Argument from truth

[devolved]

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, a computer therefore can't truly determine the true status of differentiating between A and not A?

 

[zippy2006]

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?

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.

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.

That's a good point. There are certain situations where it is hard to make it work, especially in one-on-one scenarios.

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.

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.

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.

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).

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

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?

Hell as an example is surprising. I suppose that would still fit the criteria, that we're always supposed to feel a certain way about Hell, and making light of it might make it seem less negative than it really is. But I gotta say, my Hell jokes are on the cleaner side of most of my jokes. I have at least one that I could post on these forums in the Clean Christian Jokes section and get a bunch of "funny" ratings. What does it mean to joke about the "possibility" of Hell? A joke, as we've discussed, is an accepted fiction, isn't it always sort of hypothetical in that regard? I'd almost like to give you an example so that you can dissect it for me, but if that's the sort of topic that bothers you, it wouldn't have the effect I want my jokes to have.

In some ways, I think bad things becoming humorous is a good thing. There are some jokes that are only funny now because we know that they're bad, whereas a while back it would have been a perfectly fine thing to say. Some things, like racism, folks think should always be treated seriously. I think it should be laughed at because it's so ridiculous. It shouldn't even be entertained as a serious position to take any more than being a flat-earther. David Cross did a bit a long time ago about growing up Jewish in the south. He told a story about spending a night at a friend's house. The next morning the kid's mother was asking David what he could eat for breakfast. She said to him, in a thick southern drawl, "I just don't know that much about y'alls peoples. I mean, I know that the world's money supply is controlled by seven Jew bankers from a bunker at the center of the Earth, but does y'alls eat oatmeal?" That's a joke about racism, it's treating a heavy subject lightly, but I think it's good to associate those ridiculous sorts of thoughts with laughter. Not because it's no big deal, but because it's absurd.

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.

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.

Humor is the greatest thing on Earth. It's an almost instant, always readily available, source of joy that can be shared between anyone. And it's free! What's not to love?

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).

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.

 

[Sapiens]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

 

[Sapiens]

Hey everyone! I'd like us to put an end to this thread in the near future. If you have some final thoughts or objections, it would be nice to do it now. I might offer a counteresponse (if new objections) to it, and see what happens, but if we just repeat ourselves I will stop the thread. The reason is that it's very time consuming for me to read and respond to all of your messages! Even if very interesting. It's also intellectually demanding and I am tired these days, so it's hard to concentrate. So if you think you have a defeater for my original argument, like your best objection possible, then please say it.

I will do my best to read the remaining messages.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

 

[Sapiens]

Do you? Because you seem to be rejecting a plausible truth on account of its implications for objective purpose.

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.

 

[holo]

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.

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.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

But if you'll only do good things if you're rewarded, then you're only really looking out for number one (you).

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.

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.

We could always go down the free will rabbit trail if you want, I've got a weird angle on that too.

 

[gaara4158]

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.

No, pragmatism is about defining facts by their implications, not about choosing what to care about.

Truth being subjective (as in relative and unfixed) is a contradiction in terms. I will never espouse that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Now, it's true that we can't have perfect epistemic certainty, and sometimes our cognitive faculties indeed feed us false information. But the fact that we're able to recognize that means that generally, our faculties are indeed reliable, and if you're going to insist that no one has defended the idea that evolution could reasonably be expected to produce reliable cognitive faculties you have to deal with the above reasoning.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't think I've said much about freedom in this thread. I'm not even sure about where I stand re: free will. What I will say is that your personal meaning, your life's purpose, your goals, etc. don't need to be "true" in the sense that someone else has decided them for you. They just have to be good enough to keep you motivated, engaged, and satisfied. Their job isn't to make sure you comply to some objective standard, their job is to keep you wanting to live. Nihilism doesn't do that, so my worldview doesn't actually allow for nihilism at all.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

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.

P2. I agree with that then.

P3. I do think it's because commanded it. But like you say, he also hardwired it into us so that we don't have any excuse to do evil.

P4. My point still stands.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

Welcome back!

"Our everyday commonsense intuition is often wrong. Math, science, and logic tell us this."

Do you have a reason to believe it is wrong? A reason more obvious and compelling than the intuition itself? And science, math and logic work on the basic intuition that there is a reality and that we can relate to it accurately, even if not always. Which is premiss 2 of my argument.

"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."

As in moral significance, purpose.

"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."

Well, that is arrogant, and untrue. Premiss two is easily supported. You yourself accept it. I have explained why naturalism fails at premiss 1 and why God succeeds. Refuting my claims is your job.

"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."

Come on, don't play dumb with me. You don't get up in the morning knowing your life is pointless and that it doesn't matter what you do today. You do thinking it matters. The basic idea of science is to discover reality. Conform with premiss 2. Do you now withold the plethora of objections to knowledge you had? Can science bring us any kind of meaningful knowledge in your sight?

Yes, I will remove my evil bias that my life has value and purpose. Then hang myself. Sure thing mate.

"Do you mean cause and effect? I'd agree. Do you mean purpose? If so, does God have a purpose?"

Purpose yes. That was the conversation topic. Sure, God has a purpose. I don't know it exactly like that on the spot, probably for each person of the trinity to love one another. The son does the will of the father, that Jesus has said. God's purpose must be determined by his nature and identity.

"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?"

No. It isn't what I want. Even your fellow atheists here agreed with this. It wasn't obvious to me no, to worship God. I had to be told and discover it. But looking back now, it should be obvious. We are well deluded. I have no reason to believe God wants us to be unhappy and miserable, quite the opposite.

"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."

I'm sure you're intelligent enough to know that wasn't what I was saying. Accusing me of fallacies gratuitously will not help you. We weren't even talking about warrant for our views. Just what belief in God or not will entail for meaning and value. Don't be intellectually dishonest.

"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."

Uuum, because he said so. You don't need to understand for it to be true. God gave a time for rebellion, that time is nearing its end rapidly. You better get on the boat quick. (Hint: Jesus is the boat)

"Then don't invent one."

That's what I'm saying! I found the real deal. It's called Jesus Christ died for my sins so I could have eternal life with my creator. You should try it out If you think you did already, then try again.

"Do you imply that there could be a purpose which overrides a "lesser" purpose?"

Well yes. There are numerous subpurposes. All branching down from the ultimate one.

"Because...?"

Well, we're getting into the moral argument, but it works the same way as this argument basically. Only a person gives meaning or purpose to things. A rock can't. Nature can't do it either. Only a person values things.

"Meaning what, exactly?"

A supreme, absolute, and eternal being. The stopping point of reality.

"Very close to appealing to consequences fallacy!"

Uh, no. Knowing that your life has value and meaning is a basic form of evidence. We can use this knowledge to deduce other things, like the existence of God. In any case, here, we deduced the other way around that without God there is no meaning or value in an objective sense. I was in agreement on that with my fellow debaters.

"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?"

Well that's a silly question. You should know my answer. Maybe you skimmed too much.

I guess you are in the proud atheists category. Do you own up to your beliefs that life is valueless and purposeless objectively and that we can only invent such things, thus deluding ourselves?

Don't take me for a fool. You know full well I don't reject it because it hurts my little feelings. I reject it because it's false, sir.

"Those are good things."

Only legitimately available to a theistic worldview, but yes.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

Why should you doubt them? Well, it's the default position. It's a self evident truth.

You may see it, but not recognize it. Honestly, everything screams design!

 

[Sapiens]

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?

Reality is the object, our mind the subject, and truth the action that unites both in harmony. The calling is from God, that's the point of the argument.

 

[holo]

Why should you doubt them? Well, it's the default position. It's a self evident truth.

Are you saying the existence of objective morality is self evident, or purpose, or both?

Morality is subject to change. If it were self evident that it's objective, then at the very least we would have to see some truly universal moral values. I don't see how it's self evident at all. Evolution has a completely reasonable explanation for it.

And if purpose is objective, it would be reasonable to assume that we all knew what that purpose was. For example, if God created us with a particular purpose in mind, it makes no sense that he would leave it up to us to figure it out, which we evidently can't.

You may see it, but not recognize it. Honestly, everything screams design!

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.

 

[holo]

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.

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.

P4. My point still stands.

You're right that I can't be objectively immoral if there is no objective morality to deviate from.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

P1 & P2. You are contradicting yourself. It can or will be better? You can't make tomorrow better any more than the past, on determinism. You can only hope. Free will means we are the cause, not that we have received 0 influenced.

Coming back to morality, how do you know your moral intuition should be denied?

P4. Ok. That's not worth much to me honestly. My opinion is that you're wrong.

P5. You are delusional then. That's my point. You are deceived.

Last paragraph. There is no truth without God. That's my whole thread.

 

[Sapiens]

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 don't want to start another thread on this, but would you mind naming some of those reasons? I'm curious.