The Double Edged Sword

[Uber Genius]

No offense, but you don't know what my worldview is...so I've got no idea what makes you think that you can find "experts" on it.

5 lines down on your profile below your avitar is the description of your religious view.

"ATHEIST" is what your have recorded.

So I generously gave you arguments for why atheists reject the view you are espousing so you couldn't go, " Well that is what you say."

If you are undecided about whether such claims about God's existence are true or false then you want to change that profile attribute from "Atheist," to "Agnostic," or "Seeker."

But it doesn't change the content of the argument for God from the existence of moral values and duties. It works the same no matter who is arguing. Point was a rhetorical one. Namely, start from a place where many agree the premise is true.

 

[Uber Genius]

Intersubjectivity - Wikipedia

If we reject beauty as being objective, that doesn't necessarily mean we believe beauty is arbitrary, in the sense of being random or the result of purely individual experience.



That assumes an objective world, apart from minds that can observe the world, actually exists.

First:

"philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, is the psychological relation between PEOPLE. It is usually used in contrast to solipsistic individual experience, emphasizing our inherently social being."
Intersubjectivity - Wikipedia

This is SUBJECTIVE. Or subject-dependent. You needed to ask "who was having the relation (Psychological relations don't happ[en with objects." Known as a category mistake. Thought I told you not to drink from that well, it is poison.

"If we reject beauty as being objective, that doesn't necessarily mean we believe beauty is arbitrary, in the sense of being random or the result of purely individual experience."

Here the author starts with ontological category answering, "What is the nature of existence?" And then shifts unexplainably to a discussion of a person's experience which is EPISTEMIC, OR ASKS HOW DOES A PERSON KNOW OR EXPERIENCE MORAL TRUTHS."

So again... This is a category error that switches from what grounds something to what is experienced by humans.

That is also why I discourage people from using WIKI. And suggest Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

If we eliminate the fallacy we are back to two inferences (ontologically) subjective and objective. No false dilemma after all.

 

[FireDragon76]

First:

"philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, is the psychological relation between PEOPLE. It is usually used in contrast to solipsistic individual experience, emphasizing our inherently social being."
Intersubjectivity - Wikipedia

This is SUBJECTIVE. Or subject-dependent. You needed to ask "who was having the relation (Psychological relations don't happ[en with objects." Known as a category mistake. Thought I told you not to drink from that well, it is poison.

An assertion which you have failed to demonstrate.

"If we reject beauty as being objective, that doesn't necessarily mean we believe beauty is arbitrary, in the sense of being random or the result of purely individual experience."

Here the author starts with ontological category answering, "What is the nature of existence?" And then shifts unexplainably to a discussion of a person's experience which is EPISTEMIC, OR ASKS HOW DOES A PERSON KNOW OR EXPERIENCE MORAL TRUTHS."

So again... This is a category error that switches from what grounds something to what is experienced by humans.

If something is real but cannot be experienced by humans... how is that different from talking about the Emperor's New Clothes?

 

[Uber Genius]

An assertion which you have failed to demonstrate.

That almost sounds educated.

Please lookup category error and then reread the description before you reply again. I want to engage and both learn and help others learn, but I "Ignore" all who fake knowledge as they are wasting my time.

Let me know if you have any compensation questions and save the clever remarks for the atheists out here who are faking knowledge.

 

[Uber Genius]

If something is real but cannot be experienced by humans... how is that different from talking about the Emperor's New Clothes?

So this is an excellent question.

Was Newton wrong about his understanding of his laws of physics and their action on objects in our solar system?

Yes. We know now ( thanks to Einstein's GTR) that he was wrong.

Einstein has not given us a proper view of how matter interacts with matter either, we have over 12 quantum mechanical interpretations and we don't yet know which if any are correct.

Point is that the universe has operated in the same fashion physics-wise since 10 to the -34 power seconds. So ontologically it has not changed. But our understanding of it, our knowledge, only showed up with sentient humans recording inferences, prehistoric science, say 10,000 years ago. And epistemically, we are still struggling to build out our understanding.

But our understanding of physics doesn't impact physics.

Further if moral duties exist or beauty exists as a function of God's goodness, or his understanding of the perfect or beautiful then they are objective (outside of influence or origin by humans).

Now don't get confused here. We are looking for origins. All truths, whether subjective or objective are perceived (epistemically) by subjects.

Point is what is their origin not our perception.

Where did moral duty arise? From God's concept of what is best in any circumstance (an external standard) (Objective)
or did humans just make it up by voting (Subjective)?

If it is psychological ( a function of a human brain) then it is subjective.

See: Warrant for the Moral Argument’s Second Premiss | Reasonable Faith

 

[FireDragon76]

So this is an excellent question.

Was Newton wrong about his understanding of his laws of physics and their action on objects in our solar system?

Yes. We know now ( thanks to Einstein's GTR) that he was wrong.

Einstein has not given us a proper view of how matter interacts with matter either, we have over 12 quantum mechanical interpretations and we don't yet know which if any are correct.

Point is that the universe has operated in the same fashion physics-wise since 10 to the -34 power seconds. So ontologically it has not changed. But our understanding of it, our knowledge, only showed up with sentient humans recording inferences, prehistoric science, say 10,000 years ago. And epistemically, we are still struggling to build out our understanding.

But our understanding of physics doesn't impact physics.

It seems to me this assumes there is a mind-independent universe that actually exists. And that things like "physics" exist in reality, and are not just abstractions or synthetic knowledge based on what we observe.

Further if moral duties exist or beauty exists as a function of God's goodness, or his understanding of the perfect or beautiful then they are objective (outside of influence or origin by humans).

That's not typically what subjectivity means.

 

[Uber Genius]

It seems to me this assumes there is a mind-independent universe that actually exists.

Assuming is the wrong word. I would infer it based on a number of things:

I take my memories of past events to be real.
I take my perceptions of the external world to be real.
I take my experiences of engagement with other people to be real.
I take testimony by other people to be real.
I take rational inferences about the world to be real.

All are defeasible, but all are generally reliable and more likely to be true then any premise I would have to accept in order to accept an argument for idealism. Who exactly do you think you are engaging out here on CF? Are you a solopsist?

For the reasons above we don't see too many idealist anymore. (I think Keith Ward claims to be one.) I Thought you were all dead.

So if need to distinguish between realism and anti-realism. What would it mean to be a Christian if there is no external world?

What would Christ's death on the cross entail if there were no such things as crosses?



Ontology specifies grounding, nature, and attributes
Epistemology specifies how humans know.

It was true in the Jurasic age that E=mc2

but it wasn't known until 1905

clearly how we know a thing is different that the thing in itself.

Further it is only on a radical Cartesian or Kantian skepticism that we would accept the proposition of idealism, but we know the error of modernism was to continue with the false rubric of certainty of knowledge.

Because I'm limited in knowledge and can't prove to a certainty I'm not a brain in a vat, it is not the least bit unreasonable to believe in a external world, reality of other minds, and reality of the past.

But if you are an idealist then physics would be less true than any fairy tail. That is a world where God created a world whereby the majority of humans misperceived all of God's creation as real instead of just ideas in an endless dream state. Bizaar.

That's not typically what subjectivity means.

Obviously, Objective means without reference to subjects.

The details of how that works out as "Grounded in God's attributes," goes into theology proper.

 

[FireDragon76]

Assuming is the wrong word. I would infer it based on a number of things:

I take my memories of past events to be real.
I take my perceptions of the external world to be real.
I take my experiences of engagement with other people to be real.
I take testimony by other people to be real.
I take rational inferences about the world to be real.

That's called naive realism, and hardly reflects an intellectually sophisticated approach to philosophy.

All are defeasible, but all are generally reliable and more likely to be true then any premise I would have to accept in order to accept an argument for idealism. Who exactly do you think you are engaging out here on CF? Are you a solopsist?

I'm skeptically inclined, and dismissive of many arguments for theism. I look at William James pragmatic approach as much more defensible.

For the reasons above we don't see too many idealist anymore. (I think Keith Ward claims to be one.) I Thought you were all dead.

I've never considered myself to be one in a dogmatic sense.

So if need to distinguish between realism and anti-realism. What would it mean to be a Christian if there is no external world?

I never said there was no external world, I just suggested there is no mind-independent one.

What would Christ's death on the cross entail if there were no such things as crosses?

Does Christ's death have a single, absolute meaning? I've never seen that suggested in Christian tradition. It seems to me the Christian tradition recognizes several meanings in Jesus' death.

It was true in the Jurasic age that E=mc2

Last time I checked, dinosaurs didn't have algebra, much less number systems.

Further it is only on a radical Cartesian or Kantian skepticism that we would accept the proposition of idealism, but we know the error of modernism was to continue with the false rubric of certainty of knowledge.

You're the one arguing for certainties that cannot be experienced by humans.

Rubbishing Kant isn't exactly helping your case. But it's typical for those with weak arguments to attack something that threatens their fragile certainties.

Because I'm limited in knowledge and can't prove to a certainty I'm not a brain in a vat, it is not the least bit unreasonable to believe in a external world, reality of other minds, and reality of the past.

It may be pragmatic and useful but I don't see how it's any more reasonable than the alternatives.

That is a world where God created a world whereby the majority of humans misperceived all of God's creation as real instead of just ideas in an endless dream state.

Many philosophical-religious traditions, particularly those that have focused on subjectivity, have observed that our ordinary consciousness is dream-like, so I would say that viewpoint is credible and contributes to human flourishing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Namely, start from a place where many agree the premise is true.

So...you're starting with an ad populum fallacy.

 

[Uber Genius]

So...you're starting with an ad populum fallacy.

I think you are conflating informal logic with standards of rhetoric.

if what you are saying is true then the only ones who could accept any argument would be ones who also reject the premises that argument is built on!

So clearly that is self-refuting. But here is an example:

Premise 1 - Anything that begins to exist has a cause

Premise 2 - The universe began to exist.

So just about every scientist in history can agree with those premises it seems.

Argument - therefore the universe has a cause.

This argument is more controversial. But it follows logically from the two premises.

Similarly all men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore Socrates is mortal

If agreeing with the two premises is as you suggest an argument to the masses and fallacious then it is illogical to conclude Socrates is mortal.

Clearly something has gone wrong.

Typically the ad populum fallacy concludes that an argument is true because most beleive it to be true.

There are no premises, no real logical arguments, just the statment that since the majority of people beleive something to be the case then we should accept the claim.

Example: the majority of people in the history of the world have believed in God or gods Therefore it we should beleive in God or gods.

Notice the premise and argument have no relation to one another.

So as an atheist you might want to argue that

Premise 1 God if he exists is all-good and is loving
Premise 2 God is all powerful and all-knowing
Premise 3 evil exists
Therefore God doesn't exist

The theist would agree with everyone one of your premises above.

You are clearly not appealing to some popular vote in any of those premises.

You are appealing to the evidence for evil and suffering and for claims by various theologians that God has the properties in p1 and p2.

You would be making a valid argument where theists and atheists alike all agreed with your premises.

Hope this helps.

 

[Uber Genius]

I'm skeptically inclined, and dismissive of many arguments for theism. I look at William James pragmatic approach as much more defensible.

so I find his engagement of Clifford helpful. And beleive evidentialism to be flawed.

That's called naive realism, and hardly reflects an intellectually sophisticated approach to philosophy.

I will ignore your attempt at intellectual snobbery.

Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Section 4 will show how epistemologists try and justify knowledge by appealing to:

Perceptions
Introspection
Memories
Reasoning

I've never considered myself to be one in a dogmatic sense.

So where I think we might go is a fuller description of what you believe in terms of your variety of idealism, it sounds like Berkeley.

never said there was no external world, I just suggested there is no mind-independent one.

So this would mean the universe didn't exist until humans developed to introspect about the universe's existence? Please explain.

Does Christ's death have a single, absolute meaning? I've never seen that suggested in Christian tradition. It seems to me the Christian tradition recognizes several meanings in Jesus' de

So Christians must affirm an externalmworld and other minds long before they except truth claims about Jesus! That is my point.

Last time I checked, dinosaurs didn't have algebra, much less number systems.

So this just goes to the definition of objectively true without reference to humans knowing they are true. See above.

Algebra / math seems necessarily true whether any human perceived it or not.

You're the one arguing for certainties that cannot be experienced by humans.

No. That was the scholastics thought and Descartes mistake. I hold that the five methods the scholarly article above references as ways of justifying knowledge are all defeasible!

Rubbishing Kant isn't exactly helping your case. But it's typical for those with weak arguments to attack something that threatens their fragile certainties.

Again, goading and appeals to intellectual snobbery are not helping your case.

I'm trying to figure out what you believe and why. I and others have brought up Kant because your comments vaguely resemble some of his, others do not.

I think Kant was reacting to the rationalists and the empiricists regarding problems with both views. His criticisms seem valid and I agree that we have limits to our knowledge, but I think he relied to heavily on Descartes cogito.

Further I have been generous and accurate in my reflection regarding Kant. But if you disagree, by all means take my specific claims (sans strawen) and help us understand how they don't represent Kant with counter-arguments rather than generic complaints.

Many philosophical-religious traditions, particularly those that have focused on subjectivity, have observed that our ordinary consciousness is dream-like, so I would say that viewpoint is credible and contributes to human flourishing.

I don't think my dreams are a way of knowing or justifying knowledge.

But we have to get to an understanding of what your view is of a real external world and if memories and testimonies by other minds are a valid way of justifying knowledge. If not it seems we can throw out not just Christianity but all historical knowledge. And references to the Bible would be absurd on such a view it seems.

Help me further understand your view.

 

[Uber Genius]

It seems to me this assumes there is a mind-independent universe that actually exists. And that things like "physics" exist in reality, and are not just abstractions or synthetic knowledge based on what we observe.

not things like physics. I take it to be a construct of human knowledge about a real external world.

That's not typically what subjectivity means.

So I said,

"
Further if moral duties exist or beauty exists as a function of God's goodness, or his understanding of the perfect or beautiful then they are objective (outside of influence or origin by humans)."

And you responded,

"That's not typically what subjectivity means."

Correct. It is what "Objective," means. So if I understand you correctly, there is nothing that is objective.

It is as if we were all trapped in the Matrix. Or am I misperceiving you?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Premise 1 - Anything that begins to exist has a cause

Quantum Foam, Virtual Particles and Other Curiosities

Virtual particles "begin to exist" uncaused.

Premise 2 - The universe began to exist.

Well....the universe "as we know it" began to exist. Before that, it was a very dense anomaly. As of now, that's as far back as we can look.

Since your premises and what you wrote about "scientists" is wrong...I just cut it.

Clearly something has gone wrong.

Clearly lol.

Typically the ad populum fallacy concludes that an argument is true because most beleive it to be true.

I can quote you if you wish.

So as an atheist you might want to argue that

Premise 1 God if he exists is all-good and is loving
Premise 2 God is all powerful and all-knowing
Premise 3 evil exists
Therefore God doesn't exist

I wouldn't argue this.

 

[Uber Genius]

Virtual particles "begin to exist" uncaused.

No. You are misunderstanding the scientific claims.

I highlight these misrepresentations in a thread I started 18 months ago where I point out Larry Krauss's equivocation (logical fallacy) of the term "Nothing."

See Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 2)

I posted:

In 2012 he wrote a book called "A universe from Nothing."

Krauss writes, in the first two pages of chapter 10 ,"Nothing is Unstable," :

1 - Nothing is made of "Empty space is complicated."
2 - Nothing contains a "boiling brew of virtual particles"
3 - "strength of the energy [SIC] field has to be huge"
4 - "Nothing is unstable"
5 - "follows the rules of quantum mechanics"
6 - "Never the less, all these phenomena imply that under the right conditions not only nothing can become something, but it is required to."

Oxford dictionary defines "nothing" properly as "Not anything!" Having no attributes!

Nothing has "no space" not "empty space!"
Nothing has no boiling brew of virtual particles
Nothing has no energy field
Nothing has no instability
Nothing has no quantum mechanics laws acting on it
Nothing has no phenomena, no right conditions, and no requirements.

Scientist agree that the universe began to exist in the sense of the Oxford meaning not Krauss's equivocation.

Well....the universe "as we know it" began to exist. Before that, it was a very dense anomaly.

See above.

Your are repeating Krauss's equivocation.

Since your premises and what you wrote about "scientists" is wrong...I just cut it.

Since I have identified that you have just misrepresented science as Krauss does I will ignore your mistake above.

Clearly lol.

After investing quite an amount of time to help you understand how appeals to popular opinion work and how your misrepresentation of my rhetorical appeal to premises your opponent believes are true, as a fallacy. I find this response to be baffling. Your misrepresentation destroys all logical claims if true. And yet when you find this out your response is "Clearly, LOL."

"Like hey dude, I just destroyed all knowledge to prove someone who disagrees with me about God's existence is wrong, idnt dat kool," hardly seems like you grasp what is going on here.

I can quote you if you wish.

All I ask is to stop misrepresenting me, my statements, logic, knowledge, and science. Seems like a reasonable request.

I wouldn't argue this.

You wouldn't argue the only valid argument for atheist that has been offered in all our posts? The one argument that every apologist arguing for atheism argues since Epicurus has argued?

At least that is consistent.

I tried to help and engage in a way that could move the conversation forward. I went as far as to deliver an argument for atheism on a platter. This is not a productive use of my time.

Misrepresenting me, my statements, logic, knowledge, and science is one thing, but ignoring help on how to logically support your atheistic contention is absurd. You have earned the coveted and rare "Ignored" status.

 

[Moral Orel]

Scientist agree that the universe began to exist in the sense of the Oxford meaning not Krauss's equivocation.

LOL! No they don't! You repeat this lie just as often as YECs ask "Why can't evolution tell us where life started, huh?"

 

[Ana the Ist]

No. You are misunderstanding the scientific claims.

No...I'm not. From the article....

"It turns out that getting something from nothing is just business as usual for virtual particles."

That's about as clear as it gets. Something coming from nothing.

Now, if you want to deny science....that's fine. You're hardly the first christian to do that.

Since I have identified that you have just misrepresented science as Krauss does I will ignore your mistake above.

Try reading the article this time.

As for "The Big Bang" it doesn't claim to be able to explain anything before the extremely dense singularity of energy and matter.

After investing quite an amount of time to help you understand how appeals to popular opinion work and how your misrepresentation of my rhetorical appeal to premises your opponent believes are true, as a fallacy.

You're admitting here that you're arguing against me based on what other "atheists" have said. If you can't argue against me....then don't reply. I don't have to validate nor argue on behalf of "other atheists". It's not an ideology.

I find this response to be baffling. Your misrepresentation destroys all logical claims if true. And yet when you find this out your response is "Clearly, LOL."

"Like hey dude, I just destroyed all knowledge to prove someone who disagrees with me about God's existence is wrong, idnt dat kool," hardly seems like you grasp what is going on here.

It was ironic to me. That's all I meant by "clearly".

All I ask is to stop misrepresenting me, my statements, logic, knowledge, and science. Seems like a reasonable request.

You said this...

"Namely, start from a place where many agree the premise is true."

That's an ad populum fallacy. You want me to agree that a premise is "true" for no reason other than "many agree" that it's true.

I haven't misrepresented you at all.

You wouldn't argue the only valid argument for atheist that has been offered in all our posts? The one argument that every apologist arguing for atheism argues since Epicurus has argued?

At least that is consistent.

My atheism is nothing more than the claim that your claims about god are unfounded.

I'm not arguing about the "problem of evil" because as I've already said....morality isn't objective. It's entirely subjective and circumstantial. I said at the beginning....I've never heard a good argument for objective morality, and so far, nothing that you've posted here has changed that.

I haven't misrepresented you or science. All you've done so far is try to argue against arguments I haven't made... and tried to build off of premises that science doesn't agree with.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No. You are misunderstanding the scientific claims.

I highlight these misrepresentations in a thread I started 18 months ago where I point out Larry Krauss's equivocation (logical fallacy) of the term "Nothing."

See Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 2)

I posted:

In 2012 he wrote a book called "A universe from Nothing."

Krauss writes, in the first two pages of chapter 10 ,"Nothing is Unstable," :

1 - Nothing is made of "Empty space is complicated."
2 - Nothing contains a "boiling brew of virtual particles"
3 - "strength of the energy [SIC] field has to be huge"
4 - "Nothing is unstable"
5 - "follows the rules of quantum mechanics"
6 - "Never the less, all these phenomena imply that under the right conditions not only nothing can become something, but it is required to."

Oxford dictionary defines "nothing" properly as "Not anything!" Having no attributes!

Nothing has "no space" not "empty space!"
Nothing has no boiling brew of virtual particles
Nothing has no energy field
Nothing has no instability
Nothing has no quantum mechanics laws acting on it
Nothing has no phenomena, no right conditions, and no requirements.

Scientist agree that the universe began to exist in the sense of the Oxford meaning not Krauss's equivocation.

See above.

Your are repeating Krauss's equivocation.



Since I have identified that you have just misrepresented science as Krauss does I will ignore your mistake above.



After investing quite an amount of time to help you understand how appeals to popular opinion work and how your misrepresentation of my rhetorical appeal to premises your opponent believes are true, as a fallacy. I find this response to be baffling. Your misrepresentation destroys all logical claims if true. And yet when you find this out your response is "Clearly, LOL."

"Like hey dude, I just destroyed all knowledge to prove someone who disagrees with me about God's existence is wrong, idnt dat kool," hardly seems like you grasp what is going on here.





All I ask is to stop misrepresenting me, my statements, logic, knowledge, and science. Seems like a reasonable request.



You wouldn't argue the only valid argument for atheist that has been offered in all our posts? The one argument that every apologist arguing for atheism argues since Epicurus has argued?

At least that is consistent.

I tried to help and engage in a way that could move the conversation forward. I went as far as to deliver an argument for atheism on a platter. This is not a productive use of my time.

Misrepresenting me, my statements, logic, knowledge, and science is one thing, but ignoring help on how to logically support your atheistic contention is absurd. You have earned the coveted and rare "Ignored" status.

Just to help you out Uber....you seem to be making the common christian mistake of looking at atheism as a unifying set of beliefs...like a worldview, or religion, or ideology.

Try to imagine it as simply the claim that there's no evidence of the existence of god...and you'll understand how I see it better.

Atheists can believe all sorts of things...so it's not as if arguing against some random atheist has anything to do with me.