that you have
>ever had or ever will have, are really meaningless, as they're
>only conditioned into you by some other people and correspond
>to nothing objectively real in this world.
>

Absolutely, but it doesn't make them any less valuable.


>I'm going to put on hold your "hypothetical" about killing
>people cause there's over population, as you've still not
>explained to me what purpose the hypothetical serves when it's
>based on a very obviously non-exhaustive dichotomy. It's
>also the least of our worries right now... in light of the
>question you're about to ask me...
>
>here it comes...
>
>
>>Why don't you define an 'objective moral fact' for me?
>
>Gladly, a moral rule which is so, regardless of opinion about
>it. Further, "objective moral fact" is the prerequisite for
>moral debate, activistm, etc. Else we'd just be animals
>bumping heads. Ever wonder why we have language and
>rationality in the first place?
>
>Now I'll give you an instantiation: "Raping babies is
>wrong".
>
>I say that is a fact.
>
>You say that is just an opinion.
>
>

Firstly, you used a (perhaps undeliberate) rhetorical trick here. I didn't say 'just' an opinion.

Secondly, how is what you wrote a fact? Look at it this way; A large section of the church now promotes gay clergy. What is homosexuality? God's objective truth, or the church's subjective opinion?


>>I believe there is no such thing as a universal moral law.
>
>
>Exactly.
>
>
>
>>Slavery is rational as far as the slave masters are
>concerned.
>>Depressing isn't it?
>
>
>Of course it's rational. It "get's the job done". And as
>long as "rationality" is ALL there is (meaning, no "objective
>moral law" for rationality to "be rational about") then there
>is NOTHING WRONG WITH SLAVERY.
>
>The only thing that's depressing is that your worldview
>requires you to concede that there is nothing wrong with
>slavery, and that you're view that it should "not be" is
>merely your desire to assert your opinion, dogmatically, over
>everyone else, denying them theirs.

However, my subjective view (my dogma) and the view of millions others that it is wrong. So it is illegal. If anybody has a problem with it, then tough shit!!

*shakes head and walks off into the sunset*

>Absolutely, but it doesn't make them any less valuable.


It most definitely does. Cause according to you, it is only your opinion that they're valuable, an opinion which is no more right than the opposing opinion, according to you.

There is no intrinsic value in your worldview. It would be philosophically unacceptable for there to be. There is only subjective projected value, and if that's ALL that there is, then they're (your values) meaningless to anybody but you.

So, when you say "that person SHOULDN'T have kidnapped my son", you're making a meaningless statement. This is unavoidable, it can't be argued around.


>>Now I'll give you an instantiation: "Raping babies is
>>wrong".
>>
>>I say that is a fact.
>>
>>You say that is just an opinion.
>>
>>


>Firstly, you used a (perhaps undeliberate) rhetorical trick
>here. I didn't say 'just' an opinion.

It doesn't matter! In your world OPINIONS are ALL THAT THERE IS. Therefore an opinon is utterly USELESS in debating or reasoning with ANYONE. There is NO point of reference in your worldview.

So it doesn't matter whether you said "just" or not, it is implied in your worldview.



>Secondly, how is what you wrote a fact?


So it is not a fact that "raping babies is wrong"?

Is it merely an opinion that you hold? Tell me then, what makes it more correct than the holder of the opposite opinion? Why do you deny that he should have the right to act on his opinions?

Under your view here, you'd be an utter hypocrite to chastise someone for raping a baby.

All I'm doin' here is exposing the logical consequence of your worldview.



>However, my subjective view (my dogma) and the view of
>millions others that it is wrong. So it is illegal. If anybody
>has a problem with it, then tough shit!!


And there you are, now, according to your worldview, might makes right. If enough people decide that black people are 3/5 human and should be herded and worked like animals... then it IS SO.

All I'm doin here is exposing the logical consequence of your worldview.


peace.

First, I'm sick of this game. We're never going to agree, so let's agree to disagree.

Secondly, It's interesting how you avoided the question about homosexuality...

I'm not playing a game, but I believe you are.

I'm trying to draw your attention to the logical outworking of your worldview. Now that you're probably coming close to seeing it, you're backing off. That's playing a game.

The question you asked about homosexuality isn't important yet. What we're talking about here is logically prior to that.

If you can't respond to #162, say so, but don't play the "let's just agree to disagree" game.

Although, I guess in your logically self-contradictory worldview, that seems like the only way out.

It's funny that by denying objective truth, you've undermined your very act of debating/discoursing... yet you continue to.

Make up your mind. But think first.

162.

>I'm trying to draw your attention to the logical outworking of
>your worldview. Now that you're probably coming close to
>seeing it, you're backing off. That's playing a game.

My opinion of your worldview has not changed an iota!

>
>The question you asked about homosexuality isn't important
>yet. What we're talking about here is logically prior to
>that.
>
>If you can't respond to #162, say so, but don't play the
>"let's just agree to disagree" game.
>
>Although, I guess in your logically self-contradictory
>worldview, that seems like the only way out.
>
>It's funny that by denying objective truth, you've undermined
>your very act of debating/discoursing... yet you continue to.


Why don't you see how pigheaded it is to claim to be appealing to an objective truth? If there is a 'universal truth' it simply can't come from or be expressed by humans. Where then does it come from, and how can we begin understand it? (Bear in mind our 'subject, verb, object' language).

I will address #162. I couldn't continue last night because my girlfriend was hassling me to get off the computer! This damn thing is taking over my bloody life!


>>Absolutely, but it doesn't make them any less valuable.


>It most definitely does. Cause according to you, it is only your >opinion that they're valuable, an opinion which is no more right >than the opposing opinion, according to you.

>There is no intrinsic value in your worldview. It would be >philosophically unacceptable for there to be. There is only >subjective projected value, and if that's ALL that there is, then >they're (your values) meaningless to anybody but you.

>So, when you say "that person SHOULDN'T have kidnapped my son", >you're making a meaningless statement. This is unavoidable, it >can't be argued around.



It has HUMAN value. It appeals to the same sentiments of other HUMANS. Call it emotional but when an individual is kidnapped, people come together in order to help, as does the institution. So it is meaningful.



>>Now I'll give you an instantiation: "Raping babies is
>>wrong".
>>
>>I say that is a fact.
>>
>>You say that is just an opinion.
>>
>>


>Firstly, you used a (perhaps undeliberate) rhetorical trick
>here. I didn't say 'just' an opinion.


>It doesn't matter! In your world OPINIONS are ALL THAT THERE IS. >Therefore an opinon is utterly USELESS in debating or reasoning >with ANYONE. There is NO point of reference in your worldview.>


But it builds our very institutions. We don't need a religious point of reference or arrogant appeal to 'objective truth' for that.




>Secondly, how is what you wrote a fact?


>So it is not a fact that "raping babies is wrong"?

>Is it merely an opinion that you hold? Tell me then, what makes it >more correct than the holder of the opposite opinion? Why do you >deny that he should have the right to act on his opinions?

>Under your view here, you'd be an utter hypocrite to chastise >someone for raping a baby.

>All I'm doin' here is exposing the logical consequence of your >worldview.


But as a defence lawyer you would be laughed out of court! The legal system may be in some sense hypocritical; but tough shit! Majority view wins the day (or parliament view; but that's a different argument).

BTW, notions may seem to be 'facts' when they have huge uniformity of subjectivity in their favour.




>However, my subjective view (my dogma) and the view of
>millions others that it is wrong. So it is illegal. If anybody
>has a problem with it, then tough shit!!


>And there you are, now, according to your worldview, might makes >right. If enough people decide that black people are 3/5 human and >should be herded and worked like animals... then it IS SO.

>All I'm doin here is exposing the logical consequence of your >worldview.


Unfortunately yes, but that's when you either subscribe to it or become an activist (slavery, that is)...


Remember that your objective Christianity justified slavery.

Explain that one to me. Then answer the homosexuality question. I am logically ready!

I know you trying to have a discussion with Inverse, but your use of language is fucking terrible. And perhaps you dont see the reason in engaging in this kind of thing. You are attempting to change and enlarge peoples world view.

>My opinion of your worldview has not changed an iota!


>Why don't you see how pigheaded it is to claim to be appealing
>to an objective truth? If there is a 'universal truth' it
>simply can't come from or be expressed by humans. Where then
>does it come from, and how can we begin understand it? (Bear
>in mind our 'subject, verb, object' language).

You cannot appeal to Objective truth. An Objective truth should appeal to reasonable people because it is a fact. Universal Law(never heard of any sych phrase as Universal truth) is essentially Karma...what you do comes back to you. How you understand it is by living and learning from the lessons life deals you.


>It has HUMAN value. It appeals to the same sentiments of other
>HUMANS. Call it emotional but when an individual is kidnapped,
>people come together in order to help, as does the
>institution. So it is meaningful.


not to this human. Your hypothetical situations do not appeal to my emotions. Using reason I can see that this is merely a discussion, so why should my emotions become involved?


>>So it is not a fact that "raping babies is wrong"?


morally wrong. But how do you define those morales? emotions? desires? that was what led to the hypothetical baby being raped in the first place.

But as a defence lawyer you would be laughed out of court! The
>legal system may be in some sense hypocritical; but tough
>shit! Majority view wins the day (or parliament view; but
>that's a different argument).

And that is the democratic system you support? mob rule?


>>And there you are, now, according to your worldview, might
>makes >right. If enough people decide that black people are
>3/5 human and >should be herded and worked like animals...
>then it IS SO.
>
>>All I'm doin here is exposing the logical consequence of your
>>worldview.
>
>
>Unfortunately yes, but that's when you either subscribe to it
>or become an activist (slavery, that is)...
>
>
>Remember that your objective Christianity justified slavery.
>
>Explain that one to me. Then answer the homosexuality
>question. I am logically ready!

Logically ready? aye o.k. captain

And you may be logically ready, but you are also morally abhorent.

The lovable idiot! Have you recovered from last night's almighty cock-up?

>I know you trying to have a discussion with Inverse, but your
>use of language is fucking terrible.

So YOU are giving english lessons now?


And perhaps you dont see
>the reason in engaging in this kind of thing. You are
>attempting to change and enlarge peoples world view.

This is not my forum.


>>Why don't you see how pigheaded it is to claim to be
>appealing
>>to an objective truth? If there is a 'universal truth' it
>>simply can't come from or be expressed by humans. Where then
>>does it come from, and how can we begin understand it? (Bear
>>in mind our 'subject, verb, object' language).
>

>You cannot appeal to Objective truth. An Objective truth
>should appeal to reasonable people because it is a fact.
>Universal Law(never heard of any sych phrase as Universal
>truth) is essentially Karma...what you do comes back to you.
>How you understand it is by living and learning from the
>lessons life deals you.


>

This is a trivial semantic point. I thought you hated those?!

In any case the objective truth is the 'authority'. An argument can appeal to that authority.

In a court of law, we simultaneously appeal on the law and to the law. There is no greater authority than the law itself.

There are no facts. (Including this!)




>>It has HUMAN value. It appeals to the same sentiments of
>other
>>HUMANS. Call it emotional but when an individual is
>kidnapped,
>>people come together in order to help, as does the
>>institution. So it is meaningful.
>
>
>not to this human. Your hypothetical situations do not appeal
>to my emotions. Using reason I can see that this is merely a
>discussion, so why should my emotions become involved?
>
>

InVerse initially came up with this hypothetical so take your whining to him. Are you getting mixed up again?

BTW emotion and rationale is often inextricably linked. It's difficult to figure out where one ends and the other begins. For example, you wrote that you want to attack my point of view from every conceivable angle; because ultimately you want to attack me. That's emotional.


>>>So it is not a fact that "raping babies is wrong"?
>
>
>morally wrong. But how do you define those morales? emotions?
>desires? that was what led to the hypothetical baby being
>raped in the first place.
>
>But as a defence lawyer you would be laughed out of court!
>The
>>legal system may be in some sense hypocritical; but tough
>>shit! Majority view wins the day (or parliament view; but
>>that's a different argument).
>
>And that is the democratic system you support? mob rule?


What is the alternative? We must have faith in ourselves, not God.


>>>And there you are, now, according to your worldview, might
>>makes >right. If enough people decide that black people are
>>3/5 human and >should be herded and worked like animals...
>>then it IS SO.
>>
>>>All I'm doin here is exposing the logical consequence of
>your
>>>worldview.
>>
>>
>>Unfortunately yes, but that's when you either subscribe to
>it
>>or become an activist (slavery, that is)...
>>
>>
>>Remember that your objective Christianity justified slavery.
>>
>>Explain that one to me. Then answer the homosexuality
>>question. I am logically ready!
>
>Logically ready? aye o.k. captain
>
>And you may be logically ready, but you are also morally
>abhorent.
>


WTF?! What am I promoting that is morally abhorrent?

Can you explain the Christianity/slavery anomaly?

>The lovable idiot! Have you recovered from last night's
>almighty cock-up?

what? last night? I got drunk. said some stuff.





>WTF?! What am I promoting that is morally abhorrent?
>
>Can you explain the Christianity/slavery anomaly?

the fact that humanity has to be promoted is morally abhorenet.
what do i have to explain?
Slavery is an Anomaly?

If you ever attended university, it would be in a jar. Undergraduates would dissect that tiny brain of yours and muse over how it is possible that a troglodyte was born in the late twentieth century.

>If you ever attended university, it would be in a jar.
>Undergraduates would dissect that tiny brain of yours and muse
>over how it is possible that a troglodyte was born in the late
>twentieth century.

uh huh. o.k. what relevance does this has too anything except that your a sad and bitter little man?

>>If you ever attended university, it would be in a jar.
>>Undergraduates would dissect that tiny brain of yours and
>muse
>>over how it is possible that a troglodyte was born in the
>late
>>twentieth century.
>
>uh huh. o.k. what relevance does this has too anything except
>that your a sad and bitter little man?

It's completely relevant to post 178. You either don't have a scooby doo about what is being discussed in this forum, or you spend far too much time writing whilst pissed. For example WTF did you hope to achieve with this:

>the fact that humanity has to be promoted is morally abhorenet.
>what do i have to explain?
>Slavery is an Anomaly? ?

Have you understood anything that either InVerse or I have been discussing?

What I asked InVerse to explain, and then asked you (because I naively thought you were actually beginning to engage with this forum) is the apparent anomaly between the 'objectivity of Chrisitianity' and its original stance on (and which justified) slavery.



And why do you respond to my clear and concise questions with three or four quasi-enlightened, completely irrelevant qualifying questions? Do you think it conveys an image if intellect?

>Why do you fail to see what is so clear?

I see a little more than that. That is the problem you don't see.

...tell me how objective Christianity could justify slavery?

I've a feeling you agree with me on this but you duck the challenge for fear of upsetting your new friend.

>...tell me how objective Christianity could justify slavery?
>
>I've a feeling you agree with me on this but you duck the
>challenge for fear of upsetting your new friend.

Fuck off. We're on two different levels of understanding what this is about. How about Subjective Christianity? I wont engage in a bullshit argument when you can't or won't even define the most basic of terms. And why the fuck would I want to talk about a subject I know little or nothing about? Find your own fucking answers to your own fucking questions and come back and tell us all about it...

>Fuck off. We're on two different levels of understanding what
>this is about.

...you're on the cave-dweller level (see the relevance now?)


How about Subjective Christianity? I wont
>engage in a bullshit argument when you can't or won't even
>define the most basic of terms.


Have you picked up nothing from these posts? IMO Christianity IS subjective, InVerse claims it is something more sacred than that.


And why the fuck would I want
>to talk about a subject I know little or nothing about?


You've made a lot of posts for an individual who wishes not to discuss something he knows nothing about.


Find
>your own fucking answers to your own fucking questions and
>come back and tell us all about it...


And would you be receptive? I already have answers that work for me, and I've been trying to hit them home for days.

I had sincerely hoped you were brighter than this.

>>Fuck off. We're on two different levels of understanding
>what
>>this is about.
>
>...you're on the cave-dweller level (see the relevance now?)

more cheap insults.

>How about Subjective Christianity? I wont
>>engage in a bullshit argument when you can't or won't even
>>define the most basic of terms.

>Have you picked up nothing from these posts? IMO Christianity
>IS subjective, InVerse claims it is something more sacred than
>that.

I dont think Inverse is that clever either.

>And why the fuck would I want
>>to talk about a subject I know little or nothing about?
>
>
>You've made a lot of posts for an individual who wishes not to
>discuss something he knows nothing about.

I know nothing about Slavery...apart from the most basics of facts. I didnt study the History of Slavery, or Christianity because neither have any relevance to what I did study. But philosophy? analysis? reason? you dont need a degree to engage in a discussion...

>>your own fucking answers to your own fucking questions and
>>come back and tell us all about it...
>
>
>And would you be receptive? I already have answers that work
>for me, and I've been trying to hit them home for days.

no. Of course not, you're a charlatan and a liar.

>I had sincerely hoped you were brighter than this.
>
why?

>more cheap insults.

Remember this?

>yep

>you

>are

>a

>cocksucker

>hah

>hah

>...

I'm happy to cut the cheap insults if you are. Agreed?


>I know nothing about Slavery...apart from the most basics of
>facts. I didnt study the History of Slavery, or Christianity
>because neither have any relevance to what I did study. But
>philosophy? analysis? reason? you dont need a degree to engage
>in a discussion...


Then why not argue it from, a logical pov? Is it possible to claim in one breathe that religion appeals to a higher universal law, (that defines 'true' good) and in another breathe concede that this same religion justified slavery? I don't think so.

>no. Of course not, you're a charlatan and a liar.

Lying is your self-proclaimed modus operandi!

>>
>why?

Because ultimately it would be quite nice to learn from other people on these forums.

>>more cheap insults.
>
>Remember this?
>
>>yep
>
>>you
>
>>are
>
>>a
>
>>cocksucker
>
>>hah
>
>>hah
>
>>...
>
>I'm happy to cut the cheap insults if you are. Agreed?

nope. fact is you are a cocksucker.

>>I know nothing about Slavery...apart from the most basics of
>>facts. I didnt study the History of Slavery, or Christianity
>>because neither have any relevance to what I did study. But
>>philosophy? analysis? reason? you dont need a degree to
>engage
>>in a discussion...
>
>
>Then why not argue it from, a logical pov? Is it possible to
>claim in one breathe that religion appeals to a higher
>universal law, (that defines 'true' good) and in another
>breathe concede that this same religion justified slavery? I
>don't think so.
>
>>no. Of course not, you're a charlatan and a liar.
>
>Lying is your self-proclaimed modus operandi!

show me where I made that proclamation? And dont use Latin terminologyy to discuss how I "operate" if you want to get technical I'm a magician....

>>why?
>
>Because ultimately it would be quite nice to learn from other
>people on these forums.

ultimately? you want you dick sucked...(i.e. your ego massaged...you are a liar and a charlatan)

>>Lying is your self-proclaimed modus operandi!
>
>show me where I made that proclamation? And dont use Latin
>terminologyy to discuss how I "operate" if you want to get
>technical I'm a magician....
>

>In answer to all of this, I will say that I am capable of telling >lies. Ask me another question, maybe I'll tell you what I really >know.

Remember this? Or remember when I took the piss out of you for posting that you don't have any friends? You told me then that you often lie too.

..so how do you leap to the conclusion that lying is my "modus operandi"...rather large assumption on your part...and that was you taking the piss? hah..ive had 4 year olds make more cutting comments...look, if you want to talk about "truth" and such like but deny objectivity as the basis of knowledge (as you have done i'll dig it out if you want) you're sinking in quicksand, metaphorically speaking (i use them as well some times, but y'know everything I say isnt a metaphor...

>..so how do you leap to the conclusion that lying is my
>"modus operandi"...rather large assumption on your part...and
>that was you taking the piss? hah..ive had 4 year olds make
>more cutting comments...look, if you want to talk about
>"truth" and such like but deny objectivity as the basis of
>knowledge (as you have done i'll dig it out if you want)

Last time you tried this, you really made a tit of yourself.

>you're sinking in quicksand, metaphorically speaking (i use
>them as well some times, but y'know everything I say isnt a
>metaphor...

Another flaw in your knowledge. All language is a metaphor.

>>..so how do you leap to the conclusion that lying is my
>>"modus operandi"...rather large assumption on your
>part...and
>>that was you taking the piss? hah..ive had 4 year olds make
>>more cutting comments...look, if you want to talk about
>>"truth" and such like but deny objectivity as the basis of
>>knowledge (as you have done i'll dig it out if you want)
>
is a fallacy that pervades both the arts and sciences. This fallacy also informs InVerse's religious outlook. Just because you write 'reasonably' objective it doesn't automatically make your OPINION any more objective.

Last time you tried this, you really made a tit of yourself.

thats alright..gie you something else to suck on...

>
>>you're sinking in quicksand, metaphorically speaking (i use
>>them as well some times, but y'know everything I say isnt a
>>metaphor...
>
>Another flaw in your knowledge. All language is a metaphor.

for what? silence?

>is a fallacy that pervades both the arts and sciences. This
>fallacy also informs InVerse's religious outlook. Just because
>you write 'reasonably' objective it doesn't automatically make
>your OPINION any more objective.

to stress that this is my subjective opinion. But nice try.

>>>you're sinking in quicksand, metaphorically speaking (i use
>>>them as well some times, but y'know everything I say isnt a
>>>metaphor...
>>
>>Another flaw in your knowledge. All language is a metaphor.
>
>for what? silence?

Language is a signifying system used to articulate other systems, including the object world.

>to stress that this is my subjective opinion. But nice try.

wisnae trying


>Language is a signifying system used to articulate other
>systems, including the object world.

so its not actually a metaphor then? and language has no other qualities? so is language subjective then? or is that an objective fact that langugae is a system of communication that uses particular sounds and symbols to exchnage information...?..oh wowee...we got from objective christianity to a Noam Chomsky reader in about 10 posts...really building up the knowledge here...

>so its not actually a metaphor then?

that works on both primary and secondary levels of signification.


and language has no other
>qualities? so is language subjective then? or is that an
>objective fact that langugae is a system of communication that
>uses particular sounds and symbols to exchnage
>information...?

I completely think that language is subjective. This is the very crux of the argument. I think objectivity v subjectivity is a false dichotomy. More accurately it should be described subjectivity v subjectivity or even (as I have stated) 'degree of subjectivity'.


..oh wowee...we got from objective christianity
>to a Noam Chomsky reader in about 10 posts...really building
>up the knowledge here...

Have you actually read any Chomsky or do you simply like his name?

>>so its not actually a metaphor then?
>
>that works on both primary and secondary levels of
>signification.

so everything you've posted in here is a metaphor? for what? what is it a metaphor for? objective reality?...are you saying langugae is a metaphor for objective reality?...As for liminal and subliminal, i'm well aware how language works...

>and language has no other
>>qualities? so is language subjective then? or is that an
>>objective fact that langugae is a system of communication
>that
>>uses particular sounds and symbols to exchnage
>>information...?
>
>I completely think that language is subjective. This is the
>very crux of the argument. I think objectivity v subjectivity
>is a false dichotomy. More accurately it should be described
>subjectivity v subjectivity or even (as I have stated) 'degree
>of subjectivity'.

Thats basically my point..there is no dichotomy between objectivity and subjectivity..they are inter-related...subjectivity vs subjecity? ends up as an irrational argument since there is no standard to measure them against..which is where objectivity comes in...

>..oh wowee...we got from objective christianity
>>to a Noam Chomsky reader in about 10 posts...really building
>>up the knowledge here...
>
>Have you actually read any Chomsky or do you simply like his
>name?

yep..some of his language work, just picked up the basics...watched a video as well, but i cant remember what it was called.

>so everything you've posted in here is a metaphor? for what?
>what is it a metaphor for? objective reality?

Language does describe the object world (it describes other things as well), but this defines our subjective reality.

>
>Thats basically my point..there is no dichotomy between
>objectivity and subjectivity..they are
>inter-related...subjectivity vs subjecity? ends up as an
>irrational argument since there is no standard to measure them
>against..which is where objectivity comes in...


I acknowledge that subjectivity v subjectivity is limited, which is why I also wrote 'degree of subjectivity'. Once we accept that subjectivity is a process and not part of a diametric then it becomes clear that there can be no true objectivity.

There ARE highly valid subjective notions, which can be tested. For example, the light switch analogy that InVerse stressed. However, in the final analysis they remain subjective because this 'reality' is created and expressed by the mind...

>>so everything you've posted in here is a metaphor? for
>what?
>>what is it a metaphor for? objective reality?

Question: did you answer the question?
Answer: no

>Language does describe the object world (it describes other
>things as well), but this defines our subjective reality.

what is your subjective reality?

>There ARE highly valid subjective notions, which can be
>tested. For example, the light switch analogy that InVerse
>stressed. However, in the final analysis they remain
>subjective because this 'reality' is created and expressed by
>the mind...

wrong. the mind is the part of objective reality that allows you the subject to perceive this reality, by constructing understandings of reality...subjectivity...imaginary landscapes, social theory, works of fiction etc etc etc etc. So Basically what you are saying to me is that you are living in your head...

>>>so everything you've posted in here is a metaphor? for
>>what?
>>>what is it a metaphor for? objective reality?
>
>Question: did you answer the question?
>Answer: no

What are you talking about? The answer is written underneath this. Language is a metaphor for the object world, not objective reality.
>
>>Language does describe the object world (it describes other
>>things as well), but this defines our subjective reality.
>
>what is your subjective reality?

My subjective reality is everything that exists in my head. No reality exists beyond this.

>
>>There ARE highly valid subjective notions, which can be
>>tested. For example, the light switch analogy that InVerse
>>stressed. However, in the final analysis they remain
>>subjective because this 'reality' is created and expressed
>by
>>the mind...
>
>wrong. the mind is the part of objective reality that allows
>you the subject to perceive this reality, by constructing
>understandings of reality...subjectivity...imaginary
>landscapes, social theory, works of fiction etc etc etc etc.
>So Basically what you are saying to me is that you are living
>in your head...


This is mixed up. Objective reality is a contradiction in terms. Tell me something that is 'real' that your mind didn't conceive. You can't. All reality is subjective. Therefore yes, I am living in my head. So too are you.

>What are you talking about? The answer is written underneath
>this. Language is a metaphor for the object world, not
>objective reality.

I disagree. Language is not merely a metaphor for the object world since the object world of material and matter is OBJECT REALITY. You can feel and touch it...you do not require an intellect to breathe oxygen...

>My subjective reality is everything that exists in my head. No
>reality exists beyond this.

OBJECTIVE REALITY I.E. THE WORLD I AM LIVING IN EXISTS WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT...Q: If A Tree in the woods falls over and nobody hears it did it actually fall? A; Yes

or put it this THE CHAIR I AM SITTING ON DOES NOT EXIST IN MY HEAD. THE WORDS CHAIR WORLD DO NOT EXIST ON MY HEAD THEY EXIST ON THIS COMPUTER SCREEN. AN OBJECT I AM PHYSICALLY INTERACTING WITH AT THE MOMENT. I AM USING LANGUAGE TO COMMUNICATE FACTS..THIS IS NOT A METAPHOR. REPEAT THIS IS NOT A METAPHOR


>>>There ARE highly valid subjective notions,

who validates them?

>This is mixed up. Objective reality is a contradiction in
>terms. Tell me something that is 'real' that your mind didn't
>conceive. You can't. All reality is subjective. Therefore yes,
>I am living in my head. So too are you.

I AM LIVING IN AN OBJECTIVE REALITY. IS A BULLET IN THE HEAD SUBJECTIVE? IS PHYSICAL PAIN SUBJECTIVE?

But quickly...

>I disagree. Language is not merely a metaphor for the object
>world since the object world of material and matter is OBJECT
>REALITY. You can feel and touch it...you do not require an
>intellect to breathe oxygen...
>
>>My subjective reality is everything that exists in my head.
>No
>>reality exists beyond this.

Then what is reality? The object world exists beyond humans but reality does not. Language is reality. We talk language, speak language, think langauge, dream language.

>
>OBJECTIVE REALITY I.E. THE WORLD I AM LIVING IN EXISTS WHETHER
>YOU LIKE IT OR NOT...Q: If A Tree in the woods falls over and
>nobody hears it did it actually fall? A; Yes
>
>or put it this THE CHAIR I AM SITTING ON DOES NOT EXIST IN MY
>HEAD. THE WORDS CHAIR WORLD DO NOT EXIST ON MY HEAD THEY EXIST
>ON THIS COMPUTER SCREEN. AN OBJECT I AM PHYSICALLY INTERACTING
>WITH AT THE MOMENT. I AM USING LANGUAGE TO COMMUNICATE
>FACTS..THIS IS NOT A METAPHOR. REPEAT THIS IS NOT A METAPHOR

Now imagine a chair in you head. A wooden structure with a back and fours legs. What links this picture in your head to the signifier C H A I R? It's a metaphor!

Remember the object world exists and we can interact with it. However, once we begin to understand this object world, we define a subjective reality (via language, however babies develop a cruder form before grasping language). I think this is an easy concept.


>
>
>>>>There ARE highly valid subjective notions,
>
>who validates them?

Science for one.

>
>>This is mixed up. Objective reality is a contradiction in
>>terms. Tell me something that is 'real' that your mind
>didn't
>>conceive. You can't. All reality is subjective. Therefore
>yes,
>>I am living in my head. So too are you.
>
>I AM LIVING IN AN OBJECTIVE REALITY. IS A BULLET IN THE HEAD
>SUBJECTIVE? IS PHYSICAL PAIN SUBJECTIVE?

Physical pain is definitely subjective. Most humans feel pain, it's a human trait that affects everybody differently. Remember too, that nerve endings send pain signals via the spinal cord to the brain.

>Then what is reality? The object world exists beyond humans
>but reality does not. Language is reality. We talk language,
>speak language, think langauge, dream language.

PHYSICAL REALITY. your playing word games. thats all you ever do.


>Now imagine a chair in you head. A wooden structure with a
>back and fours legs. What links this picture in your head to
>the signifier C H A I R? It's a metaphor!

fuck off. If I imagine a chair then I have an imaginary chair in my mind. It is not the same chair that I am sitting in.


this discussion is over because you patronise me with the tone you take in your messages. You do not have anything to teach me and your constructions (be they linguistic or otherwise) only perpetuate your ideas that I know to be bullshit. I see what you say. I also see. Apparently you do not. End of discussion.

>
>>Then what is reality? The object world exists beyond humans
>>but reality does not. Language is reality. We talk language,
>>speak language, think langauge, dream language.
>
>PHYSICAL REALITY. your playing word games. thats all you ever
>do.

Lol. Reality is a word game!


>>Now imagine a chair in you head. A wooden structure with a
>>back and fours legs. What links this picture in your head to
>>the signifier C H A I R? It's a metaphor!
>
>fuck off. If I imagine a chair then I have an imaginary chair
>in my mind. It is not the same chair that I am sitting in.


Ok then, what would you call that thing you are sitting on? If it is objective reality that you are sitting on a chair, then why do the French call it 'chaise'?


>this discussion is over because you patronise me with the tone
>you take in your messages. You do not have anything to teach
>me and your constructions (be they linguistic or otherwise)
>only perpetuate your ideas that I know to be bullshit. I see
>what you say. I also see. Apparently you do not. End of
>discussion.


Look, I'm not trying to patronise you. I thought we had actually started to engage in discussion. Do you realise other OKplayers must think the pair of us are complete tits?

Wow--so "objective reality" is MERELY a product of the human mind..?

...

I believe there is latin expression.
Cogito ergo es..."I think-therefore it IS"

Its pretty hard for any RATIONAL or even half educated person to except the incredibly self-enchanted notion that EVERYTHING in the material realm in MERELY a product of human imagination.

This is similar to some juvenile reading of DATED metaphysics.

Remember metaphysics?
The "Scientific" apologia of religious dogma?

Read the WHOLE of the forum before you post your polemic approximations in future. It'll give your pompous rant more credibility.

Btw, I didn't deny the existence of an object world.

and more importantly do you ever answer questions? cos evasion has been your "modus operandi" in every "exchange" we've had so far...

>The lovable idiot! Have you recovered from last night's
>almighty cock-up?
>
>>I know you trying to have a discussion with Inverse, but
>your
>>use of language is fucking terrible.
>
>So YOU are giving english lessons now?
>
>
>And perhaps you dont see
>>the reason in engaging in this kind of thing. You are
>>attempting to change and enlarge peoples world view.
>
>This is not my forum.
>
>
>>>Why don't you see how pigheaded it is to claim to be
>>appealing
>>>to an objective truth? If there is a 'universal truth' it
>>>simply can't come from or be expressed by humans. Where
>then
>>>does it come from, and how can we begin understand it?
>(Bear
>>>in mind our 'subject, verb, object' language).
>>
>
>>You cannot appeal to Objective truth. An Objective truth
>>should appeal to reasonable people because it is a fact.
>>Universal Law(never heard of any sych phrase as Universal
>>truth) is essentially Karma...what you do comes back to you.
>>How you understand it is by living and learning from the
>>lessons life deals you.
>
>
>>
>
>This is a trivial semantic point. I thought you hated those?!
>
>In any case the objective truth is the 'authority'. An
>argument can appeal to that authority.
>
>In a court of law, we simultaneously appeal on the law and to
>the law. There is no greater authority than the law itself.
>
>There are no facts. (Including this!)
>
>
>
>
>>>It has HUMAN value. It appeals to the same sentiments of
>>other
>>>HUMANS. Call it emotional but when an individual is
>>kidnapped,
>>>people come together in order to help, as does the
>>>institution. So it is meaningful.
>>
>>
>>not to this human. Your hypothetical situations do not
>appeal
>>to my emotions. Using reason I can see that this is merely a
>>discussion, so why should my emotions become involved?
>>
>>
>
>InVerse initially came up with this hypothetical so take your
>whining to him. Are you getting mixed up again?
>
>BTW emotion and rationale is often inextricably linked. It's
>difficult to figure out where one ends and the other begins.
>For example, you wrote that you want to attack my point of
>view from every conceivable angle; because ultimately you want
>to attack me. That's emotional.
>
>
>>>>So it is not a fact that "raping babies is wrong"?
>>
>>
>>morally wrong. But how do you define those morales?
>emotions?
>>desires? that was what led to the hypothetical baby being
>>raped in the first place.
>>
>>But as a defence lawyer you would be laughed out of court!
>>The
>>>legal system may be in some sense hypocritical; but tough
>>>shit! Majority view wins the day (or parliament view; but
>>>that's a different argument).
>>
>>And that is the democratic system you support? mob rule?
>
>
>What is the alternative? We must have faith in ourselves, not
>God.
>
>
>>>>And there you are, now, according to your worldview, might
>>>makes >right. If enough people decide that black people are
>>>3/5 human and >should be herded and worked like animals...
>>>then it IS SO.
>>>
>>>>All I'm doin here is exposing the logical consequence of
>>your
>>>>worldview.
>>>
>>>
>>>Unfortunately yes, but that's when you either subscribe to
>>it
>>>or become an activist (slavery, that is)...
>>>
>>>
>>>Remember that your objective Christianity justified
>slavery.
>>>
>>>Explain that one to me. Then answer the homosexuality
>>>question. I am logically ready!
>>
>>Logically ready? aye o.k. captain
>>
>>And you may be logically ready, but you are also morally
>>abhorent.
>>
>
>
>WTF?! What am I promoting that is morally abhorrent?
>
>Can you explain the Christianity/slavery anomaly?


yep

you

are

a

cocksucker

hah

hah

...

>Why don't you see how pigheaded it is to claim to be appealing
>to an objective truth?

I'm merely claiming objective truth exists. What are you claiming?



>If there is a 'universal truth' it
>simply can't come from or be expressed by humans.

Is the sentence you just expressed universally true? If you say yes, you've contradicted yourself. Your statement contradicts itself. If you say no, then you're saying it's "false" that "a universal truth can't come from or be expressed by humans". And if that's false, then it's true that "a universal truth can come from or be expressed by humans" and you have contradicted your original statement again.



>It has HUMAN value. It appeals to the same sentiments of other
>HUMANS.

Not the kidnapper.

>Call it emotional but when an individual is kidnapped,
>people come together in order to help,

The kidnapper doesn't.





>But it builds our very institutions. We don't need a religious
>point of reference or arrogant appeal to 'objective truth' for
>that.

Without God, there is no right and wrong.



>The
>legal system may be in some sense hypocritical; but tough
>shit! Majority view wins the day


So might makes right?


>Remember that your objective Christianity justified slavery.


Would you explain to me how you arrive at that?


>A large section of the church now promotes gay clergy. What is homosexuality? >God's objective truth, or the church's subjective opinion?

Your question doesn't even make sense. "Truth" in what, that homosexuality exists? Of course it does. What are you asking?

>I'm merely claiming objective truth exists. What are you
>claiming?


All truth is subjective. Even if you disagree with my pov, surely you've picked that up as my opinion by now!


>>If there is a 'universal truth' it
>>simply can't come from or be expressed by humans.
>
>Is the sentence you just expressed universally true? If you
>say yes, you've contradicted yourself. Your statement
>contradicts itself. If you say no, then you're saying it's
>"false" that "a universal truth can't come from or be
>expressed by humans". And if that's false, then it's true
>that "a universal truth can come from or be expressed by
>humans" and you have contradicted your original statement
>again.


Of course I say no! You're tying yourself up with words! There are only subjective truths (including this!)




>
>>It has HUMAN value. It appeals to the same sentiments of
>other
>>HUMANS.
>
>Not the kidnapper.
>
>>Call it emotional but when an individual is kidnapped,
>>people come together in order to help,
>
>The kidnapper doesn't.


The irony with the kidnapper is that he is fully aware of the cultural sentiment against it. That is why he kidnaps!




>>But it builds our very institutions. We don't need a
>religious
>>point of reference or arrogant appeal to 'objective truth'
>for
>>that.
>
>Without God, there is no right and wrong.
>


There's the arrogance I'm talking about.


>>The
>>legal system may be in some sense hypocritical; but tough
>>shit! Majority view wins the day
>
>
>So might makes right?
>


Lemon Kid asked the same question. In response I think it does. Might made slavery right. Subsequent might made slavery wrong.


>>Remember that your objective Christianity justified slavery.
>
>
>Would you explain to me how you arrive at that?

*Swipe*

Quotations by learned men from the 19th century:

" was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond. 3



Overview:
The quotation by Jefferson Davis, listed above, reflected the beliefs of many Americans in the 19th century. Slavery was seen as having been "sanctioned in the Bible." They argued that:

Biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice.

The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property. 4

Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism.

Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no record of him having said anything negative about the institution.

Eventually, the abolitionists gained sufficient power to eradicate slavery in most areas of the world by the end of the 19th century. Slavery was eventually recognized as an extreme evil. But this paradigm shift in understanding came at a cost. Christians wondered why the Bible was so supportive of such an immoral practice. They questioned whether the Bible was entirely reliable. Perhaps there were other practices that it accepted as normal which were profoundly evil -- like genocide, torturing prisoners, raping female prisoners of war, executing religious minorities, burning some hookers alive, etc. The innocent faith that Christians had in "the Good Book" was lost -- never to be fully regained.



*Me again!*

This article is very useful. Firstly, it shows that the Bible jusified slavery in the eyes of the pro-slavery religious and political leaders.


Secondly, it highlights the religious opponents of slavery, which shows that religion is subjective.




>>A large section of the church now promotes gay clergy. What
>is homosexuality? >God's objective truth, or the church's
>subjective opinion?
>
>Your question doesn't even make sense. "Truth" in what, that
>homosexuality exists? Of course it does. What are you
>asking?
>


I apologise for being unclear. I'll rephrase it. Is homosexuality ok in the eyes of God?

If so, why has the Church traditionally condemned it?

If not, why does a section of the Church now condone it?

As requested, I clarified the points. Are you unable to respond? Am I to assume that you have conceded your position on this?

"All truth is subjective. Even if you disagree with my pov, surely you've picked that up as my opinion by now!"


I have picked up that this is your opinion, and I've repeatedly pointed out that your opinion contradicts itself, breaks its own legs, cuts its own throat, shoots its own foot, etc.

I will do so once more, If you're unable to see it, then yes, you win, I concede. I concede that "to speak truth to him that loves it not is simply to give him more information for misunderstaning".

Once again...

Do you know what a universal proposition is?
You should, you've made one when you say "all truth is subjective".

But if it is true that truth is particular to subjects (subjective), and NOT universal/objective, then you, on your own view, are not even allowed to make the statement you make. It REFUTES itself. You are undone.

For "ALL truth is subjective" is a universal proposition.

On your view, a universal proposition CANNOT be true, because there is no universal/objective truth.

I can only say this so many times before it becomes pointless.

The ball is in your court. If you wanna debate with logical consitency, please begin doing so. If you do not, let's not waste any more time. Because a logically inconsistent argument is no argument at all.

peace.


PS - your very act of debating undermines/contradicts your position. Do you see that?

difficult questions. Where is your response on slavery or homosexuality?


>I have picked up that this is your opinion, and I've
>repeatedly pointed out that your opinion contradicts itself,
>breaks its own legs, cuts its own throat, shoots its own foot,
>etc.


Again PLEASE consider EVERYTHING I write. I have consistently written that there IS uniformity in subjective notions, which can be tested (i.e with science). This gives the APPEARANCE of objectivity.




>I will do so once more, If you're unable to see it, then yes,
>you win, I concede. I concede that "to speak truth to him
>that loves it not is simply to give him more information for
>misunderstaning".
>
>Once again...
>
>Do you know what a universal proposition is?
>You should, you've made one when you say "all truth is
>subjective".
>

Of course I know what a universal proposition is, but thanks again for your pedantic style.

>But if it is true that truth is particular to subjects
>(subjective), and NOT universal/objective, then you, on your
>own view, are not even allowed to make the statement you make.

> It REFUTES itself. You are undone.
>


If 50million people in a country of 55million hold the same subjective view, then of course I am allowed to make my statement. Stop being so partisan. This boils again to Christianity. HOW do you KNOW it is objective? If you say faith, it undones your argument. FAith is highly subjective.


>For "ALL truth is subjective" is a universal proposition.
>
>On your view, a universal proposition CANNOT be true, because
>there is no universal/objective truth.
>
>I can only say this so many times before it becomes
>pointless.


Newsflash; this became pointless a long time ago. You have consistently been unable to take the argument further. REMEMBER this. Subjective truths can be tested for validity. Ok? Now give me ONE objective truth, to disprove my notion that all truth is subjective.

Lol, perhaps there IS only one objective truth: that there are no other objective truths!! Other than this, I challenge you to name an objective truth and support it. I will disprove it.



>
>The ball is in your court. If you wanna debate with logical
>consitency, please begin doing so. If you do not, let's not
>waste any more time. Because a logically inconsistent
>argument is no argument at all.
>
>peace.
>
>
>PS - your very act of debating undermines/contradicts your
>position. Do you see that?


Why because I understand that my opinion comes from myself you arrogantly think yours comes from a higher place? Dream on pal.

>difficult questions. Where is your response on slavery or
>homosexuality?


We're hung up on a theoretical issue here. I'm not sure why it is you think any ground can be gained on a practical level before the theoretical issue is resolved. You and I disagree on a theoretical point that is logically prior to your instantiations that you claim I'm "ignoring", without realizing that the validity of our very act of debating depends on the theoretical point... you just seem to want to hop over your self-contradiction and move on to all sorts of applied ethics. It's no use.


>Again PLEASE consider EVERYTHING I write. I have consistently
>written that there IS uniformity in subjective notions, which
>can be tested (i.e with science). This gives the APPEARANCE of
>objectivity.


Yes, I read that. It's great. It's good that you recognize that a lot of people feeling a certain way gives the impression that a certain feeling is common sentiment. However, it does not save you from your self-contradiction.




>
>Of course I know what a universal proposition is, but thanks
>again for your pedantic style.

Thanks again for your sarcasm. My questioning whether you know what a universal proposition is was a wholly legitimate question, especially in light of the fact that you keep uttering a self-refuting universal proposition that undermines ALL knowledge...lol. But of course, you'd rather talk about slavery before epistemology.





>If 50million people in a country of 55million hold the same
>subjective view, then of course I am allowed to make my
>statement.

No plurality can make a self-refuting statement not self-refuting.



>Stop being so partisan. This boils again to
>Christianity.


No, I don't believe it does. Again, we're talking about something way prior, way theoretical. Now you've added Christianity to your multiplying list of instances (slavery, homosexuality) which you seem to want to debate BEFORE you address the very obvious point that your position undermines the very act of debating. I will not begin on self-contradictory ground with you, and then proceed to apply illogic all willy-nilly.



>HOW do you KNOW it is objective?


I don't recall having said that it is. If you think that I have, could you point it out to me?






>>For "ALL truth is subjective" is a universal proposition.
>>On your view, a universal proposition CANNOT be true,
>>because there is no universal/objective truth.
>>I can only say this so many times before it becomes
>>pointless.


>Newsflash; this became pointless a long time ago. You have
>consistently been unable to take the argument further.



You're under the mistaken impression that you've even gotten underway.



>REMEMBER this. Subjective truths can be tested for validity.
>Ok? Now give me ONE objective truth, to disprove my notion
>that all truth is subjective.


Your position is unfalsifiable, in that, whatever I say, you will just announce "that's subjective!" This seems to be your tactic; be grossly specious and when that's pointed out, be obstinant. But you'd like "ONE" example of an objective truth to disprove your (already self-contradictory) notion that all truth is subjective? Fine, here's one:

Two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

Marinate on that Moot.



>Lol, perhaps there IS only one objective truth: that there are
>no other objective truths!!



Then the statement "there are no objective truths" is FALSE.

Agreed? Yes or no.





>Other than this, I challenge you
>to name an objective truth and support it. I will disprove
>it.


The world is waiting... I've given you one, disprove it.

But once again, you don't even realize that your OWN position renders the act of proving or disproving ANYTHING into nonsense.



>Why because I understand that my opinion comes from myself you
>arrogantly think yours comes from a higher place? Dream on
>pal.


No Moot, because if "no idea could truly correspond to reality" (which is what you're position about truths implies) then there could be no such thing as debate.

in #220

So i'm out. Seeya.

You concede the point(s) in post 221.

But don't worry, I had a feeling that was coming. Way to defer to some sideshow, and issues not relevant the the point you're being challenged on, as a way of weaseling out.

Yes, I said weasel. You don't belong debating.

peace.

arrogant snot.

Look what you've resorted to.



post 221.



waiting.

Other okplayers can read the situation perfectly, so why can't you?


You are trying to provoke me, so don't be surprised if I resort to 'injuries, pains, evil and theodices' (or whatever pious bullshit it is that you wrote earlier).


But ok, let's entertain this 'groundbreaking' and 'conclusive' post you pigheadedly claim to have made.



>We're hung up on a theoretical issue here. I'm not sure why it is >you think any ground can be gained on a practical level before the >theoretical issue is resolved. You and I disagree on a theoretical >point that is logically prior to your instantiations that you claim >I'm "ignoring", without realizing that the validity of our very act >of debating depends on the theoretical point... you just seem to >want to hop over your self-contradiction and move on to all sorts >of applied ethics. It's no use.



Then let's say FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT (I'm NOT conceding this point) that objective truths exist. Please address the issues of slavery and homosexuality in the context of what we have been discussing. You asked me to clarify these points earlier. I took careful effort to do this for you; so repay the gesture and address them. Demonstrate that you are not ducking these perfectly relevant issues.



>Yes, I read that. It's great. It's good that you recognize that a >lot of people feeling a certain way gives the impression that a >certain feeling is common sentiment. However, it does not save you >from your self-contradiction.



I don't see how the assertion that there is a certain subjectivity in all analysis imports a self-contradiction. I am simply acknowledging the limits of human understanding.



>Thanks again for your sarcasm. My questioning whether you know what >a universal proposition is was a wholly legitimate question, >especially in light of the fact that you keep uttering a self->refuting universal proposition that undermines ALL knowledge...lol. >But of course, you'd rather talk about slavery before epistemology.



Keep laughing pal because YOU first cited slavery in #148.



>No plurality can make a self-refuting statement not self-refuting.



Semantics eh? Then ok, all 'truth' is self-refuting.



>No, I don't believe it does. Again, we're talking about something >way prior, way theoretical. Now you've added Christianity to your >multiplying list of instances (slavery, homosexuality) which you >seem to want to debate BEFORE you address the very obvious point >that your position undermines the very act of debating. I will not >begin on self-contradictory ground with you, and then proceed to >apply illogic all willy-nilly.


>>HOW do you KNOW it is objective?


>I don't recall having said that it is. If you think that I have, >could you point it out to me?



Post #84 (do you own work in future).



>You're under the mistaken impression that you've even gotten >underway.



>Your position is unfalsifiable, in that, whatever I say, you will >just announce "that's subjective!" This seems to be your tactic; be >grossly specious and when that's pointed out, be obstinant.


The irony!


>But you'd like "ONE" example of an objective truth to disprove your >(already self-contradictory) notion that all truth is subjective? >Fine, here's one:

>Two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

>Marinate on that Moot.


>>Lol, perhaps there IS only one objective truth: that there are
>>no other objective truths!!


>Then the statement "there are no objective truths" is FALSE.

>Agreed? Yes or no.


>The world is waiting... I've given you one, disprove it.



Lol, that's not even a challenge. (In fact, look at Strav's post)

In summary of what you have written above I will say that you have tapped into the weak-arsed criticism of Lyotard's conception of metanarratives. I wont explain this for you, but will let you look it up. You need to expand your horizons. I'll give you a clue; mine is an anti-theory.



>But once again, you don't even realize that your OWN position >renders the act of proving or disproving ANYTHING into nonsense.



Again, I recognise the limitations of human understanding. How is this automatically nonsense? Anything purporting to transcend human understanding is nonsense. Universal truths are nonsense.



>No Moot, because if "no idea could truly correspond to reality"
>(which is what you're position about truths implies) then there >could be no such thing as debate.



No, wtf are you talking about? Don't ever imply. Ideas construct reality. Ideas correspond with the object world in that we understand the object world through them. Why can't you understand the simultaneous affinity and difference between the notions of 'reality' and the 'object world'?


Read some structuralist and post-structuralist theory.

>Then let's say FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT (I'm NOT conceding
>this point) that objective truths exist.


Let's say, honestly, that UNLESS an objective truth exists, then "argument" itself is nothing, it's pointless, it's nonsense.


Again, your very act of denying the existence of objective truth makes your act of debating (something you insist on doing, which reveals your true position) utterly RIDICULOUS. You CANNOT apply "reason" if there is NO such thing as truth.

You pretend to argue "reasonably" while simultaneously denying the necessary condition for "reasonable debate" to even exist.

If you wish to stick to your (albeit self-contradictory) "there's-no-such-thing-as-truth guns", then your ONLY move is to withdrawal from the debate.

As long as you persist, you betray your true position, which is NOT your stated one.

peace.

>>Then let's say FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT (I'm NOT conceding
>>this point) that objective truths exist.
>
>
>Let's say, honestly, that UNLESS an objective truth exists,
>then "argument" itself is nothing, it's pointless, it's
>nonsense.
>

I'm not entirely sure why I'm still doing this, I have seriously more important things to do.

I will re-iterate. You have seized upon a paper thin argument, a semantic, pedantic argument posed by quasi-intellectual devil's advocate 'philosophers'.

Lyotard came up with the notion of metanarratives to describe the systems (such as religion, science) that have sought to define 'truth' in the world. He recognised their limitations, arguing that they are simply stories, which attempt to validate 'objective truth'. Then some critics came back and said, 'Gotcha, this cynicism about metanarratives is also a metanarrative!'

Similarly, critics of relativism say its proponents cannot support their claim that there are no objective truths, because this very claim masquerades as an objective truth.

There are mixed responses to the criticism.

The first camp will not concede the point. They claim not to be asserting a metanarrative, a 'true' story about the world or an objective truth. They claim to be asserting an anti-theory - they are not 'defining the world' but simply 'deconstrusting the world' through its existing structures.


The second camp congratulate the pedants. They say 'Ok, have it your way. There is one objective truth, one absolute and that is that there are no OTHER objective truths'. This is a concession, but in the scheme of things and in the field of academic debate has made NO difference.

So (AGAIN!) I will concede the point for the sake of argument. I agree that there is ONE objective truth, and that is that there are no other objective truths.

IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT ANY STRONGER.

Now let me see you wriggle out of the corner on the other points.

vainglorious comment about my victory. No, I won't bother...

Glad it's over though.

Help me out here again... bring me up to speed.

After continually calling you out on the self-contradiction you keep posing when you say "there is no objective truth" yet expect your statement to be taken as "true"...

now, you've apparently amended your position....

You've just conceded (for the sake of argument, of course) that there is ONLY one objective truth in this world, and the content of that truth is that "there are no other objective truths in this world".

You wish you begin with that, and go from there. You are thinking that this concession will somehow eliminate the self-contradiction you face without it it, and that after clearing that hurdle you may then proceed to debate?

Ok.

My question then is... "debate what?"

You've just told me that there is only one fact in the whole field of reality. You've just told me that that fact is "there are no OTHER facts".

So...

Why on EARTH would we debate about anything??????????
For what reason????
Toward what end??????

According to your concession, we both already know the ONLY truth we are capable of finding out! So did you just wanna waste some time???

I don't.

If that's your concession, then your implicit concession is that "we're done", for obviously, according to you, no other truth can be reached, cause none exist.


Good job.

reduced my argument in order to say, 'if there are no truths then by definition you cannot argue'.

But consistently I have iterated that there are 'truths' that can be tested against our existing system of knowledge of the world. But there aren't any absolutes (notwithstanding the argumment-within-an-argument about this very statement is an absolute), because our human knowledge of the world is limited to human interpretation. Historically, our understanding of the world has changed. E.g. it was once an 'objective truth' that the earth was flat. Our understanding will constantly evolve and as such we must accept the transient nature of what we hold as 'true'.

You have asserted, (but then denied) that the existence of God is an objective truth. You have also asserted that without God there is no good and evil. It is this that I strongly doubt, and you consistently ducked the issue like the 'sparring reverend' you appear to be..

Of course, I don't think I won the argument, but everytime I try to walk away from it YOU seem to declare a victory. We should have ended this argument ages ago when I suggested.

Peace.

>reduced my argument in order to say, 'if there are no truths
>then by definition you cannot argue'.

Is it "true" that that's what I've done?



> Historically, our understanding of
>the world has changed. E.g. it was once an 'objective truth'
>that the earth was flat.


No, it was not. See, that is your view, that "thinking makes it so". My view is that "thinking does NOT make it so".

The earth is NOT flat, therefore, it was NEVER an objective truth that the "earth is flat" (pending the possibility that the earth actually changed shapes).

Going back to my "light switch" analogy: Either the light in the room is on, or it is not. Your opinion about whether or not it is on (when standing outside the room) has NO bearing on whether or not the light is really on.

You consistently fail to note the difference between "fact" and "opinion about fact" by virtue of the fact that you have claimed there are no such thing as facts.



>You have asserted, (but then denied) that the existence of God
>is an objective truth.


No, I asserted that "objective truth exists", and you continually (in your haste to show play your slavery/christianity card) kept putting the words "I know the objective truth" in my mouth. The only "denial" I posed was saying "no I didn't" after the first instance of you equivocating my claim to the existence of objective truth with a claim that "God exists is objectively true", which I did not make (though I do hold).

Once again, my assertion is "objective truth exists".




>You have also asserted that without God
>there is no good and evil. It is this that I strongly doubt,
>and you consistently ducked the issue like the 'sparring
>reverend' you appear to be..


Your doubt will not serve as an adequate argument. Without an objective moral law, no idea about "right and wrong" can be more correct than any other. It is all up for grabs. Without a mind above human minds for human ideas to either correspond to or not correspond to, no human idea can be more correct than another.

I'm not "ducking an issue" I am returning your question (what's wrong with slavery/homosexuality) to you in the form of:

"What's wrong with anything?"


peace.

which is a shame, because it lets you pretend to be in the stronger position. You're not.



>>If 50million people in a country of 55million hold the same
>>subjective view, then of course I am allowed to make my
>>statement.
>
>No plurality can make a self-refuting statement not
>self-refuting.

True, but neither can your opinion make a perfectly consistent statement self-refuting.




>>REMEMBER this. Subjective truths can be tested for validity.
>>Ok? Now give me ONE objective truth, to disprove my notion
>>that all truth is subjective.
>
>
>Your position is unfalsifiable, in that, whatever I say, you
>will just announce "that's subjective!" This seems to be your
>tactic; be grossly specious and when that's pointed out, be
>obstinant.

It's funny to see the theist lecturing about unfalsifiable positions!

>But you'd like "ONE" example of an objective
>truth to disprove your (already self-contradictory) notion
>that all truth is subjective? Fine, here's one:
>
>Two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

Um, that's not a truth, it's the definition of "contradictory." Again, you're confusing tautologies with truths.

>Marinate on that Moot.

Stop congratulating yourself, you arrogant shit.




>Then the statement "there are no objective truths" is FALSE.
>
>
>Agreed? Yes or no.

No. First of all, perhaps he doesn't mean it as an objective statement. Or even if he does, it isn't clearly false, it only seems to lie in that middle ground of Goedel's incompleteness theorem.

lol..lol...lol.

Sorry to step in here, moot is handling the situation admirably. But I think inverse is up against a wall on one issue and I'd like to see how he responds if called on it:

>I'm going to put on hold your "hypothetical" about killing
>people cause there's over population, as you've still not
>explained to me what purpose the hypothetical serves when it's
>based on a very obviously non-exhaustive dichotomy.

Very obviously non-exhaustive? He didn't specify the hypothetical situation except to say that overpopulation exists and cannot be controlled. You say there's always another option, that people can leave the population. It should be clear in this day and age that the planet holds a finite supply of life-sustaining resources. In fact in the not so distant future, moot's hypothetical situation will likely become all too real. When the entire planet is overpopulated, there's no place for people to excape to.


Also, just for fun, I'll point out that your hypothetical situation, inverse, about lights in a room either being "on" or "off," that situation actually *does* contain a false dichotomy, though it might not seem to be of much "practical" relevance.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000AAB4F-7BC2-1C76-9B81809EC588EF21

Did I spell excape with an x?! I swear that was a typo . . . really . . . the x is right next to the s.


"I just can't excape Lisa. She's like a walking liberry." --Marge Simpson
"You don't have to be a nucular scientist to know how to say foilage" --Marge again, or was it W Bush?

I think I just made up a word.

Perhaps I should slink away too...

>I think I just made up a word.
>
>Perhaps I should slink away too...

..yeap...Sad old wanker.

Perhaps a christening?

It's a Sunday, you have no friends (by your admission), you seem a little drunk (again) and you've had an unprecendented break from OKplayer (since you were banned).

Yep, I reckon you've been to a christening!

>Perhaps a christening?
>
>It's a Sunday, you have no friends (by your admission), you
>seem a little drunk (again) and you've had an unprecendented
>break from OKplayer (since you were banned).
>
>Yep, I reckon you've been to a christening!

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

His statement seems perfectly straightforward. And by the way, if you actually just wonder if we agree, I think I do. Though I would like to read it in context to help ensure that Nielsen and I define "morality" in similar ways.

Of course it should be understood that Nielsen (who remains an atheist, as far as I've heard) is not admitting a defeat of the atheistic viewpoint, only an unfortunate fact of life. Certain of our ethical standards (as far as we understand them at this point) stand on religious culture -- something which, by definition, cannot itself be justified.

Religious people (in my experience) then tend to take one fo two paths: childish circular arguments which pretend to show that religion can justify itself, or the admission that religion cannot, and need not, be justified.

But of course if the religious need not justify religion, the irreligious need not justify ethics! The philosopher is "depressed," because it's his job to justify things.

>Religious people (in my experience) then tend to take one fo
>two paths: childish circular arguments which pretend to show
>that religion can justify itself, or the admission that
>religion cannot, and need not, be justified.


You are a scientist, are you not?
Do you realize that without God, you could not practice your craft?
Do you realize that without God there would be no science?

Your entire endeavor is based on the uniformity of nature.
So tell me, on what reasoning to you expect the future to imitate the past?

I'm all ears.

Kant and good metafuckphilosophy Haitian philosophers...This shit is not new, what's there to analyze postmodernist theories. Go read Oakeshott but I don't think any of y'all are serious about philosophy u just want to vent. Hint: go see a therapist. You don't have a PHD in metaphysics to grasp reality. Talking about morality and shit...nigga what u smoking, pass it here.

But before you hit it, you gotta asnwer the question posed to Strav.

Strav is a scientist.

The question is, SINCE science wholly depends (utterly, completely) on the uniformity principle... On what reasoning do you expect future chemical, physical, and biological processes to imitate past corresponding processes?

Please rationally debate or go away. You're pretty much doin' the equivalent of runnin' on stage in a clown suit and doing the running man, among people seriously concerned with arriving at Truth.

From the tone of your post, you might find yourself more at home in General Discussion.

peace.

>Strav is a scientist.
>
>The question is, SINCE science wholly depends (utterly,
>completely) on the uniformity principle... On what reasoning
>do you expect future chemical, physical, and biological
>processes to imitate past corresponding processes?

First of all, I go to Bowdoin college and I can do that analysis in my sleep while my 5 year old little brother reads me the question. Second, uniformity of principle is problematic (see Stanley Fish: The Trouble with Principle)because you can't transcend historicism to trace an overlapping concensus that corresponds with a universal biological process, not even to mention future chemical, physical processes. Then again u might think that's a smart question but really my friend that is quite stupid. Uniformity of principle is mutually exclusive with scientific theories since absolute objectivity is the basis of its inquiry. The question needs to be reformulated with more concrete substance. Do that and pass the trees...Good looks
>
>Please rationally debate or go away. You're pretty much
>doin' the equivalent of runnin' on stage in a clown suit and
>doing the running man, among people seriously concerned with
>arriving at Truth.
>
>From the tone of your post, you might find yourself more at
>home in General Discussion.
>
>peace.
>
>

> Second, uniformity of principle is
>problematic



Don't you mean "uniformity of process"?

I've certainly spent more time considering my life's work than you have.

But I think your questions reflect the existence of some all-too-common misconceptions. Misconceptions which I would like to address seriously. Unfortunately I'm quite busy at the moment, preparing for a very important meeting. I'll get back to you tonight or tomorrow.

It's a pretty short/concise question isn't it? And surely, since your whole endeavor is based on it, you should have the answer readily at hand, else you would not even know "why you were doing what you do (science)".

I would submit that you don't know.

But you did say that you'll get back on it, so I'll wait.

Once again, it's a simple question...

"On what basis to you assume uniformity of process?".


If anyone is lurking that doesn't understand what that means.... "uniformity" is the idea that the entire scientific endeavor is based on. It is the only reason science can be done. The question to Strav is "why do you just outrightly assume that uniformity is the case?".

In other words, why do you assume matter to display the same properties/characteristics/relationships tomorrow that it did yesterday?

(for, again, if it did not, science could not be done)

is that your question is vacuous; that you don't know a goddamn thing about the philosophy of science. This uniformity principle is not what you think it is. That might have been clear to you if your studies of the subject had ever extended beyond evangelical books and websites.

Again, I'll expound in a few hours.

>is that your question is vacuous; that you don't know a
>goddamn thing about the philosophy of science.


I'll concede that my question is vacuous if you you'll concede that by "your question is vacuous" you simply mean "I can't answer it".


>This
>uniformity principle is not what you think it is.


I don't suspect that you are going to be able to show this. I do suspect however that you know INFINITELY more about the scientific endeavor than I do. I just don't think that that enters into this at the level you would need it to to answer the question. But... I'll wait.


>That might
>have been clear to you if your studies of the subject had ever
>extended beyond evangelical books and websites.

C'mon Strav. You know better. (or do you?)


>Again, I'll expound in a few hours.


God, I love this site.

First of all,

get

the fuck

over

yourself.


Ever since you opened this thread, you've openly assumed that nobody would be capable of corresponding with you intelligently. With all due respect, you are not okayplayer's resident philosopher. Despite the fact that this was never meant to be a philosophy board (something you never seem to figure out), there are multiple other okayactivist regulars who could school you on any subject of pure or applied philosophy. When it comes to the philosophy of science (yes the philosophy of it, not just the practice), I am on that list. If you disagree, and want to get into an old-fashioned measuring contest, you can post your publication list and I'll post mine.

Enough with the venting, from me at least.

Second, I'll point out that even if you had some understanding of how modern scientists and philosophers view "uniformity," you still would not be making a point.

Your original statement (that is, after you changed the subject from the question of whether reason implied morality) was that science is inherently theistic. You argued by chaining two arguments:

a.) "science requires a uniformity principle"

b.) "uniformity requires the assumption of the existence of 'God'"

I've been meaning to argue that the status of point (a.) has changed considerably since the enlightenment, and indeed was not as popular even then as it is generally assumed to be. I still plan to get to that, but I also want to emphasize the flaw in point (b.).

When you say "God," inVerse, we all know of whom you speak. You refer to the God of "Jesus on the cross," the conscious yet omnipotent God capable of altering the structure of reality to suit His divine whim. I hope it's clear to you that this kind of God is not at all necessary when assuming a uniformity of structure. Indeed, this picture of God sits in direct opposition to all of the standard views of uniformity, even that of the enlightenment.


As for point (a.), the issue of whether science is in some way founded on a principle of uniformity, I would argue that science isn't founded upon anything. Reductionism is common, though it is usually more a matter of practical simplification than of foundational principle. The assumption of some sense of objectivity is common, though the definition of objectivity, and its assumed extent, have changed considerably over the ages. Also, a certain assumption of relationship between local and global structures is usually floating around. In the enlightenment days, when people carried around enough hubris to hope for an axiomatic construction of scientific reason, people proposed this principle of uniformity as just such an axiom.

They were so terribly naive! (and we presumably still are today, just in new ways) Even the manner in which this "principle" was stated (and continues to be stated, in most circles), is fundamentally incompatible with the modern view of spacetime. The manner in which the principle exists, in a weaker form -- that the laws of physics are constant in space -- and a stronger form -- that they are also unchanging in time -- reflects the classical, Aristotelian view of spacetime: that it can be modelled as a tensor product of a Euclidean 3-manifold (space) and a 1-manifold with an independent geometric structure (time). Indeed the Aristotelian view supposed that spacetime, and any structure represented with respect to it, admitted a canonical decomposition into these two separate manifolds. This idea of space and time is not compatible with modern concepts, or even modern measurements. Einstein (100 years ago this year, by the way) extended enlightenment physics to the point where it became incompatible with what was often stated to be one of its fundamental principles! Should we have ignored special relativity, a model which was dramatically more accurate than any existing alternative, simply because it didn't fit into the narrow framework of naive philosophers? Well, we didn't, and we're glad.

But the above criticism is only with a certain standard expression of the uniformity principle. Indeed the stronger of the classical expressions can readily be reduced to something compatible with special-relativistic spacetime. This somewhat more modern statement is that the laws of physics should be independent of position (in some suitable coordinatization) on the total four-dimensional spacetime manifold. This statement makes no use of any preferred decomposition into space and time, and is therefore perfectly compatible with the special-relativistic model.

But the very fact that this issue, of what model we use for spacetime, was at the time so crucial was an indication that an even more fundamental shift was about to be made. This happened over the following decade, in the development of the general theory of relativity. In general relativity, spacetime is no longer a fixed background, upon which laws of physics are to be stated. Spacetime itself is a dynamical entity (it is nothing more and nothing less than the gravitational field). Spacetime, nor space or time themselves, are defined concepts independent of the laws of physics. The enlightenment notion of uniformity is then a vacuous assumption; so as of now, it is dead.

Nonetheless, a certain notion which we might refer to as proto-uniformity, remains. This notion is much weaker and much more vague, and I tend to think of it, using Wheeler's phrase, as "an idea for an idea," which these other uniformity "principles" have been intended to formalize. This notion might be expressed as the following assumption: that there exists a structure among "experiences" (a terribly ill-defined concept), which can be used, at least in principle, to predict "future experience" (an even more poorly defined concept). This is then related to the assumption that experience admits an ordering, and that this ordering is percieved as a process.

Here is the point which I cannot stress too strongly: that this notion of proto-uniformity is common to all of human culture. It is not a foundation of science. It is not a foundation of anything. But it existed long before science existed and it will continue to exist even after the Republican party brings science to an end.

Not only does proto-uniformity exist independent of science, but science can exist independent of proto-uniformity. When I do science, for instance, I don't know or care if anything I say will be predictive of anything. I study the structure of existence (or more precisely, of its mathematical models) purely because of its intrinsic beauty. Modern, mathematically rigorous science is the most complex, detailed work of art humankind has ever produced. Even as it exists today, without further development, it holds enough surprises to satisfy any aesthete over many repeated lifetimes.

My point is that the scientist is not the one who introduces the proto-uniformity concept. Rather it is the nonscientist, who considers himself to have had enough success with this strategy that it's worth his while to ask the scientist again what the mathematical models "predict."

I, as a person, not as a scientist, assume a proto-uniformity of experience. If that's your only contention, then you will be happy to learn that I concede that much. But again, this is not a concession of a conscious God, it is just the opposite.

>Despite the fact that this was never
>meant to be a philosophy board (something you never seem to
>figure out),

Sure it is. It's a moral philosophy board. Is that not philosophy?



>there are multiple other okayactivist regulars
>who could school you on any subject of pure or applied
>philosophy.


Then let them speak for themselves. They got a keyboard.


>When it comes to the philosophy of science (yes
>the philosophy of it, not just the practice), I am on that
>list.


Don't doubt that.


>If you disagree, and want to get into an old-fashioned
>measuring contest, you can post your publication list and I'll
>post mine.


I published some poems once in high school.




>Enough with the venting, from me at least.


Good. I don't like to see you all angry and worked up.



>Second, I'll point out that even if you had some understanding
>of how modern scientists and philosophers view "uniformity,"
>you still would not be making a point.


Then correct me.

From my scientifically laymen's vantage point, it seems very obvious that science could not even get under way without an unprovable assumption (or several), taken on faith. For instance, uniformity.

Now, I understand that every argument/philosophy begins with such an axiom (note: I wonder though how many people really see that, itself).

However, in a materialist/naturalist worldview, I wonder how one explains the existence of univeral, immaterial, invarient laws.

That's why I would ask the materialist/naturalist scientist "why do you assume the future will mimick the past?".


You're right. I've been post-jacked by me.

>
>>Despite the fact that this was never
>>meant to be a philosophy board (something you never seem to
>>figure out),
>
>Sure it is. It's a moral philosophy board. Is that not
>philosophy?

No, it's not. It's an activism board. We're not here to discuss whether or not we should have an ethical compass, we're here to discuss how best we might act upon our ethical compass.



>>Enough with the venting, from me at least.
>
>
>Good. I don't like to see you all angry and worked up.

Let's not forget, however, that you were the first one to get "worked up."


>>Second, I'll point out that even if you had some
>understanding
>>of how modern scientists and philosophers view "uniformity,"
>>you still would not be making a point.
>
>
>Then correct me.

I already did.

The God figure of christianity, a being capable of miracles, is fundamentally incompatible with any uniformity principle.


>From my scientifically laymen's vantage point, it seems very
>obvious that science could not even get under way without an
>unprovable assumption (or several), taken on faith. For
>instance, uniformity.

And I'm not saying otherwise (except when I point out that uniformity is a practical principle, not a scientific principle). Sure, it's nothing but faith, I'm happy to admit that. Faith that the Christian God does not exist.


>Now, I understand that every argument/philosophy begins with
>such an axiom (note: I wonder though how many people really
>see that, itself).
>
>However, in a materialist/naturalist worldview, I wonder how
>one explains the existence of univeral, immaterial, invarient
>laws.

We don't! We don't justify our assumption of what I've been calling proto-uniformity any more than you justify your assumption of a uniformity-violating God.


>That's why I would ask the materialist/naturalist scientist
>"why do you assume the future will mimick the past?".

Why do you assume it won't? We have to assume something here. Maybe it's just pure optimism.

>No, it's not. It's an activism board. We're not here to
>discuss whether or not we should have an ethical compass,
>we're here to discuss how best we might act upon our ethical
>compass.


Of what use is a compass unless there is a true, objective North?



>Let's not forget, however, that you were the first one to get
>"worked up."


Alright I'll own that. But you just get so "mean". =)


>The God figure of christianity, a being capable of miracles,
>is fundamentally incompatible with any uniformity principle.


I don't believe uniformity is violated if there is a deeper unity beneath the laws.
However, I'm not prepared to speak at any length on this.
C.S. Lewis' volume, "Miralces", is a brilliant examination of the topic. I've only read it once though, and would not do the particulars of the argument justice if I attempted to reconstruct it here.


>>However, in a materialist/naturalist worldview, I wonder how
>>one explains the existence of univeral, immaterial,
>invarient
>>laws.
>
>We don't! We don't justify our assumption of what I've been
>calling proto-uniformity any more than you justify your
>assumption of a uniformity-violating God.

But how, if the metaphysic held is strictly materiel, to you maintain faith in something immaterial and universal? I'd ask the same thing about logical laws. Do you call these merely "practical" too?

Geez, I mean as long as we're at it... how do you even justify thinking/perception? Obviously I'm making reference to Liebnitz (sp)... how does material account for perception?




>Why do you assume it won't?

I assume it will. I have a reason to. You don't.

>>No, it's not. It's an activism board. We're not here to
>>discuss whether or not we should have an ethical compass,
>>we're here to discuss how best we might act upon our ethical
>>compass.
>
>
>Of what use is a compass unless there is a true, objective
>North?

Well, in the earth's magnetic field, there isn't a true, objective north (it only exists up to the magnetostatic dipole approximation, a very good approximation in this case, but far from a "truth"), yet the magnetic compass has been useful nonetheless.

Even so, I'm not arguing against the existence of a "true" moral code, and I don't think I ever have. I've probably argued on occasion that it's dangerous for us to pretend to have a complete certainty about such "truth," but I'm not even doing that here.



>>The God figure of christianity, a being capable of miracles,
>>is fundamentally incompatible with any uniformity principle.
>
>
>I don't believe uniformity is violated if there is a deeper
>unity beneath the laws.
>However, I'm not prepared to speak at any length on this.
>C.S. Lewis' volume, "Miralces", is a brilliant examination of
>the topic. I've only read it once though, and would not do
>the particulars of the argument justice if I attempted to
>reconstruct it here.

Well, let's not let the argument be defined by the ramblings of a mediocre fiction writer.


>>>However, in a materialist/naturalist worldview, I wonder
>how
>>>one explains the existence of univeral, immaterial,
>>invarient
>>>laws.
>>
>>We don't! We don't justify our assumption of what I've been
>>calling proto-uniformity any more than you justify your
>>assumption of a uniformity-violating God.
>
>But how, if the metaphysic held is strictly materiel, to you
>maintain faith in something immaterial and universal?

Maybe I'm being religious? I actually don't think I understand your question, I'll need you to clarify the grammar.

>I'd ask
>the same thing about logical laws. Do you call these merely
>"practical" too?

No, nor do I consider them "objective" or "truth."


>Geez, I mean as long as we're at it... how do you even justify
>thinking/perception? Obviously I'm making reference to
>Liebnitz (sp)...

It's german, so no "t."


>how does material account for perception?

Nobody knows, at least not yet, nor are they certain that such a question even sits within the realm of science. Of course, there a few ideas floating around on the subject. For instance, Roger Penrose has made some very interesting arguments regarding gravitationally-induced quantum decoherence. Of course most people think he's way off, and even he admits the possibility.

Here we see a difference between the average scientist and the average Christian. The scientists don't pretend to have anything close to a complete understanding of any objective "truth." We've come to terms with our own limitations. I don't think the average Christian has.


>>Why do you assume it won't?
>
>I assume it will.

Oh, so now you don't believe in miracles.

>I have a reason to.

Let us know what that is, we'll see if anyone finds it compelling.

>You don't.

Never said I needed one.

>Here we see a difference between the average scientist and the
>average Christian. The scientists don't pretend to have
>anything close to a complete understanding of any objective
>"truth." We've come to terms with our own limitations. I
>don't think the average Christian has.

hmmm... well, that was defensive.

We had a debate previously on "existence" where you tried, repeatedly, to pull me into a naturalist realm (even when I quoted freaking Webster and proved that our top linguist didn't even define "existence" as necessarily naturalistic). All that was concluded is that existence corresponds, exactly, to "that which is".

Given that this is the case, Christians BELIEVE, not know, that God exists. That's all we believe because of our conclusive purpose and rationale. No offense. peace,

>We had a debate previously on "existence" where you tried,
>repeatedly, to pull me into a naturalist realm

That's not how I remember it. But I do remember pushing you to be more precise about what you mean by the term.

>(even when I
>quoted freaking Webster and proved that our top linguist
>didn't even define "existence" as necessarily naturalistic).

He didn't define it at all! I still don't see why you're getting so worked up over "freaking" Webster. When considering life's deepest questions, you don't look for answers in the "freaking" dictionary. At that time, I was asking you to do the work of a philosopher, not of a linguist.

>All that was concluded is that existence corresponds, exactly,
>to "that which is".

That was most certainly not "concluded"! That's where you began, and apparently where you remain, but it's been a tautology all along.

>Given that this is the case, Christians BELIEVE, not know,
>that God exists.

Sure, and when they put it that way, great. But you know as well as I do that they usually don't put it that way.

>
>>We had a debate previously on "existence" where you tried,
>>repeatedly, to pull me into a naturalist realm
>
>That's not how I remember it. But I do remember pushing you
>to be more precise about what you mean by the term.

And I used a dictionary because I'm not a qualified linguist of the English language.

>>(even when I
>>quoted freaking Webster and proved that our top linguist
>>didn't even define "existence" as necessarily naturalistic).
>
>
>He didn't define it at all! I still don't see why you're
>getting so worked up over "freaking" Webster. When
>considering life's deepest questions, you don't look for
>answers in the "freaking" dictionary. At that time, I was
>asking you to do the work of a philosopher, not of a linguist.

So, then, you were asking me to ask more questions? And when you told me to "define" something, you really meant "humor me"?

>
>>All that was concluded is that existence corresponds,
>exactly,
>>to "that which is".
>
>That was most certainly not "concluded"! That's where you
>began, and apparently where you remain, but it's been a
>tautology all along.

how? It can be relavant on a physiological or metaphysical realm, so how can you call it a tautology?

>>Given that this is the case, Christians BELIEVE, not know,
>>that God exists.
>
>Sure, and when they put it that way, great. But you know as
>well as I do that they usually don't put it that way.

No, I don't.

>>
>>>We had a debate previously on "existence" where you tried,
>>>repeatedly, to pull me into a naturalist realm
>>
>>That's not how I remember it. But I do remember pushing you
>>to be more precise about what you mean by the term.
>
>And I used a dictionary because I'm not a qualified linguist
>of the English language.

Oh, so your excuse for doing something stupid is that you aren't very smart. Alright. I'm not very smart either, but I'm not using that as a copout.

>>>(even when I
>>>quoted freaking Webster and proved that our top linguist
>>>didn't even define "existence" as necessarily
>naturalistic).
>>
>>He didn't define it at all! I still don't see why you're
>>getting so worked up over "freaking" Webster. When
>>considering life's deepest questions, you don't look for
>>answers in the "freaking" dictionary. At that time, I was
>>asking you to do the work of a philosopher, not of a
>linguist.
>
>So, then, you were asking me to ask more questions? And when
>you told me to "define" something, you really meant "humor
>me"?

No, I was asking you to clarify what you *meant* by the term. To define it, in a logical context, not a colloquial context.


>>>All that was concluded is that existence corresponds,
>>exactly,
>>>to "that which is".
>>
>>That was most certainly not "concluded"! That's where you
>>began, and apparently where you remain, but it's been a
>>tautology all along.
>
>how? It can be relavant on a physiological or metaphysical
>realm, so how can you call it a tautology?

Jesus Christ! How can you still be arguing about this?! You defined "truth" as "that which is." That's no different than saying 1+1=2 because 2=2.

If you're just willing to be naive about the details, go ahead, you're not alone among the evangelical community. Just don't turn around and pretend to have a logical justification for your faith.


That, and don't be stepping into inverse's argument. He's handling it better than you are.

>>>
>>>>We had a debate previously on "existence" where you tried,
>>>>repeatedly, to pull me into a naturalist realm
>>>
>>>That's not how I remember it. But I do remember pushing
>you
>>>to be more precise about what you mean by the term.
>>
>>And I used a dictionary because I'm not a qualified linguist
>>of the English language.
>
>Oh, so your excuse for doing something stupid is that you
>aren't very smart. Alright. I'm not very smart either, but
>I'm not using that as a copout.

ok. I'm not very smart.

>>>>(even when I
>>>>quoted freaking Webster and proved that our top linguist
>>>>didn't even define "existence" as necessarily
>>naturalistic).
>>>
>>>He didn't define it at all! I still don't see why you're
>>>getting so worked up over "freaking" Webster. When
>>>considering life's deepest questions, you don't look for
>>>answers in the "freaking" dictionary. At that time, I was
>>>asking you to do the work of a philosopher, not of a
>>linguist.
>>
>>So, then, you were asking me to ask more questions? And
>when
>>you told me to "define" something, you really meant "humor
>>me"?
>
>No, I was asking you to clarify what you *meant* by the term.
>To define it, in a logical context, not a colloquial context.

No, actually you asked me to define it. If your terminology isn't correct, that's your problem.

>
>
>>>>All that was concluded is that existence corresponds,
>>>exactly,
>>>>to "that which is".
>>>
>>>That was most certainly not "concluded"! That's where you
>>>began, and apparently where you remain, but it's been a
>>>tautology all along.
>>
>>how? It can be relavant on a physiological or metaphysical
>>realm, so how can you call it a tautology?
>
>Jesus Christ! How can you still be arguing about this?! You
>defined "truth" as "that which is." That's no different than
>saying 1+1=2 because 2=2.

No, what I was saying is that 1+1=2 in whatever place 1+1=2 because, at some point, somewhere, 1+1=2, just as we can conclude that something, somewhere, exists.

>If you're just willing to be naive about the details, go
>ahead, you're not alone among the evangelical community. Just
>don't turn around and pretend to have a logical justification
>for your faith.

If a purpose for living isn't logical justification... then I concede.

>
>That, and don't be stepping into inverse's argument. He's
>handling it better than you are.

I'm sure he is... I was really just making sure you were the same dude. Again, no offense..

>>No, I was asking you to clarify what you *meant* by the term.
>
>>To define it, in a logical context, not a colloquial context.
>
>
>No, actually you asked me to define it. If your terminology
>isn't correct, that's your problem.

Context, muhfucka, context. When you're asked to define something within the context of a logical debate, it's expected that your definition helps clarify the issues at hand.


>>>>>All that was concluded is that existence corresponds,
>>>>exactly,
>>>>>to "that which is".
>>>>
>>>>That was most certainly not "concluded"! That's where you
>>>>began, and apparently where you remain, but it's been a
>>>>tautology all along.
>>>
>>>how? It can be relavant on a physiological or metaphysical
>>>realm, so how can you call it a tautology?
>>
>>Jesus Christ! How can you still be arguing about this?!
>You
>>defined "truth" as "that which is." That's no different
>than
>>saying 1+1=2 because 2=2.
>
>No, what I was saying is that 1+1=2 in whatever place 1+1=2
>because, at some point, somewhere, 1+1=2, just as we can
>conclude that something, somewhere, exists.

Hehe, whatever you say. But I thought you Christians weren't allowed to smoke that shit.


>>If you're just willing to be naive about the details, go
>>ahead, you're not alone among the evangelical community.
>Just
>>don't turn around and pretend to have a logical
>justification
>>for your faith.
>
>If a purpose for living isn't logical justification... then I
>concede.

1.) No, it isn't.

2.) You aren't the only one who considers himself to have a reason for living.

>>>No, I was asking you to clarify what you *meant* by the
>term.
>>
>>>To define it, in a logical context, not a colloquial
>context.
>>
>>
>>No, actually you asked me to define it. If your terminology
>>isn't correct, that's your problem.
>
>Context, muhfucka, context. When you're asked to define
>something within the context of a logical debate, it's
>expected that your definition helps clarify the issues at
>hand.

Again... tell me how mine didn't. I obviously don't know what the hell you are talking about.

>
>>>>>>All that was concluded is that existence corresponds,
>>>>>exactly,
>>>>>>to "that which is".
>>>>>
>>>>>That was most certainly not "concluded"! That's where
>you
>>>>>began, and apparently where you remain, but it's been a
>>>>>tautology all along.
>>>>
>>>>how? It can be relavant on a physiological or metaphysical
>>>>realm, so how can you call it a tautology?
>>>
>>>Jesus Christ! How can you still be arguing about this?!
>>You
>>>defined "truth" as "that which is." That's no different
>>than
>>>saying 1+1=2 because 2=2.
>>
>>No, what I was saying is that 1+1=2 in whatever place 1+1=2
>>because, at some point, somewhere, 1+1=2, just as we can
>>conclude that something, somewhere, exists.
>
>Hehe, whatever you say. But I thought you Christians weren't
>allowed to smoke that shit.

Yeah, that "understanding the English language" shit will fuck you up.

>
>>>If you're just willing to be naive about the details, go
>>>ahead, you're not alone among the evangelical community.
>>Just
>>>don't turn around and pretend to have a logical
>>justification
>>>for your faith.
>>
>>If a purpose for living isn't logical justification... then
>I
>>concede.
>
>1.) No, it isn't.

That's your opinion (and, yes, you are absolutely entitled to it), but you've given me no reason to think otherwise. All you've really done on the morality topic is pile on more questions.

>2.) You aren't the only one who considers himself to have a
>reason for living.

I am aware of this, but that is my personal reason for my faith. What's your reason for living?

>>>>No, I was asking you to clarify what you *meant* by the
>>term.
>>>
>>>>To define it, in a logical context, not a colloquial
>>context.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, actually you asked me to define it. If your
>terminology
>>>isn't correct, that's your problem.
>>
>>Context, muhfucka, context. When you're asked to define
>>something within the context of a logical debate, it's
>>expected that your definition helps clarify the issues at
>>hand.
>
>Again... tell me how mine didn't. I obviously don't know what
>the hell you are talking about.

You defined "truth" as "that which is." "Is" what? "Is" true? If you actually meant "that which is true," then your definition is empty.

A dictionary can depend on a certain colloquialized context, and replace definitions with synonyms. That's why dictionaries aren't used as philosophy textbooks.


>>>>>>>All that was concluded is that existence corresponds,
>>>>>>exactly,
>>>>>>>to "that which is".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That was most certainly not "concluded"! That's where
>>you
>>>>>>began, and apparently where you remain, but it's been a
>>>>>>tautology all along.
>>>>>
>>>>>how? It can be relavant on a physiological or
>metaphysical
>>>>>realm, so how can you call it a tautology?
>>>>
>>>>Jesus Christ! How can you still be arguing about this?!
>>>You
>>>>defined "truth" as "that which is." That's no different
>>>than
>>>>saying 1+1=2 because 2=2.
>>>
>>>No, what I was saying is that 1+1=2 in whatever place 1+1=2
>>>because, at some point, somewhere, 1+1=2, just as we can
>>>conclude that something, somewhere, exists.
>>
>>Hehe, whatever you say. But I thought you Christians
>weren't
>>allowed to smoke that shit.
>
>Yeah, that "understanding the English language" shit will fuck
>you up.

Apparently by "understanding the English language," you mean "bringing it into direct correspondence with evangelical catchphrases."


>>>>If you're just willing to be naive about the details, go
>>>>ahead, you're not alone among the evangelical community.
>>>Just
>>>>don't turn around and pretend to have a logical
>>>justification
>>>>for your faith.
>>>
>>>If a purpose for living isn't logical justification... then
>>I
>>>concede.
>>
>>1.) No, it isn't.
>
>That's your opinion (and, yes, you are absolutely entitled to
>it), but you've given me no reason to think otherwise.

Oh, it's only my opinion! It's funny how evangelicals hold such deep hatred for deconstructionism except when they can use it for their own aims.

>All
>you've really done on the morality topic is pile on more
>questions.

What's so dangerous about questions?

>>2.) You aren't the only one who considers himself to have a
>>reason for living.
>
>I am aware of this, but that is my personal reason for my
>faith.

Good for you. But this isn't about you, it's about "truth."

>What's your reason for living?

Afraid I can't be summed up so quickly.

>>>>>No, I was asking you to clarify what you *meant* by the
>>>term.
>>>>
>>>>>To define it, in a logical context, not a colloquial
>>>context.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, actually you asked me to define it. If your
>>terminology
>>>>isn't correct, that's your problem.
>>>
>>>Context, muhfucka, context. When you're asked to define
>>>something within the context of a logical debate, it's
>>>expected that your definition helps clarify the issues at
>>>hand.
>>
>>Again... tell me how mine didn't. I obviously don't know
>what
>>the hell you are talking about.
>
>You defined "truth" as "that which is." "Is" what? "Is"
>true? If you actually meant "that which is true," then your
>definition is empty.

How can it be empty if what is true cannot be proven?

>A dictionary can depend on a certain colloquialized context,
>and replace definitions with synonyms. That's why
>dictionaries aren't used as philosophy textbooks.

But there are definitions in philosophy textbooks, straight from the dictionary.

>
>>>>>>>>All that was concluded is that existence corresponds,
>>>>>>>exactly,
>>>>>>>>to "that which is".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That was most certainly not "concluded"! That's where
>>>you
>>>>>>>began, and apparently where you remain, but it's been a
>>>>>>>tautology all along.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>how? It can be relavant on a physiological or
>>metaphysical
>>>>>>realm, so how can you call it a tautology?
>>>>>
>>>>>Jesus Christ! How can you still be arguing about this?!
>>>>You
>>>>>defined "truth" as "that which is." That's no different
>>>>than
>>>>>saying 1+1=2 because 2=2.
>>>>
>>>>No, what I was saying is that 1+1=2 in whatever place
>1+1=2
>>>>because, at some point, somewhere, 1+1=2, just as we can
>>>>conclude that something, somewhere, exists.
>>>
>>>Hehe, whatever you say. But I thought you Christians
>>weren't
>>>allowed to smoke that shit.
>>
>>Yeah, that "understanding the English language" shit will
>fuck
>>you up.
>
>Apparently by "understanding the English language," you mean
>"bringing it into direct correspondence with evangelical
>catchphrases."

Nope, just the dictionary... I don't know webster, his associates, or any of their motives.

>
>>>>>If you're just willing to be naive about the details, go
>>>>>ahead, you're not alone among the evangelical community.
>>>>Just
>>>>>don't turn around and pretend to have a logical
>>>>justification
>>>>>for your faith.
>>>>
>>>>If a purpose for living isn't logical justification...
>then
>>>I
>>>>concede.
>>>
>>>1.) No, it isn't.
>>
>>That's your opinion (and, yes, you are absolutely entitled
>to
>>it), but you've given me no reason to think otherwise.
>
>Oh, it's only my opinion! It's funny how evangelicals hold
>such deep hatred for deconstructionism except when they can
>use it for their own aims.

Where is my hatred for you? I just said we have a difference in opinion. Do you really take offense to that?

>>All
>>you've really done on the morality topic is pile on more
>>questions.
>
>What's so dangerous about questions?

Nothing, except they do nothing for the sake of debate. If I say I believe something is this way, and you say "well, maybe it isn't," you have done nothing for the debate because I never claimed to have anything more than belief in the first place. All that this entire post consists of is the notion of belief and reason. No one on here is trying to prove anything.

>>>2.) You aren't the only one who considers himself to have a
>>>reason for living.
>>
>>I am aware of this, but that is my personal reason for my
>>faith.
>
>Good for you. But this isn't about you, it's about "truth."

I agree.

>>What's your reason for living?
>
>Afraid I can't be summed up so quickly.

OK.

How in the fuck are you still arguing about this?! The thread was months ago and you're trying to revive it? You've got serious anger issues.


>>>>>>No, I was asking you to clarify what you *meant* by the
>>>>term.
>>>>>
>>>>>>To define it, in a logical context, not a colloquial
>>>>context.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No, actually you asked me to define it. If your
>>>terminology
>>>>>isn't correct, that's your problem.
>>>>
>>>>Context, muhfucka, context. When you're asked to define
>>>>something within the context of a logical debate, it's
>>>>expected that your definition helps clarify the issues at
>>>>hand.
>>>
>>>Again... tell me how mine didn't. I obviously don't know
>>what
>>>the hell you are talking about.
>>
>>You defined "truth" as "that which is." "Is" what? "Is"
>>true? If you actually meant "that which is true," then your
>>definition is empty.
>
>How can it be empty if what is true cannot be proven?

Your statement is logically the same as saying A=B, but B is undefined except for the tacit colloquial assumption that B=A. So A=B was already known.


>>A dictionary can depend on a certain colloquialized context,
>>and replace definitions with synonyms. That's why
>>dictionaries aren't used as philosophy textbooks.
>
>But there are definitions in philosophy textbooks, straight
>from the dictionary.

Sure, and there are other definitions in philosophy arguments that can't be found in any dictionary. The dictionary is not specialized enough. How in the fuck are you still arguing about this?!


>>>>>>>>>All that was concluded is that existence corresponds,
>>>>>>>>exactly,
>>>>>>>>>to "that which is".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That was most certainly not "concluded"! That's where
>>>>you
>>>>>>>>began, and apparently where you remain, but it's been
>a
>>>>>>>>tautology all along.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>how? It can be relavant on a physiological or
>>>metaphysical
>>>>>>>realm, so how can you call it a tautology?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Jesus Christ! How can you still be arguing about this?!
>
>>>>>You
>>>>>>defined "truth" as "that which is." That's no different
>>>>>than
>>>>>>saying 1+1=2 because 2=2.
>>>>>
>>>>>No, what I was saying is that 1+1=2 in whatever place
>>1+1=2
>>>>>because, at some point, somewhere, 1+1=2, just as we can
>>>>>conclude that something, somewhere, exists.
>>>>
>>>>Hehe, whatever you say. But I thought you Christians
>>>weren't
>>>>allowed to smoke that shit.
>>>
>>>Yeah, that "understanding the English language" shit will
>>fuck
>>>you up.
>>
>>Apparently by "understanding the English language," you mean
>>"bringing it into direct correspondence with evangelical
>>catchphrases."
>
>Nope, just the dictionary... I don't know webster, his
>associates, or any of their motives.

I'm surprised that you don't know Webster, you still have his dick in your mouth. How in the fuck are you still arguing about this?!

>>>>>>If you're just willing to be naive about the details, go
>>>>>>ahead, you're not alone among the evangelical community.
>
>>>>>Just
>>>>>>don't turn around and pretend to have a logical
>>>>>justification
>>>>>>for your faith.
>>>>>
>>>>>If a purpose for living isn't logical justification...
>>then
>>>>I
>>>>>concede.
>>>>
>>>>1.) No, it isn't.
>>>
>>>That's your opinion (and, yes, you are absolutely entitled
>>to
>>>it), but you've given me no reason to think otherwise.
>>
>>Oh, it's only my opinion! It's funny how evangelicals hold
>>such deep hatred for deconstructionism except when they can
>>use it for their own aims.
>
>Where is my hatred for you?

I never said "me." I'm not into deconstruction. You're the one who's saying there's no such thing as logic here, only opinion.

>I just said we have a difference
>in opinion. Do you really take offense to that?

No, but it's not just my opinion. This is the danger of reviving an argument from months in the past! You've forgotten the context. A "reason for living" might be considered a logical justification for you, yourself, to believe in God, but it's not a logical justification to make the statement "God exists," and treat it as an objective truth.

>>>All
>>>you've really done on the morality topic is pile on more
>>>questions.
>>
>>What's so dangerous about questions?
>
>Nothing, except they do nothing for the sake of debate. If I
>say I believe something is this way, and you say "well, maybe
>it isn't," you have done nothing for the debate because I
>never claimed to have anything more than belief in the first
>place.

If you say "here is my opinion, take it or leave it," you're not adding anything to the debate either. You're saying that my arguments (at the moment) are irrelevant to the debate, but that's only because I'm responding to arguments which are irrelevant.

>All that this entire post consists of is the notion of
>belief and reason. No one on here is trying to prove
>anything.

Have you read InVerse's posts? You know . . . the guy I'm ACTUALLY here to debate.

>How in the fuck are you still arguing about this?! The
>thread was months ago and you're trying to revive it? You've
>got serious anger issues.

No, I don't.. I thought it was relevant. The notion of existence itself and whether or not morality "exists," IMO, is closely related.

>>>>>>>No, I was asking you to clarify what you *meant* by the
>>>>>term.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>To define it, in a logical context, not a colloquial
>>>>>context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, actually you asked me to define it. If your
>>>>terminology
>>>>>>isn't correct, that's your problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>Context, muhfucka, context. When you're asked to define
>>>>>something within the context of a logical debate, it's
>>>>>expected that your definition helps clarify the issues at
>>>>>hand.
>>>>
>>>>Again... tell me how mine didn't. I obviously don't know
>>>what
>>>>the hell you are talking about.
>>>
>>>You defined "truth" as "that which is." "Is" what? "Is"
>>>true? If you actually meant "that which is true," then
>your
>>>definition is empty.
>>
>>How can it be empty if what is true cannot be proven?
>
>Your statement is logically the same as saying A=B, but B is
>undefined except for the tacit colloquial assumption that B=A.
> So A=B was already known.

No.. the only thing I have claimed, ever, is that A=A, but I cannot prove--only believe--what A actually is.

>
>>>A dictionary can depend on a certain colloquialized
>context,
>>>and replace definitions with synonyms. That's why
>>>dictionaries aren't used as philosophy textbooks.
>>
>>But there are definitions in philosophy textbooks, straight
>>from the dictionary.
>
>Sure, and there are other definitions in philosophy arguments
>that can't be found in any dictionary. The dictionary is not
>specialized enough. How in the fuck are you still arguing
>about this?!

Name one.

>
>>>>>>>>>>All that was concluded is that existence
>corresponds,
>>>>>>>>>exactly,
>>>>>>>>>>to "that which is".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That was most certainly not "concluded"! That's
>where
>>>>>you
>>>>>>>>>began, and apparently where you remain, but it's been
>>a
>>>>>>>>>tautology all along.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>how? It can be relavant on a physiological or
>>>>metaphysical
>>>>>>>>realm, so how can you call it a tautology?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Jesus Christ! How can you still be arguing about
>this?!
>>
>>>>>>You
>>>>>>>defined "truth" as "that which is." That's no
>different
>>>>>>than
>>>>>>>saying 1+1=2 because 2=2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, what I was saying is that 1+1=2 in whatever place
>>>1+1=2
>>>>>>because, at some point, somewhere, 1+1=2, just as we can
>>>>>>conclude that something, somewhere, exists.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hehe, whatever you say. But I thought you Christians
>>>>weren't
>>>>>allowed to smoke that shit.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, that "understanding the English language" shit will
>>>fuck
>>>>you up.
>>>
>>>Apparently by "understanding the English language," you
>mean
>>>"bringing it into direct correspondence with evangelical
>>>catchphrases."
>>
>>Nope, just the dictionary... I don't know webster, his
>>associates, or any of their motives.
>
>I'm surprised that you don't know Webster, you still have his
>dick in your mouth. How in the fuck are you still arguing
>about this?!

Thought it was relevant.

>>>>>>>If you're just willing to be naive about the details,
>go
>>>>>>>ahead, you're not alone among the evangelical
>community.
>>
>>>>>>Just
>>>>>>>don't turn around and pretend to have a logical
>>>>>>justification
>>>>>>>for your faith.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If a purpose for living isn't logical justification...
>>>then
>>>>>I
>>>>>>concede.
>>>>>
>>>>>1.) No, it isn't.
>>>>
>>>>That's your opinion (and, yes, you are absolutely entitled
>>>to
>>>>it), but you've given me no reason to think otherwise.
>>>
>>>Oh, it's only my opinion! It's funny how evangelicals hold
>>>such deep hatred for deconstructionism except when they can
>>>use it for their own aims.
>>
>>Where is my hatred for you?
>
>I never said "me." I'm not into deconstruction. You're the
>one who's saying there's no such thing as logic here, only
>opinion.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that a logistical equation can be set up when it comes to morality, but it obviously can't be proven.

>>I just said we have a difference
>>in opinion. Do you really take offense to that?
>
>No, but it's not just my opinion. This is the danger of
>reviving an argument from months in the past! You've
>forgotten the context. A "reason for living" might be
>considered a logical justification for you, yourself, to
>believe in God, but it's not a logical justification to make
>the statement "God exists," and treat it as an objective
>truth.

Everything we consider true is treated as such. I consider the existence of God to be real, so yes, I treat it as such. Therefore, it is a logical justification for me to believe in God. Why do I believe the existence of God is real? Morality. Hence the chime.

>>>>All
>>>>you've really done on the morality topic is pile on more
>>>>questions.
>>>
>>>What's so dangerous about questions?
>>
>>Nothing, except they do nothing for the sake of debate. If
>I
>>say I believe something is this way, and you say "well,
>maybe
>>it isn't," you have done nothing for the debate because I
>>never claimed to have anything more than belief in the first
>>place.
>
>If you say "here is my opinion, take it or leave it," you're
>not adding anything to the debate either. You're saying that
>my arguments (at the moment) are irrelevant to the debate, but
>that's only because I'm responding to arguments which are
>irrelevant.

That depends on whether or not morality exists, and THAT depends on whether or not "exists" has a defintion.

>>All that this entire post consists of is the notion of
>>belief and reason. No one on here is trying to prove
>>anything.
>
>Have you read InVerse's posts? You know . . . the guy I'm
>ACTUALLY here to debate.

There was a debate going on?

>>How in the fuck are you still arguing about this?! The
>>thread was months ago and you're trying to revive it?
>You've
>>got serious anger issues.
>
>No, I don't..

He says as he begins yet another completely irrelevant post.

>I thought it was relevant. The notion of
>existence itself and whether or not morality "exists," IMO, is
>closely related.

Sure enough, but you are reviving our old argument about whether your old definition of "true" as "in exact correspondence with that which is" is meaningful or not. That question was relevant to that thread. It's not relevant to this thread. Your bullshit definition was never raised in this thread until you started jumping into the middle of other people's arguments.


>>>>>>>>No, I was asking you to clarify what you *meant* by
>the
>>>>>>term.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>To define it, in a logical context, not a colloquial
>>>>>>context.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, actually you asked me to define it. If your
>>>>>terminology
>>>>>>>isn't correct, that's your problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Context, muhfucka, context. When you're asked to define
>>>>>>something within the context of a logical debate, it's
>>>>>>expected that your definition helps clarify the issues
>at
>>>>>>hand.
>>>>>
>>>>>Again... tell me how mine didn't. I obviously don't know
>>>>what
>>>>>the hell you are talking about.
>>>>
>>>>You defined "truth" as "that which is." "Is" what? "Is"
>>>>true? If you actually meant "that which is true," then
>>your
>>>>definition is empty.
>>>
>>>How can it be empty if what is true cannot be proven?
>>
>>Your statement is logically the same as saying A=B, but B is
>>undefined except for the tacit colloquial assumption that
>B=A.
>> So A=B was already known.
>
>No.. the only thing I have claimed, ever, is that A=A, but I
>cannot prove--only believe--what A actually is.

Ah, so you're finally admitting that your definition was logically empty. I'd be refreshed by that candor, IF YOU'D HAD IT ALL THOSE MONTHS AGO, WHEN SOMEBODY CARED.

>>>>A dictionary can depend on a certain colloquialized
>>context,
>>>>and replace definitions with synonyms. That's why
>>>>dictionaries aren't used as philosophy textbooks.
>>>
>>>But there are definitions in philosophy textbooks, straight
>>>from the dictionary.
>>
>>Sure, and there are other definitions in philosophy
>arguments
>>that can't be found in any dictionary. The dictionary is
>not
>>specialized enough. How in the fuck are you still arguing
>>about this?!
>
>Name one.

I've already asked you how Webster defines "symplectomorphism," and you haven't told us.


>>>I just said we have a difference
>>>in opinion. Do you really take offense to that?
>>
>>No, but it's not just my opinion. This is the danger of
>>reviving an argument from months in the past! You've
>>forgotten the context. A "reason for living" might be
>>considered a logical justification for you, yourself, to
>>believe in God, but it's not a logical justification to make
>>the statement "God exists," and treat it as an objective
>>truth.
>
>Everything we consider true is treated as such.

You treat every belief you hold to be an obective truth?! Shit, man, I guess I see why you hold so much disdain for scientists.

>I consider
>the existence of God to be real, so yes, I treat it as such.
>Therefore, it is a logical justification for me to believe in
>God.

I'll say it again, and hope it sinks in. The fact that you "believe" in "God" (and good for you on that one) does not count as a logically rigorous proof that such a being exists.

>Why do I believe the existence of God is real?
>Morality.

Man, this argument relapses all the time. I'd argue with you about the fact that morality exists just fine without any monotheistic, or even theistic structure. But again, every few months, InVerse argues your side better than you would. Nobody's in the mood to retread that shit with you right now.



>>>>>All
>>>>>you've really done on the morality topic is pile on more
>>>>>questions.
>>>>
>>>>What's so dangerous about questions?
>>>
>>>Nothing, except they do nothing for the sake of debate. If
>>I
>>>say I believe something is this way, and you say "well,
>>maybe
>>>it isn't," you have done nothing for the debate because I
>>>never claimed to have anything more than belief in the
>first
>>>place.
>>
>>If you say "here is my opinion, take it or leave it," you're
>>not adding anything to the debate either. You're saying
>that
>>my arguments (at the moment) are irrelevant to the debate,
>but
>>that's only because I'm responding to arguments which are
>>irrelevant.
>
>That depends on whether or not morality exists, and THAT
>depends on whether or not "exists" has a defintion.

Did you get mixed up there, or were you just in the mood for a complete non sequitur? Or are you just grabbing whatever space you can to pretend your bullshit definition wasn't bullshit? Again, that argument was months ago. Get the fuck over it.

>>>How in the fuck are you still arguing about this?! The
>>>thread was months ago and you're trying to revive it?
>>You've
>>>got serious anger issues.
>>
>>No, I don't..
>
>He says as he begins yet another completely irrelevant post.

Your opinion.

>>I thought it was relevant. The notion of
>>existence itself and whether or not morality "exists," IMO,
>is
>>closely related.
>
>Sure enough, but you are reviving our old argument about
>whether your old definition of "true" as "in exact
>correspondence with that which is" is meaningful or not. That
>question was relevant to that thread. It's not relevant to
>this thread.

I think it is entirely relevant to this thread.

Your bullshit definition was never raised in
>this thread until you started jumping into the middle of other
>people's arguments.

I don't think my definition is bullshit, and yes, I did jump into the middle of other people's arguments. I thought it was relevant.

>
>>>>>>>>>No, I was asking you to clarify what you *meant* by
>>the
>>>>>>>term.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>To define it, in a logical context, not a colloquial
>>>>>>>context.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, actually you asked me to define it. If your
>>>>>>terminology
>>>>>>>>isn't correct, that's your problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Context, muhfucka, context. When you're asked to
>define
>>>>>>>something within the context of a logical debate, it's
>>>>>>>expected that your definition helps clarify the issues
>>at
>>>>>>>hand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Again... tell me how mine didn't. I obviously don't know
>>>>>what
>>>>>>the hell you are talking about.
>>>>>
>>>>>You defined "truth" as "that which is." "Is" what? "Is"
>>>>>true? If you actually meant "that which is true," then
>>>your
>>>>>definition is empty.
>>>>
>>>>How can it be empty if what is true cannot be proven?
>>>
>>>Your statement is logically the same as saying A=B, but B
>is
>>>undefined except for the tacit colloquial assumption that
>>B=A.
>>> So A=B was already known.
>>
>>No.. the only thing I have claimed, ever, is that A=A, but I
>>cannot prove--only believe--what A actually is.
>
>Ah, so you're finally admitting that your definition was
>logically empty. I'd be refreshed by that candor, IF YOU'D
>HAD IT ALL THOSE MONTHS AGO, WHEN SOMEBODY CARED.

If logic only equates to naturalism, pretty much everything you and I say is empty. However, if we recognize that naturalism is only our limited perception, then logic really has no basis to begin with, other than that of a hypothetical one (which I consider valid).

>>>>>A dictionary can depend on a certain colloquialized
>>>context,
>>>>>and replace definitions with synonyms. That's why
>>>>>dictionaries aren't used as philosophy textbooks.
>>>>
>>>>But there are definitions in philosophy textbooks,
>straight
>>>>from the dictionary.
>>>
>>>Sure, and there are other definitions in philosophy
>>arguments
>>>that can't be found in any dictionary. The dictionary is
>>not
>>>specialized enough. How in the fuck are you still arguing
>>>about this?!
>>
>>Name one.
>
>I've already asked you how Webster defines
>"symplectomorphism," and you haven't told us.

Webster was dead before that, and the context in the lines above were from a philosophy textbook. I understand that not all the words on planet earth were/are written in the dictionary. I just happened to like Webster's definition of existence.

>
>>>>I just said we have a difference
>>>>in opinion. Do you really take offense to that?
>>>
>>>No, but it's not just my opinion. This is the danger of
>>>reviving an argument from months in the past! You've
>>>forgotten the context. A "reason for living" might be
>>>considered a logical justification for you, yourself, to
>>>believe in God, but it's not a logical justification to
>make
>>>the statement "God exists," and treat it as an objective
>>>truth.
>>
>>Everything we consider true is treated as such.
>
>You treat every belief you hold to be an obective truth?!
>Shit, man, I guess I see why you hold so much disdain for
>scientists.

Actually, God/morality is the only thing I consider to be objective truth. And I hold zero disdain for scientists. You all do wonderful things all the time. What I hold disdain for are assholes.

>>I consider
>>the existence of God to be real, so yes, I treat it as such.
>
>>Therefore, it is a logical justification for me to believe
>in
>>God.
>
>I'll say it again, and hope it sinks in. The fact that you
>"believe" in "God" (and good for you on that one) does not
>count as a logically rigorous proof that such a being exists.

No, and that would be a ridiculous equation, logically. However, the fact that morality exists, in my opinion, is logically rigorous proof that God exists. Therefore, I believe in God.

>>Why do I believe the existence of God is real?
>>Morality.
>
>Man, this argument relapses all the time. I'd argue with you
>about the fact that morality exists just fine without any
>monotheistic, or even theistic structure.

That's fine, but we can't argue about anything existing, ever, until "exists" is defined.

But again, every
>few months, InVerse argues your side better than you would.
>Nobody's in the mood to retread that shit with you right now.

Fine by me.

>
>>>>>>All
>>>>>>you've really done on the morality topic is pile on more
>>>>>>questions.
>>>>>
>>>>>What's so dangerous about questions?
>>>>
>>>>Nothing, except they do nothing for the sake of debate.
>If
>>>I
>>>>say I believe something is this way, and you say "well,
>>>maybe
>>>>it isn't," you have done nothing for the debate because I
>>>>never claimed to have anything more than belief in the
>>first
>>>>place.
>>>
>>>If you say "here is my opinion, take it or leave it,"
>you're
>>>not adding anything to the debate either. You're saying
>>that
>>>my arguments (at the moment) are irrelevant to the debate,
>>but
>>>that's only because I'm responding to arguments which are
>>>irrelevant.
>>
>>That depends on whether or not morality exists, and THAT
>>depends on whether or not "exists" has a defintion.
>
>Did you get mixed up there, or were you just in the mood for a
>complete non sequitur?

The sentence I wrote made sense.

Or are you just grabbing whatever
>space you can to pretend your bullshit definition wasn't
>bullshit?

This coming from someone who has no defintion? Tough box to soap on.

Again, that argument was months ago. Get the fuck
>over it.

Sorry, I believe it's relevant to this post.

>>>>>How can it be empty if what is true cannot be proven?
>>>>
>>>>Your statement is logically the same as saying A=B, but B
>>is
>>>>undefined except for the tacit colloquial assumption that
>>>B=A.
>>>> So A=B was already known.
>>>
>>>No.. the only thing I have claimed, ever, is that A=A, but
>I
>>>cannot prove--only believe--what A actually is.
>>
>>Ah, so you're finally admitting that your definition was
>>logically empty. I'd be refreshed by that candor, IF YOU'D
>>HAD IT ALL THOSE MONTHS AGO, WHEN SOMEBODY CARED.
>
>If logic only equates to naturalism, pretty much everything
>you and I say is empty.

Are you saying you don't know what logic is? Check Webster for a start.

>However, if we recognize that
>naturalism is only our limited perception,

I agree with you on that one.

>then logic really
>has no basis to begin with,

No basis for what? What does it need a basis for, and why?

>other than that of a hypothetical
>one (which I consider valid).
>
>>>>>>A dictionary can depend on a certain colloquialized
>>>>context,
>>>>>>and replace definitions with synonyms. That's why
>>>>>>dictionaries aren't used as philosophy textbooks.
>>>>>
>>>>>But there are definitions in philosophy textbooks,
>>straight
>>>>>from the dictionary.
>>>>
>>>>Sure, and there are other definitions in philosophy
>>>arguments
>>>>that can't be found in any dictionary. The dictionary is
>>>not
>>>>specialized enough. How in the fuck are you still arguing
>>>>about this?!
>>>
>>>Name one.
>>
>>I've already asked you how Webster defines
>>"symplectomorphism," and you haven't told us.
>
>Webster was dead before that,

Oh come on! The issue is the dictionary, not the man.

>and the context in the lines
>above were from a philosophy textbook.

Mathematics is philosophy.


>>>>>I just said we have a difference
>>>>>in opinion. Do you really take offense to that?
>>>>
>>>>No, but it's not just my opinion. This is the danger of
>>>>reviving an argument from months in the past! You've
>>>>forgotten the context. A "reason for living" might be
>>>>considered a logical justification for you, yourself, to
>>>>believe in God, but it's not a logical justification to
>>make
>>>>the statement "God exists," and treat it as an objective
>>>>truth.
>>>
>>>Everything we consider true is treated as such.
>>
>>You treat every belief you hold to be an obective truth?!
>>Shit, man, I guess I see why you hold so much disdain for
>>scientists.
>
>Actually, God/morality is the only thing I consider to be
>objective truth. And I hold zero disdain for scientists. You
>all do wonderful things all the time. What I hold disdain for
>are assholes.

You and I probably have different opinions on who is being the asshole here.

I just hope you can get over this argument to the extent that you aren't angrily reviving it out of the blue sometime in 2006.

>>>I consider
>>>the existence of God to be real, so yes, I treat it as
>such.
>>
>>>Therefore, it is a logical justification for me to believe
>>in
>>>God.
>>
>>I'll say it again, and hope it sinks in. The fact that you
>>"believe" in "God" (and good for you on that one) does not
>>count as a logically rigorous proof that such a being
>exists.
>
>No, and that would be a ridiculous equation, logically.
>However, the fact that morality exists, in my opinion, is
>logically rigorous proof that God exists.

1.) That's an entirely separate question.
2.) I wish you were aware of the absurdity of this sequence of words: "in my opinion, is logically rigorous proof."

>Therefore, I
>believe in God.

Good for you. Nobody asked.

>>>>>>How can it be empty if what is true cannot be proven?
>>>>>
>>>>>Your statement is logically the same as saying A=B, but B
>>>is
>>>>>undefined except for the tacit colloquial assumption that
>>>>B=A.
>>>>> So A=B was already known.
>>>>
>>>>No.. the only thing I have claimed, ever, is that A=A, but
>>I
>>>>cannot prove--only believe--what A actually is.
>>>
>>>Ah, so you're finally admitting that your definition was
>>>logically empty. I'd be refreshed by that candor, IF YOU'D
>>>HAD IT ALL THOSE MONTHS AGO, WHEN SOMEBODY CARED.
>>
>>If logic only equates to naturalism, pretty much everything
>>you and I say is empty.
>
>Are you saying you don't know what logic is? Check Webster
>for a start.

I'm saying the only way to prove a logistic equation is through naturalism, which is flawed due to our perception (which I mentioned in the rest of paragraph).

>>However, if we recognize that
>>naturalism is only our limited perception,
>
>I agree with you on that one.
>
>>then logic really
>>has no basis to begin with,
>
>No basis for what?

For proof of anything, anywhere, due to our limited perception. We can prove something within our limited perception, but I'm sure you will agree that nothing is actually proven.

What does it need a basis for, and why?

It needs a basis so that its purpose (finding "truth" in an equation) can be fulfilled. Logic needs that basis so that it can be useful. However, because no logistic equation can actually be proven true due to our limited perception (and our continued supposed lack of a definition for "existence"), all equations remain hypothetical. So, hypothetically speaking (in your belief system, that is), it is logical for me to believe in God.

>>other than that of a hypothetical
>>one (which I consider valid).
>>
>>>>>>>A dictionary can depend on a certain colloquialized
>>>>>context,
>>>>>>>and replace definitions with synonyms. That's why
>>>>>>>dictionaries aren't used as philosophy textbooks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But there are definitions in philosophy textbooks,
>>>straight
>>>>>>from the dictionary.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure, and there are other definitions in philosophy
>>>>arguments
>>>>>that can't be found in any dictionary. The dictionary is
>>>>not
>>>>>specialized enough. How in the fuck are you still
>arguing
>>>>>about this?!
>>>>
>>>>Name one.
>>>
>>>I've already asked you how Webster defines
>>>"symplectomorphism," and you haven't told us.
>>
>>Webster was dead before that,
>
>Oh come on! The issue is the dictionary, not the man.

I actually thought the issue was Webster.

>>and the context in the lines
>>above were from a philosophy textbook.
>
>Mathematics is philosophy.

I agree, in a Venn sort of way.

>
>>>>>>I just said we have a difference
>>>>>>in opinion. Do you really take offense to that?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, but it's not just my opinion. This is the danger of
>>>>>reviving an argument from months in the past! You've
>>>>>forgotten the context. A "reason for living" might be
>>>>>considered a logical justification for you, yourself, to
>>>>>believe in God, but it's not a logical justification to
>>>make
>>>>>the statement "God exists," and treat it as an objective
>>>>>truth.
>>>>
>>>>Everything we consider true is treated as such.
>>>
>>>You treat every belief you hold to be an obective truth?!
>>>Shit, man, I guess I see why you hold so much disdain for
>>>scientists.
>>
>>Actually, God/morality is the only thing I consider to be
>>objective truth. And I hold zero disdain for scientists.
>You
>>all do wonderful things all the time. What I hold disdain
>for
>>are assholes.
>
>You and I probably have different opinions on who is being the
>asshole here.
>
>I just hope you can get over this argument to the extent that
>you aren't angrily reviving it out of the blue sometime in
>2006.

I'm honestly not angry about any of this. It's bored brain practice.

>>>>I consider
>>>>the existence of God to be real, so yes, I treat it as
>>such.
>>>
>>>>Therefore, it is a logical justification for me to believe
>>>in
>>>>God.
>>>
>>>I'll say it again, and hope it sinks in. The fact that you
>>>"believe" in "God" (and good for you on that one) does not
>>>count as a logically rigorous proof that such a being
>>exists.
>>
>>No, and that would be a ridiculous equation, logically.
>>However, the fact that morality exists, in my opinion, is
>>logically rigorous proof that God exists.
>
>1.) That's an entirely separate question.

No, that's the topic of IV's post.

>2.) I wish you were aware of the absurdity of this sequence of
>words: "in my opinion, is logically rigorous proof."

Until you give me a definition of existence that proves otherwise, for you to even use the word "absurdity" is an absurdity. Here's a news flash: logic IS opinion.

>>Therefore, I
>>believe in God.
>
>Good for you. Nobody asked.

Not directly, no.

>>>However, if we recognize that
>>>naturalism is only our limited perception,
>>
>>I agree with you on that one.
>>
>>>then logic really
>>>has no basis to begin with,
>>
>>No basis for what?
>
>For proof of anything, anywhere, due to our limited
>perception. We can prove something within our limited
>perception, but I'm sure you will agree that nothing is
>actually proven.

Absolutely. This is why I seem to have entered the business of arguing to Inverse that logic is irrelevant when it comes to theological questions.

>What does it need a basis for, and why?
>
>It needs a basis so that its purpose (finding "truth" in an
>equation) can be fulfilled.

I disagree that this is the purpose of logic. Logic is merely a machinery for demonstrating that certain statements imply certain other statements. "Truth," regardless of how strongly we view the quotation marks, is only tangentially related.

>Logic needs that basis so that it
>can be useful.

You've already stated that it's never proven anything to be true (in the classical sense in which you seem to view the term). Are you saying it's never been useful?

>However, because no logistic equation can
>actually be proven true due to our limited perception (and our
>continued supposed lack of a definition for "existence"), all
>equations remain hypothetical. So, hypothetically speaking
>(in your belief system, that is), it is logical for me to
>believe in God.

Well, it's not illogical. Logic is irrelevant.



>>>>>I consider
>>>>>the existence of God to be real, so yes, I treat it as
>>>such.
>>>>
>>>>>Therefore, it is a logical justification for me to
>believe
>>>>in
>>>>>God.
>>>>
>>>>I'll say it again, and hope it sinks in. The fact that
>you
>>>>"believe" in "God" (and good for you on that one) does not
>>>>count as a logically rigorous proof that such a being
>>>exists.
>>>
>>>No, and that would be a ridiculous equation, logically.
>>>However, the fact that morality exists, in my opinion, is
>>>logically rigorous proof that God exists.
>>
>>1.) That's an entirely separate question.
>
>No, that's the topic of IV's post.

No, the topic of Inverse's post is the question of whether reason implies morality, not whether morality implies God.

>>2.) I wish you were aware of the absurdity of this sequence
>of
>>words: "in my opinion, is logically rigorous proof."
>
>Until you give me a definition of existence that proves
>otherwise, for you to even use the word "absurdity" is an
>absurdity. Here's a news flash: logic IS opinion.

Then why is your computer still functioning, considering that my opinion holds that you should have been cut off from this thread long ago?

>>>>However, if we recognize that
>>>>naturalism is only our limited perception,
>>>
>>>I agree with you on that one.
>>>
>>>>then logic really
>>>>has no basis to begin with,
>>>
>>>No basis for what?
>>
>>For proof of anything, anywhere, due to our limited
>>perception. We can prove something within our limited
>>perception, but I'm sure you will agree that nothing is
>>actually proven.
>
>Absolutely. This is why I seem to have entered the business
>of arguing to Inverse that logic is irrelevant when it comes
>to theological questions.

It's irrelevant to anything if its intention is to find truth. However, it can be a nice tool for formulating opinions.. I think we're in agreement here.

>>What does it need a basis for, and why?
>>
>>It needs a basis so that its purpose (finding "truth" in an
>>equation) can be fulfilled.
>
>I disagree that this is the purpose of logic. Logic is merely
>a machinery for demonstrating that certain statements imply
>certain other statements. "Truth," regardless of how strongly
>we view the quotation marks, is only tangentially related.

I'll concede that one. Well put.

>>Logic needs that basis so that it
>>can be useful.
>
>You've already stated that it's never proven anything to be
>true (in the classical sense in which you seem to view the
>term). Are you saying it's never been useful?

No. I'm saying it's a good tool when we understand our surroundings. If you and I (not saying this is so, although I think it is now) begin a discussion with prior knowledge that logic proves nothing, we've established that our discussion is hypothetical. Because morality and God are both issues of faith, I believe logic can be used cautiously, because we forgo any naturalistic proof given the topic(s).

However, if you and I agree that morality does, in fact, exist (again, the circle of defining "exist" comes into play), then suddenly we have a fact (i.e. "morality exists") in our discussion, and the game changes.

I'm guessing the difference between us is that I believe morality is absolute (to a degree beyond more complex cultural differences, that is), and you appear to be more skeptical. I could be wrong, but if that is the case, it explains a lot in our standing wave.

>>However, because no logistic equation can
>>actually be proven true due to our limited perception (and
>our
>>continued supposed lack of a definition for "existence"),
>all
>>equations remain hypothetical. So, hypothetically speaking
>>(in your belief system, that is), it is logical for me to
>>believe in God.
>
>Well, it's not illogical. Logic is irrelevant.

Not by your above statement regarding logic's purpose, is it? I could be wrong here, but that's how I interpreted it.

>
>>>>>>I consider
>>>>>>the existence of God to be real, so yes, I treat it as
>>>>such.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Therefore, it is a logical justification for me to
>>believe
>>>>>in
>>>>>>God.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll say it again, and hope it sinks in. The fact that
>>you
>>>>>"believe" in "God" (and good for you on that one) does
>not
>>>>>count as a logically rigorous proof that such a being
>>>>exists.
>>>>
>>>>No, and that would be a ridiculous equation, logically.
>>>>However, the fact that morality exists, in my opinion, is
>>>>logically rigorous proof that God exists.
>>>
>>>1.) That's an entirely separate question.
>>
>>No, that's the topic of IV's post.
>
>No, the topic of Inverse's post is the question of whether
>reason implies morality, not whether morality implies God.

Strav, come on. You KNOW that's what he's getting at.

>>>2.) I wish you were aware of the absurdity of this sequence
>>of
>>>words: "in my opinion, is logically rigorous proof."
>>
>>Until you give me a definition of existence that proves
>>otherwise, for you to even use the word "absurdity" is an
>>absurdity. Here's a news flash: logic IS opinion.
>
>Then why is your computer still functioning, considering that
>my opinion holds that you should have been cut off from this
>thread long ago?

My statement made sense, and I hope that you are beginning to see the relevance here. We might have actually made progress on this one.