So, a computer therefore can't truly determine the true status of differentiating between A and not A?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In that sense it can't exist without a conscious mind to experience it and express it in the form of propositions that can then be evaluated and used to transmit our thought experiences.
So what are "higher things" and how can jokes be a detriment to them? Say for instance, rape jokes. Is that the sort of thing you mean? Topics being too dark?
That kind of humor is great too, I'm always trying to find some angle to make a joke out of everyday conversation too. The trouble with that, is you need a person to feed you material to riff on. If someone is grumpy, you don't want to do that because they'll likely think you're teasing them. Or if they're really grumpy, they just aren't feeding you material because they aren't talking much, if at all. Having a nice arsenal of set jokes is handy for those types of situations because you can just pull them out of thin air.
I used to know a lot more jokes than I do now. I used to be able to recall entire five-minute bits from stand up acts almost verbatim. I still remember as a kid doing Bob Newhart's monologue from hosting SNL. But now in my late thirties my memory is starting to fade. Back in my twenties I used to play a game called, "That Reminds Me of a Joke!" where people would give me a topic, and I would tell them a joke about it. Not genres of jokes, like blonde jokes or Polish jokes, mind you. I mean like, think of a noun other than a proper name. I can still kind of do it for a while, but I never used to get stumped before.
I never watched Curb Your Enthusiasm, I didn't have HBO when it was on. I loved Seinfeld, which Larry David helped create though. I've been loving Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee too. It's a lot of interesting conversations about the craft of comedy, but told by comedians having a conversation on a fun day out, so it's still a laugh riot.
What does it mean to have a "relativizing effect"? Based on what I've heard from folks who say there are some things that shouldn't be joked about, they seem to think that if I make light of a dark subject sometimes, then I'll treat it lighter all the time. I disagree. Is that what you're saying?I guess I just mean that when someone values humor above all else they have a tendency to overstep or degrade certain topics and truths. It is a sort of lack of sensitivity to the value of certain things. Sacred things might be a good example. Humor brings with it a kind of levity and lightness, and a leveling and relativizing effect. Yet some things are heavy by nature, and to try to lighten them excessively is an affront to what they are.
I can't necessarily think of a good example. Maybe Hell? A joke that accepts the existence of eternal damnation and then attempts to make light of it would be a problematic kind of humor (which is different from a joke that makes fun of the possibility of Hell). Supposing someone is in Hell, that's not a funny matter. It is something which is very heavy and serious by nature, and approaching it with humor will just twist things at one end or another.
I sometimes tell jokes that make light of Christianity, and people, even folks who aren't religious at all, respond to them like they're dark humor. It's still considered a taboo topic even if folks don't ascribe to the religion at all. When I get a groan from one of those jokes, I like to say, "What? I think God has a sense of humor..." And before I finish my sentence, I clutch my chest and gasp for air like I'm having a heart attack.Ha, that's impressive. I think many would find it odd how highly I value humor as a character trait. I'm not sure about cleanliness, but good humor is certainly next to godliness.
Stephen Colbert is a genius. He's still good on The Late Show. But it's nothing compared to The Colbert Report. I get that he has to mass market his material now, but it's kind of a shame. I should have guessed you liked him, since you're both Catholic.Yeah, I should revisit Seinfeld because I never watched it much when it originally ran. Comedians in Cars is on my list. Colbert's improvisational style is very much apropos of what I am talking about (I edited my post above to mention him and provide a link).
I think I can blow your mind even further. Consider this. How is it that we apprehend truth? It has to be tied to some kind of detectable consequence, as in “if and only if x is true, we will observe y. We observe y, therefore x is true.” Facts of absolutely no consequence simply couldn’t be found. There could be no if-then statements to test with observation. So it’s not a matter of ignoring facts, it’s a matter of not dwelling on things we could never know.
And as for your design question, I’m going by what we observe. We do observe the appearance of design, but we know that appearances aren’t enough to draw conclusions. The appearance of design can be accounted for by natural processes, no designer necessary, so we cannot infer the existence of a designer from the appearance of design.
I sympathize with this perspective a lot, and I remember a time when I felt similarly hopeless soon after my deconversion. What’s helped me is to keep in mind how we got here, given naturalism is true. We are sentient creatures resulting from billions of years of evolution - trial and error by countless generations of random mutation has produced every natural aspect of your being. The process itself is blind, but the billions of years it took to eventually produce you amounts to a kind of wisdom that surpasses any epiphany you could have in your lifetime. Your natural inclinations and drives — including your thirst for purpose — served your ancestors in an important way in the past. Important functions are tied to our reward systems - neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin - which ultimately are responsible for every positive feeling you experience.
This has all been a very long-winded way of saying that nature has imbued you with chemical pathways to complete fulfillment, and generally living a productive and socially connected life is the most efficient way to trigger those chemicals due to the way they contribute to our long term survival and well-being.
To put it in a less technical/scientistic way, your psyche doesn’t exist in a vacuum. You prefer certain things over others. Many of those preferences are universal to humans. Pursuing and exploring those things is inherently satisfying, whether it’s been determined by a grand arbiter or a blind process. So there’s no need to assume there’s a grand arbiter to all of this before you allow yourself to enjoy things.
Why? Why would objectivity make our purpose any more satisfying?
Fair enough, but I don't think that lines up with the purpose for humanity set out by the Bible.
That's great, me too. I'm sure for different reasons though.
I don't agree that purpose becomes objective simply because that's what God wants.
I'll use an analogy another Christian explained to me once. Let's say you make a knife. The purpose of that knife is to cut things, so if it cuts things it is a good knife. If it is dull and fails to cut things then it is a bad knife. Sounds reasonable so far, right? If we're fulfilling our purpose then we're good, if we aren't fulling our purpose we're bad.
If peoples' purpose is to be kind, and they're cruel instead, then they're bad. That means God is bad at making people. But God is perfect, so he can't make shoddy products that don't do exactly what they're supposed to do.
I'd say instead, that if there is a God, that our purpose is to choose whatever we want, and God wants us to choose to do nice things. If our purpose was to be nice, then He wouldn't have failed to make people that are nice.
Do you? Because you seem to be rejecting a plausible truth on account of its implications for objective purpose.
Pragmatism is how I find truth. Existentialism is how I find meaning. Neither one points to to God. Moreover, any “objective” meaning that exists would be discovered by a pragmatic process, and in the absence thereof we are left to our own devices when it comes to meaning. Why must nihilism be the only option?
As for P1, I’m well familiar with Plantinga’s presentation. I think I dealt with it pretty thoroughly a few pages back, but in response I’ve only seen you repeat his assertions dogmatically.
We can leave it at this if you like. It seems your main issue is a profound discomfort with a meaning, purpose, value system, and epistemology that isn’t somehow ordained by an objective authority. That’s understandable, but if you’re really interested in truth you should be open to the possibility that all of this is subjective. If you’re not ok with that... I don’t know what else to tell you. Things are going to get very dark anytime you make an argument like this because some people have already come to terms with this prospect.
Truth being subjective (as in relative and unfixed) is a contradiction in terms. I will never espouse that.Do you? Because you seem to be rejecting a plausible truth on account of its implications for objective purpose.
Pragmatism is how I find truth. Existentialism is how I find meaning. Neither one points to to God. Moreover, any “objective” meaning that exists would be discovered by a pragmatic process, and in the absence thereof we are left to our own devices when it comes to meaning. Why must nihilism be the only option?
As for P1, I’m well familiar with Plantinga’s presentation. I think I dealt with it pretty thoroughly a few pages back, but in response I’ve only seen you repeat his assertions dogmatically.
We can leave it at this if you like. It seems your main issue is a profound discomfort with a meaning, purpose, value system, and epistemology that isn’t somehow ordained by an objective authority. That’s understandable, but if you’re really interested in truth you should be open to the possibility that all of this is subjective. If you’re not ok with that... I don’t know what else to tell you. Things are going to get very dark anytime you make an argument like this because some people have already come to terms with this prospect.
What's funny is that you do that. Isn't that what your pragmatism is all about? Care only for what matters to you, ignore the rest. That's very selective. You must care a bit about the idea of God though, given your presence on this forum.Do you? Because you seem to be rejecting a plausible truth on account of its implications for objective purpose.
I think it's only when you accept the "futility" of life that you become truly free to enjoy it. If you knew you were going to live forever, why bother trying to make a difference today? Why bother trying to make the most of it? It's only in the face of death that you will truly appreciate life.Following P3, I really don't see how I could enjoy my life once I accept its futility. It would all be make believe, as I said before. That does not satisfy me at all. I prefer a real purpose over a made up one. If you can't see why, I can't help you.
But if you'll only do good things if you're rewarded, then you're only really looking out for number one (you).P1. That we consider Christian theism or naturalism, my point still stands. According to the bible, I shall love my neighbor as myself.
The reason for me to do that is that God, the source of all goodness and supreme judge over morality, commanded it to me. He imbued in us his image and his love towards us makes us objectively invaluable.
Ah... You're still calling it a "purpose", so I disagree. I'll agree that there's an objectively best way to be happy. But that isn't the "purpose". If our purpose was to know God and be in fellowship with Him, then that's what we would be doing. Or God made a mistake when He made us, and we're bad at the thing we were created to do.P6. Good point. I hadn't considered that before. I'd say your right. Yeah I really agree actually. That doesn't mean there isn't a preferred way God would like us to follow, or at least that we still have an objective purpose in what is best for us: to know God and be in fellowship with him. To do his will, and because we want to.
No, pragmatism is about defining facts by their implications, not about choosing what to care about.What's funny is that you do that. Isn't that what your pragmatism is all about? Care only for what matters to you, ignore the rest. That's very selective. You must care a bit about the idea of God though, given your presence on this forum.
I don't mean to say that truth is subjective. I'm saying it may be that meaning, purpose, morality, and value are entirely subjective, so any time you run an argument for God on the premise that those things are objective, that premise is going to be questioned. If you're not comfortable with that, you shouldn't run those arguments.Truth being subjective (as in relative and unfixed) is a contradiction in terms. I will never espouse that.
It doesn't matter that not all truths are good news. It's to our advantage to be able to discern fact from fiction so that we can make wise decisions. It doesn't matter that we don't have causal power on truth based on our likings. We have causal power (or at least the illusion thereof) over our attitudes toward truths that we uncover -- or find that we cannot uncover. That's what actually matters.P1. All truths have implications yes. Not all truths are "fun" though (to our advantage), as you seemed to suggest in your previous posts. We don't have causal power on truth based on our likings. You can know your life has no objective worth or purpose. If you reject God and embrace naturalism, that's what you're left with. Embrace it all or not at all.
What do you mean by "observe truth existing?" You still seem to be operating on your assumption that we couldn't possibly construct an accurate model of reality unless God had designed us specifically for that purpose. How do you know this is the case?Moreover, the point of my argument is that only if God exists, we will observe truth existing as well. We do observe that. God exists. It has the highest possible ramifications for human life possible. Maybe it's time for you to accept it, Gaara.
These are bare assertions. You're clearly not satisfied by my responses, but the burden of proof is on you if you're going to claim there's some non-natural force at work in biology.P2. Really, appearances aren't enough? You can't do better than that? No, it really cannot be accounted for by natural phenomena alone. But this is beyond the scope of my thread. Suffice it to say for now that truth is evidence of design itself. Objective morality as well. I would like to talk about evolution and probabilities, but we'll keep it for another thread.
You might benefit from reading P4 again, because I feel like I already answered these questions there. If naturalism is true, and we find ourselves existing in these exact circumstances, then everything we feel is entirely natural. That includes deep the deep satisfaction of discovering meaning. It's a natural reward tied to doing things that aid in your survival and reproductive success. The survival and reproductive success of our ancestors determined the genes -- including those that affect our subjective experience -- we inherited. That's an objective difference manifesting today that resulted directly from the actions of our ancestors. If anyone wrote the book of your life, it's them. I'm not asking you to draw comfort from the fact that no one exists on purpose, I'm asking you to draw comfort from the fact that whatever you manage to find meaning in is probably good for you.P4. How did it help you to consider how we got here on naturalism? Why was it important for my ancestors? It really made no difference whatsoever that they lived or died, objectively. I don't find comforting at all to think I exist by accident and for no reason...
I'm sorry you can't see yourself enjoying your life unless you believe there's a god affirming all your decisions. Again, I sympathize with the desire, but as you said earlier, we don't have causal influence over reality based on our liking. I just don't see anything wrong with deciding your own purpose based on what satisfies you.P4. Following P3, I really don't see how I could enjoy my life once I accept its futility. It would all be make believe, as I said before. That does not satisfy me at all. I prefer a real purpose over a made up one. If you can't see why, I can't help you.
Perhaps you do not recall what we established earlier. Truth is that which comports with reality. Reality is relevant to all human endeavors, including but not limited to survival and reproduction. Survival and reproduction determine what traits are passed from one generation to the next. Therefore, it is more likely that the cognitive traits we have inherited allow us to construct an accurate model of reality (aka apprehend truth) at very least when it comes to the endeavors of survival and reproduction. It's magical thinking to suppose that other aspects of reality are somehow different and the cognitive tools we use to survive and reproduce successfully fail us while simultaneously feeding us a false perception of success.I have repeated myself because what you were saying was in no way defeating my and Plantinga's assertions. I haven't seen you defend the idea it's more probably the case our faculties at discerning truth are reliable than not. Saying they favor survival is unwarranted. You can't know that. If you can't know it, you can't affirm it. Not credibly anyways. You're left presupposing it. Everything with natural evolution "had to be the best way for it to happen". That is magical thinking. We have no clue, if we include that as a belief in our worldview, if we can or not discern reality accurately or in what measure. Since we should favor our ability to discern reality over naturalism (it is presupposed by any beliefs, including natural evolution), we should reject naturalism. It is anti intellectual. Like the uncritical fondamentalist version of atheism.
Morality, value, and truth can be real without some objective morality/value/truth-giver making it so. Subjective things are real. Your entire experience is subjective, and it's real, isn't it? Intuitions can be very valuable, especially when it comes to existential questions like "what should I do with my life?" It's just not necessary to have some objective justification for every decision you make, especially when it might be the case that none exists. If you don't accept non-objective value systems, you're going to have a very, very hard time.It is because I care about truth that I reject naturalism. I have shared my disfomfort, but have not used it as evidence for my claims. What I do say is our intuition about morality, value, and truth are more trustworthy and compelling than beliefs contradicting them.
Your replies have gotten a bit snippy, which is fine, but I hope I haven't fed into that. I think you're an intelligent, good-faith participant here and I hope you're not taking any of this personally. I just take issue with a lot of what you seem to take for granted, and I hope we can have a civil, enlightening discussion about these things.While we are in the accusation process, you seem to value freedom over truth, and that's understandable. Submitting to a higher authority isn't always fun and requires humility.
Pragmatism and existentialism are wrong. Thank you very much.
Your worldview won't allow for better than nihilism, unless you deceive yourself. I have said why already, multiple times.
When I look at the world, it doesn't at all seem like we're "supposed" to understand it. The stuff the human brain most easily understands and can make use of, is exactly the things that contributed to our evolution and success as a species. A guy with a natural fear of things that look like a snake would have a very real advantage over the guy who was really good at figuring out how atoms work. We're apparently not designed to understand the very small and very large stuff, or anything that involves more than three dimensions.
What I mean is that whatever you do in fact do, you do because you want to. You don't do anything you don't want to do one some level. By that I don't mean you only do things you enjoy, but you do things for a reason, to achieve something.
There's not some law or list of rules I follow. And I don't think anybody else does either. We all have a basic idea of right and wrong, it's hardwired into us. It's not like, say, a Christian thinks murder is wrong because the ten commandments say so.
Well there are lots of standards out there, it's just that I don't see how any of them could be called truly objective.
Our everyday commonsense intuition is often wrong. Math, science, and logic tell us this.
And what is this "our lives have meaning" business? I understand that words have meaning. To have meaning is an issue of language and semantics. Our lives are not a language, so this notion seems nonsensical.
The amount of evidence you've proposed is zero. You could say that you have an argument, but evidence is not something that you can correctly claim to have.
Why are these things less obvious? Is it just that you were raised a certain way? "The stars in the sky are our ancestors" can be obvious to one person, while "the stars in the sky are angels" can be obvious to someone else. The basic idea of science is to remove your bias, which is something that I don't see you doing.
Do you mean cause and effect? I'd agree. Do you mean purpose? If so, does God have a purpose?
That's what you want. What you want, and some "objective purpose which exists for you as ordained from an external source" could be entirely different things. Most commonly, it is argued by Christians that our purpose is to worship God. Was that not obvious to you?
You are very close to committing the appeal to consequences fallacy. Just because you find one conclusion preferable to another, doesn't make it true.
Why would he eradicate suffering and death if he purposely made them and designed them with intricate detail? I don't understand the point of that.
Then don't invent one.
Do you imply that there could be a purpose which overrides a "lesser" purpose?
Because...?
Because why?
Meaning what, exactly?
Very close to appealing to consequences fallacy!
From, say, a murderer's perspective, evidence presented in court would be something he doesn't like. Does the fact that he doesn't like the evidence make the evidence false?
Those are good things.
Can't see it :/
Why should I conclude they are real? We have a lot of conceptions that are faulty, or at least lacking.
I don't see good evidence of the Christian god in nature though.
I agree that there is value in seeking truth, and we are driven to figure out how things work. But that says something about us, not about reality itself. It's a drive we have, not some "calling" from reality itself, right?
Are you saying the existence of objective morality is self evident, or purpose, or both?Why should you doubt them? Well, it's the default position. It's a self evident truth.
It may appear that way, but then there are so many things that practically screams that nature isn't designed, and certainly not by a benevolent god. Vestigal organs, for example. The extreme brutality and mercilessness of nature. I look at the world and people, and ask myself, "it's supposed to be like this?" I have a hard time believing that.You may see it, but not recognize it. Honestly, everything screams design!
We tend to see meaning where there isn't any, though, and connect dots that have nothing to do with one another, and we're biased toward whatever we already believe. So just because some people feel like life has an objective purpose doesn't at all suggest that it is therefore true.P1. Well, that works well with the hypothesis of design as well... We were meant to live and strive a certain way. Atomic comprehension wasn't necessarily the point. Explanatory power won't do.
You're right that I can't be objectively immoral if there is no objective morality to deviate from.P4. My point still stands.
The notion of "ought" implies some sort of objective morality, which I don't see evidence for, apart from the fact that it feels like it's objective and outside of ourselves. I think it's more constructive to think in terms of can rather than ought.
From what I understand of how the world works, yes I'm a determinist. By that I mean that everything is caused by something else, and when you have condition A + condition B, you will always get result C. The present is how it is because of the past. So it couldn't be different than it is. Cause and effect, basically. Free will means we could make choices without being influenced by anything, that there are decisions based on literally nothing.
If yesterday were to be different, then the day before yesterday would have had to be different, and the day before that etc etc. Today is the only possible outcome of yesterday.
I don't really have anything other than my opinion. I don't believe in God, so what God wants is meaningless to me. I don't know how I could reliably figure out what God's will is.
I do believe and act accordingly
But like I said before, just because I don't see evidence of some objective purpose, doesn't mean I don't have purpose in my life. For all I know God is evil and the purpose is to send us all to hell, but I can't base a worldview on assumptions like that.
I can't truly know I'm not being deceived. I really can't prove anything. I'm 100% sure that I'm not the only person who's conscious, but I can't know it or prove it.
I too seek to know the truth, and that's why I lost faith in God. It's of course possible I will change my mind about that in the future, but when I examined my reasons for believing, they didn't hold up.
I too seek to know the truth, and that's why I lost faith in God. It's of course possible I will change my mind about that in the future, but when I examined my reasons for believing, they didn't hold up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?