The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I did make a thread about my views of how the world should require an IQ test prior to owning a Bible. I would love to hear your thoughts (and other non-christians as well).

I completely disagree, but I'll provide my thoughts in the thread.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

The explanation I gave concerning the difference between bible claims and math is my opinion; I never claimed it was objective truth. If you disagree with my explanation we can discuss that. As far as my physical body having an objective reality, is this something you disagree with?


You seem to be asking how do I know what I see is real. If I see a blue car and another person looks at the car and thinks it is the Eiffel tower, how do I know I’m right and he is wrong, and you claim this applies to math?

I say it does not apply to math because blue cars are real, the Eiffel Tower is real, the method I would employ to distinguish the differences between a physical car and the Eiffel tower is different than what I would use to prove a person is using an agreed upon system incorrectly.
With the car and tower, I would use mine and his sense of sight and touch to prove him wrong, with math I would my only option would be to show him the rules of the system. If he refuses to accept the rules, then I must accept when it comes to math we will be speaking different languages.


So you ask how do I know my body exists? To know means; To perceive or understand as factual or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty
the definition of know
In other words, just because you know something doesn’t mean you are right, it only means you perceive it as truth; which means you could still be wrong. When I say I know my body is physical, I’m saying I perceive clearly and with certainty that my body has a physical existence. Why am I so certain? Because I have no reason to believe otherwise. Perhaps this isn’t enough to convince you, but it is enough to convince me; and convincing you is not necessary for me to have knowledge.

You keep claiming we are subjective beings unable to recognize that which is objective, but you have yet to prove this as true. How do you know we are subjective beings that are unable to recognize that which is objective?

The explanation I gave concerning the difference between bible claims and math is my opinion; I never claimed it was objective truth. If you disagree with my explanation we can discuss that. As far as my physical body having an objective reality, is this something you disagree with?

It is irrelevant if we agree or disagree that you have a body. If we both said that we agree that you have a body we could both be interpreting the data incorrectly; akin to interpreting the data that made some at one point in human history to believe that the world was flat. The point I am making is how do you know (what is your point of verification) that your body objectively exists? You have not demonstrated this nor made any attempt other than to say, I see my body, I touch my body, etc. This does not demonstrate how you can confirm that you are interpreting the data correctly. To use my analogy of chemical reactions, how can you confirm that your chemical reactions are accurately interpreting what truly (objectively) exists?


You seem to be asking how do I know what I see is real. If I see a blue car and another person looks at the car and thinks it is the Eiffel tower, how do I know I’m right and he is wrong, and you claim this applies to math?

Yes, this is correct. I am asking you how you know what you see, feel, etc. is objectively real. And, yes, this applies to math. Math is a human construct, (you’ve already agreed with that point), and as a human construct what is the point of verification that the “rules” that humans created equal the “rules” of math that are objectively true? For that matter, you need to take it a step deeper and demonstrate that there are objective rules of math at all (metaphysical reality of the rules of math.) You basis for believing that there are rules to math and that they are objectively true is a human construct (subjectively true).


I say it does not apply to math because blue cars are real, the Eiffel Tower is real, the method I would employ to distinguish the differences between a physical car and the Eiffel tower is different than what I would use to prove a person is using an agreed upon system incorrectly.
With the car and tower, I would use mine and his sense of sight and touch to prove him wrong, with math I would my only option would be to show him the rules of the system. If he refuses to accept the rules, then I must accept when it comes to math we will be speaking different languages.”

To be an honest person you, by your own standards that you demand from others, must demonstrate these to prove their objectivity. For example, you say “blue cars are real, the Eiffel Tower is real,” but you say that your point of verification is your subjective senses (I would use mine and his sense of sight and touch to prove him wrong). To be honest to yourself and to others that you are debating, you need to demonstrate how your “chemical reactions” regarding sight and feel are interpreting the data correctly. You have not done this. Rather, you continually utilize circular logic. I feel the car, therefore the car exists. But, how does that demonstrate that your “chemical reactions” are interpreting the data correctly? Because I feel the car. This answers nothing other than, to be honest to yourself, you subjectively believe that the car exists because you believe that you are interpreting the data correctly.



So you ask how do I know my body exists? To know means; To perceive or understand as factual or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty
the definition of know
In other words, just because you know something doesn’t mean you are right, it only means you perceive it as truth; which means you could still be wrong. When I say I know my body is physical, I’m saying I perceive clearly and with certainty that my body has a physical existence. Why am I so certain? Because I have no reason to believe otherwise. Perhaps this isn’t enough to convince you, but it is enough to convince me; and convincing you is not necessary for me to have knowledge.

Yes! This is the most honest statement that you’ve made thus far. While the definition that you chose for knowing is incomplete, the rest of what you wrote is a de facto confession that you do not know objectively; rather, subjectively. This is the whole point that I have been making since I first posted.

However, there are consequences (derivatives) to this confession of yours. The first is that you cannot make claims of knowing objective truth and this necessarily means that when you are debating, say a Christian, regarding whether or not objective morality exists, you are either knowingly hypocritical or willfully and arrogantly ignoring the fact that you know that you are a person of faith and that you do not know if your faith is objective truth and that you demand others to accept your beliefs as objective truth.

It should be obvious to you by now that you are a subjective being who from yourself cannot make claims of knowing objectivity. You have completely and utterly failed to do this. You should accept that you believe in humanism because you choose to value the concepts, constructs, etc. from that system of knowledge; you believe that science is true and that “religion” is make believe because this reflects what you value. This is perfectly fine that you believe this, but this is only your faith. Therefore, debating as you have is either complete ignorance or an attempt at dominion over others.


You keep claiming we are subjective beings unable to recognize that which is objective, but you have yet to prove this as true. How do you know we are subjective beings that are unable to recognize that which is objective?

This is a very fair question and I promise that we can go into this, but doesn’t it make sense to complete the first order of the debate before moving onto this? Again, I will absolutely debate this with you.

 

[Ken-1122]

(Ken)
So you ask how do I know my body exists? To know means; To perceive or understand as factual or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty
the definition of know
In other words, just because you know something doesn’t mean you are right, it only means you perceive it as truth; which means you could still be wrong. When I say I know my body is physical, I’m saying I perceive clearly and with certainty that my body has a physical existence. Why am I so certain? Because I have no reason to believe otherwise. Perhaps this isn’t enough to convince you, but it is enough to convince me; and convincing you is not necessary for me to have knowledge.

(reply)
Yes! This is the most honest statement that you’ve made thus far. While the definition that you chose for knowing is incomplete,

Incomplete to who? Because it definitely isn't incomplete to me. If it's incomplete to you it doesn't matter because your opinion doesn't count when it comes to what I find convincing.

the rest of what you wrote is a de facto confession that you do not know objectively; rather, subjectively. This is the whole point that I have been making since I first posted.

Nothing new here; that which comes from the mind is subjective; but that doesn't mean I am unable to use my subjective mind to recognize that which is objective.

However, there are consequences (derivatives) to this confession of yours.

Confession? I've never claimed thoughts were objective; where are you getting this stuff?

The first is that you cannot make claims of knowing objective truth and this necessarily means that when you are debating, say a Christian, regarding whether or not objective morality exists, you are either knowingly hypocritical or willfully and arrogantly ignoring the fact that you know that you are a person of faith and that you do not know if your faith is objective truth and that you demand others to accept your beliefs as objective truth.

Do you not see the contradiction here? First you claim humans are subjective (without backing up your claim) and are unable to recognize that which is objective (again without backing up your claim) then you act as if Christians are justified in claiming morality is objective! Going by your logic, since Christians are human, and humans are unable to determine objectivity, they have no business claiming morality is objective! you can't have your cake and eat it too; ya gotta pick one bruh!

(Ken)
You keep claiming we are subjective beings unable to recognize that which is objective, but you have yet to prove this as true. How do you know we are subjective beings that are unable to recognize that which is objective?
(reply)
This is a very fair question and I promise that we can go into this, but doesn’t it make sense to complete the first order of the debate before moving onto this? Again, I will absolutely debate this with you.

No, you need to verify this claim before we go any further because you keep responding under the context that this claim has merit, and I don't think it does. That's why we keep talking past each other. When you make a claim, if you are going to respond to me under the context that your claim is true, you must first verify your claim.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I did so much better than that. I married a Junior Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics. She says people who use the anthropic principle as evidence for 'gods' have no clue what they're talking about. Her own words,

The anthropic principle refers to the fact that certain cosmological constants, like gravity being as strong as it is, the speed of light being what it is, the electromagnetic strength of atoms holding themselves together being what it is... etc... All the laws of physics are such that living organisms like us can evolve into existence (because if we're here, clearly that's evidence that the universe allows for it!). If gravity were too strong or electromagnetism too weak, or even if any other physical constant were a little bit different, matter as we know it probably wouldn't exist and living creatures certainly wouldn't.

So in many modern interpretations of cosmology, there is the "multiverse", which means that there's an infinite (or at least, functionally infinite) number of universes that are created, each with their own unique laws of physics because the initial conditions during their Big Bangs would be ever so slightly different. Think of it this way: if you could explode a firecracker a million different times, you'd get a million different arrangements of shrapnel because the chaotic effects on the explosion would yield a different situation each time. In this way, the multiverse must contain all possible universes with every possible different configuration of physical laws.

The multiverse has many problems. First, there is no empirical evidence that these other universes exist. It is basically a mathematical construct. Second, it is a case of the "gamblers fallacy". If you are standing in front of a firing squad and they all fire shots at you and yet none hit you. What would you think? Well it is quite obvious that someone has intentionally tampered with the guns or the shooters all intentionally missed you. Would you think it was all just an accident? No, that would be an irrational conclusion, so it is with the universe that supports human life. We exist because Someone as intentionally rigged the scenario.

efm: So, with an infinite number of possible universes, all with possible different configurations of physical laws, the logic is that the VAST VAST majority of these universes would have a physics such that matter as we know it could not form, and that life as we know it therefore could not evolve. There would only be a tiny fraction of universes that actually have the proper initial conditions to precipitate matter and eventually evolve life.

The thing is, this is absolutely NOT evidence for a supernatural creator. We happen to live in a universe that is conducive to life because *you can't live in a universe that isn't!*.

Actually, even if there is a multi-verse it would require a beginning, and therefore a cause.

efm: All the other questions about "something coming from nothing" are also entirely

[expletive deleted] because it precludes our knowledge of Emergence and the very clear, real science that COMPLEXITY DOES IN FACT EMERGE FROM SIMPLER SYSTEMS. Period. There is no need for an intelligent designer.

Is it any wonder that people in physics and astronomy are the least likely to be theistic, of all scientific fields? Only to creationists, I suppose.

What is your evidence that the universe can just emerge? Actually even Stephen Hawking up until recently believed that there was a creator. Biologists are the least theistic. BTW, God is very simple too, He is only made up of three parts.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

The multiverse has many problems. First, there is no empirical evidence that these other universes exist. It is basically a mathematical construct. Second, it is a case of the "gamblers fallacy". If you are standing in front of a firing squad and they all fire shots at you and yet none hit you. What would you think? Well it is quite obvious that someone has intentionally tampered with the guns or the shooters all intentionally missed you. Would you think it was all just an accident? No, that would be an irrational conclusion, so it is with the universe that supports human life. We exist because Someone as intentionally rigged the scenario.

No, really. You're having a hard enough time as it is defending your moral philosophy. You can stop pretending to know more about astronomy than the experts. It's embarrassing.

No one who has a clue what they're talking about thinks the anthropic principle is evidence for a 'creator'. You will never see that outside creationist propaganda mills. It is, at best, an utterly arbitrary observation to make on that behalf. You could pick out any other feature of the universe - the amount of hydrogen molecules, to pick one example out of trillions - and make the exact same argument, that the universe is 'fine tuned' for this amount of hydrogen molecules.

In fact, you'd have a better case, since hydrogen molecules are much, much more abundant than life. The only reason you've chosen 'life' out of trillions of other candidate features is that it happens to be important to your theology.

And you have the fallacy exactly backwards. You are a rain puddle, marveling at how the hole you are in must have been made with you in mind, because you fit into it so neatly. When in fact it's the other way around - you adapted to fit into the hole that was already in place.

What is your evidence that the universe can just emerge?

What do you mean 'just emerge'? Do you mean, emerge ex nihilo? I don't believe it emerged ex nihilo. You do. So you tell me.

Actually even Stephen Hawking up until recently believed that there was a creator.

No he didn't. Ever. He, like Einstein, liked to use theistic-sounding language in his writing, but they were both Spinozists. Spinozists do not believe in a 'creator' in any sense that you do.

Biologists are the least theistic.

Nope. Physicists and astronomers are. Not by much, but they are. At least, as of 2009.

Scientists and Belief

I don't know of any more recent, far-reaching studies than that. There is an older one that puts them virtually neck and neck with biologists, but not one that I am aware of that puts them behind biologists. The only other one I've found - SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research - does not break down belief rates between the two, but lumps them together.

You should really stop and think before you say things that are very easily refutable.

Or don't. By all means, keep making an example of yourself.

 

[Strathos]

Here's a philosophical question: Wouldn't the existence of a multiverse be more consistent with an all-powerful creator, as a God who reigned over infinite universes would be infinitely greater than a God who reigned over just one?

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

Incomplete to who? Because it definitely isn't incomplete to me. If it's incomplete to you it doesn't matter because your opinion doesn't count when it comes to what I find convincing.


Nothing new here; that which comes from the mind is subjective; but that doesn't mean I am unable to use my subjective mind to recognize that which is objective.


Confession? I've never claimed thoughts were objective; where are you getting this stuff?



Do you not see the contradiction here? First you claim humans are subjective (without backing up your claim) and are unable to recognize that which is objective (again without backing up your claim) then you act as if Christians are justified in claiming morality is objective! Going by your logic, since Christians are human, and humans are unable to determine objectivity, they have no business claiming morality is objective! you can't have your cake and eat it too; ya gotta pick one bruh!


No, you need to verify this claim before we go any further because you keep responding under the context that this claim has merit, and I don't think it does. That's why we keep talking past each other. When you make a claim, if you are going to respond to me under the context that your claim is true, you must first verify your claim.

Incomplete to who? Because it definitely isn't incomplete to me. If it's incomplete to you it doesn't matter because your opinion doesn't count when it comes to what I find convincing.

I have been expecting these types of “I get to define” the answers, answers. The definition is incomplete by academic and scientific standards. It is also expected that you’d state that “my opinion doesn’t count when it comes to what I find convincing.” As I detailed in my last post, your values are based upon the humanist faith. Also, the scientific studies show that such behavior as you are demonstrating is common in these situations.


Nothing new here; that which comes from the mind is subjective; but that doesn't mean I am unable to use my subjective mind to recognize that which is objective.

How are you able to do this? You have not answered this other than to use circular logic and none of your circular logic demonstrates how you know that your “subjective mind recognizes” objectivity.


Confession? I've never claimed thoughts were objective; where are you getting this stuff?

From the necessary consequences of your earlier posts where you argued that the “rules of math” are objective and that the rules of math are a social construct. In these statements you, apparently unwittingly, are indeed arguing that thoughts are able to know objectivity. Now, in your last post you write: “In other words, just because you know something doesn’t mean you are right, it only means you perceive it as truth; which means you could still be wrong.” It is a logical contradiction to posit that you know objectivity, but that you could be wrong about X’s objectivity. Therefore, because you spent many posts attempting to defend your earlier held position that you know objectivity (the rules of math), and now you admit that your thoughts could be perceiving “the rules of math” incorrectly, it is an easy logic deduction to state that you’ve made such a confession.


Do you not see the contradiction here? First you claim humans are subjective (without backing up your claim) and are unable to recognize that which is objective (again without backing up your claim) then you act as if Christians are justified in claiming morality is objective! Going by your logic, since Christians are human, and humans are unable to determine objectivity, they have no business claiming morality is objective! you can't have your cake and eat it too; ya gotta pick one bruh!

Perhaps you have are confusing my posts with another’s, but, to date, I have made no such claim.


No, you need to verify this claim before we go any further because you keep responding under the context that this claim has merit, and I don't think it does. That's why we keep talking past each other. When you make a claim, if you are going to respond to me under the context that your claim is true, you must first verify your claim.

Again, to date, I’ve made no such claim. Rather, I’ve only challenged your ability to know objectivity; which you have failed to demonstrate that you do. Also, I do not agree that you are “talking past” me; I’ve understood your every point. However, I do see how you feel that I have been “talking past” you.


Respectfully,

T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

I have been expecting these types of “I get to define” the answers, answers. The definition is incomplete by academic and scientific standards. It is also expected that you’d state that “my opinion doesn’t count when it comes to what I find convincing.” As I detailed in my last post, your values are based upon the humanist faith. Also, the scientific studies show that such behavior as you are demonstrating is common in these situations.

I’m not familiar with the Humanist faith, but if they agree with me, perhaps they’re right!
As far as presenting an argument to the satisfaction of science and academic standards, I’m only telling you why I believe the way I do so the only standard needed to be met is my own. You could believe we all are just a brain in a vat hooked up to a computer feeding us thoughts like in the movie Matrix; as far as I’m concerned.

(Ken) Nothing new here; that which comes from the mind is subjective; but that doesn't mean I am unable to use my subjective mind to recognize that which is objective.

(reply) How are you able to do this? You have not answered this other than to use circular logic and none of your circular logic demonstrates how you know that your “subjective mind recognizes” objectivity.

I provided you a dictionary definition of objective and you refused to accept the definition while refusing to provide your own definition. If you refuse to accept the definition I provided, until you provide your definition of objective we will only be speaking a different language when it ones to the objective/subjective argument, because I will have no idea what you are talking about.

(Ken)Confession? I've never claimed thoughts were objective; where are you getting this stuff?

(reply)From the necessary consequences of your earlier posts where you argued that the “rules of math” are objective and that the rules of math are a social construct. In these statements you, apparently unwittingly, are indeed arguing that thoughts are able to know objectivity. Now, in your last post you write: “In other words, just because you know something doesn’t mean you are right, it only means you perceive it as truth; which means you could still be wrong.” It is a logical contradiction to posit that you know objectivity, but that you could be wrong about X’s objectivity. Therefore, because you spent many posts attempting to defend your earlier held position that you know objectivity (the rules of math), and now you admit that your thoughts could be perceiving “the rules of math” incorrectly, it is an easy logic deduction to state that you’ve made such a confession.

I also presented you the dictionary definition of what it means to know. (you’ve no doubt rejected that definition also) If you understand how I and the dictionary defines what it means to know, you will see there is no contradiction at all.

(Ken)Do you not see the contradiction here? First you claim humans are subjective (without backing up your claim) and are unable to recognize that which is objective (again without backing up your claim) then you act as if Christians are justified in claiming morality is objective! Going by your logic, since Christians are human, and humans are unable to determine objectivity, they have no business claiming morality is objective! you can't have your cake and eat it too; ya gotta pick one bruh!

(reply)Perhaps you have are confusing my posts with another’s, but, to date, I have made no such claim.

Post #1957 you said:
To know objectively is to know via some reference point that is able to differentiate objectivity from subjectivity. You, and I for that matter, being subjective, finite beings wholly lack this ability. Therefore, to postulate any concept as objective truth can only be discounted as not a serious intellectual position, but rather a faith statement. Knowing objectivity necessarily means that one can point to, cite, etc. a frame of reference where “all creation” (for lack of a better term) is subjected to it.
Those were your exact words. Care to try again?

I
(Ken)No, you need to verify this claim before we go any further because you keep responding under the context that this claim has merit, and I don't think it does. That's why we keep talking past each other. When you make a claim, if you are going to respond to me under the context that your claim is true, you must first verify your claim.

(reply)Again, to date, I’ve made no such claim. Rather, I’ve only challenged your ability to know objectivity; which you have failed to demonstrate that you do.

No, you did make the claim that we are subjective beings unable to recognize objectivity; again post #1957.
Again; if you are going to respond under this assumption, you need to make the case first.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
If there is no God, then that is where morality comes from since that is where you come from. Right?
ken: No.

So you are denying that humans are the result of evolution?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
If we are a product of evolution then everything about us is a product of evolution including morality.

ken: No. And I do not come from evolution.

So where did humans come from? Aliens from space?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
If everything you are experiencing right now is a realistic dream including the entire outside world then there is no objective reality. So how do you or any atheist know that there is an objective reality and everything is not just a realistic dream you are having?

ken: None of my dreams are realistic. Things regularly operate outside the laws of nature and logic in my dreams. I might be in a fast car being chased by the cops at one moment, then the car I’m driving could instantly turn into a bicycle and the cops turn into a dog and the dog is chasing me. things like this never happen in reality, but constantly happen in my dreams.

I am talking about what you are experiencing right now when you read my posts. How do you know you are not dreaming right now when you are reading my posts. And my messages are just a dream you are experiencing?

ken: How do you as a Christian know this is not just a realistic dream you are having?

We know it is very likely not to be dream because at the origin of the universe there was a subject, God, and therefore a subject-object correlation was established. So that there is a correlation between what a subject (humans) observe and what is really there (objects). But if there was no God at the origin, that meant there were just objects, so no correlation could be established because no subject existed at the origin of the universe.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So you concede the point?
ken: So your question was;
And why and how can the universe operate in an orderly and intelligible way without an intelligent creator?

My response;
the same way a coral reef could be made in an intelligible way without an intelligent creator.

But corals are just a part of the universe and are "programmed and designed" to make a coral reef, so how did they get that ability? We can study coral reels and because the universe is orderly and intelligible we can determine how the coral makes the reef. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to. So you are not looking at the big picture.

 

[the iconoclast]

You seem to be asking how do I know what I see is real. If I see a blue car and another person looks at the car and thinks it is the Eiffel tower, how do I know I’m right and he is wrong, and you claim this applies to math?

Hey hey lets start here.

Say i saw a blue car and atm you were looking away.
You did not see it but i did. What does that mean?

Cheers

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

I’m not familiar with the Humanist faith, but if they agree with me, perhaps they’re right!
As far as presenting an argument to the satisfaction of science and academic standards, I’m only telling you why I believe the way I do so the only standard needed to be met is my own. You could believe we all are just a brain in a vat hooked up to a computer feeding us thoughts like in the movie Matrix; as far as I’m concerned.


I provided you a dictionary definition of objective and you refused to accept the definition while refusing to provide your own definition. If you refuse to accept the definition I provided, until you provide your definition of objective we will only be speaking a different language when it ones to the objective/subjective argument, because I will have no idea what you are talking about.


I also presented you the dictionary definition of what it means to know. (you’ve no doubt rejected that definition also) If you understand how I and the dictionary defines what it means to know, you will see there is no contradiction at all.


Post #1957 you said:
To know objectively is to know via some reference point that is able to differentiate objectivity from subjectivity. You, and I for that matter, being subjective, finite beings wholly lack this ability. Therefore, to postulate any concept as objective truth can only be discounted as not a serious intellectual position, but rather a faith statement. Knowing objectivity necessarily means that one can point to, cite, etc. a frame of reference where “all creation” (for lack of a better term) is subjected to it.
Those were your exact words. Care to try again?

No, you did make the claim that we are subjective beings unable to recognize objectivity; again post #1957.
Again; if you are going to respond under this assumption, you need to make the case first.

I’m not familiar with the Humanist faith, but if they agree with me, perhaps they’re right!
As far as presenting an argument to the satisfaction of science and academic standards, I’m only telling you why I believe the way I do so the only standard needed to be met is my own. You could believe we all are just a brain in a vat hooked up to a computer feeding us thoughts like in the movie Matrix; as far as I’m concerned.

As I have stated several times, it is fine as to whatever you believe. It is of no interest to me. However, you, at the bottom of your last post and again here at the bottom of this post, demand that I “need to make the case first.” Yet, once again, you expect that, this time, I make a case. However, you refuse to make the case for your beliefs. (Inconsistency in your positions). As I have stated numerous times and you’ve left unanswered apart from faith statements, if a Christian were to use the same logic that you are positing for demonstrable proof, you would mock and berate him/her. To use your words from your last post “do you not see the contradiction here?”


I provided you a dictionary definition of objective and you refused to accept the definition while refusing to provide your own definition. If you refuse to accept the definition I provided, until you provide your definition of objective we will only be speaking a different language when it ones to the objective/subjective argument, because I will have no idea what you are talking about.

I also presented you the dictionary definition of what it means to know. (you’ve no doubt rejected that definition also) If you understand how I and the dictionary defines what it means to know, you will see there is no contradiction at all.

I’ve neither accepted nor rejected any definition that you’ve posed. I have dismissed Wikipedia and posited that the definitions are incomplete. I have, however, expected you to live up to the standards that you demand from others and I do hope that you will do so soon. However, here too, “do you not see the contradiction here?”

· Ken reads a book (or other media)
· A Christian reads a book
· Ken believes the abstractions in the book
· A Christian believes the abstractions in that book
· Ken believes that the abstractions in the book are objective truth
· A Christian believes the abstractions in that book are objective truth

Ken demands that one is “objectively true” and the other “subjectively true?”
Ken posits that there is no basis to believe what the Christian believes.
Yet, Ken has no basis to demonstrate his position as objective truth.
Ken says his definitions are sufficient for him to believe.
The Christian says his definitions are sufficient for him/her to believe.
“Do you not see the contradiction here?”


Post #1957 you said:
To know objectively is to know via some reference point that is able to differentiate objectivity from subjectivity. You, and I for that matter, being subjective, finite beings wholly lack this ability. Therefore, to postulate any concept as objective truth can only be discounted as not a serious intellectual position, but rather a faith statement. Knowing objectivity necessarily means that one can point to, cite, etc. a frame of reference where “all creation” (for lack of a better term) is subjected to it.
Those were your exact words. Care to try again?

Once again, there is no reason to try again. It is apparent that your inferential and deductive reasoning abilities are superficial at best.

A subjective being lacking the ability to differentiate between objectivity and subjectivity does not preclude a subjective being from knowing objectivity. The concepts are wholly independent and, therefore, there is no necessary cause and effect from one to the other.

It is clear that your faith limits your reasoning abilities. This phenomenon, sadly, has been evidenced by many who’s strong blind faith limit such an individual.


No, you did make the claim that we are subjective beings unable to recognize objectivity; again post #1957.
Again; if you are going to respond under this assumption, you need to make the case first.

Do you not see the contradiction here?

See above.


Respectfully,

T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

(Ken)
I’m not familiar with the Humanist faith, but if they agree with me, perhaps they’re right!
As far as presenting an argument to the satisfaction of science and academic standards, I’m only telling you why I believe the way I do so the only standard needed to be met is my own. You could believe we all are just a brain in a vat hooked up to a computer feeding us thoughts like in the movie Matrix; as far as I’m concerned.

(reply)
As I have stated several times, it is fine as to whatever you believe. It is of no interest to me. However, you, at the bottom of your last post and again here at the bottom of this post, demand that I “need to make the case first.” Yet, once again, you expect that, this time, I make a case. However, you refuse to make the case for your beliefs. (Inconsistency in your positions). As I have stated numerous times and you’ve left unanswered apart from faith statements, if a Christian were to use the same logic that you are positing for demonstrable proof, you would mock and berate him/her. To use your words from your last post “do you not see the contradiction here?”

I can't believe you would make such an absurd claim. Go back to the post when you asked that question and you will see not only did I answer your question, but I did so in detail; giving examples.

(Ken)
I provided you a dictionary definition of objective and you refused to accept the definition while refusing to provide your own definition. If you refuse to accept the definition I provided, until you provide your definition of objective we will only be speaking a different language when it ones to the objective/subjective argument, because I will have no idea what you are talking about.

(reply)
I also presented you the dictionary definition of what it means to know. (you’ve no doubt rejected that definition also) If you understand how I and the dictionary defines what it means to know, you will see there is no contradiction at all.

I’ve neither accepted nor rejected any definition that you’ve posed. I have dismissed Wikipedia and posited that the definitions are incomplete. I have, however, expected you to live up to the standards that you demand from others and I do hope that you will do so soon. However, here too, “do you not see the contradiction here?”

· Ken reads a book (or other media)
· A Christian reads a book
· Ken believes the abstractions in the book
· A Christian believes the abstractions in that book
· Ken believes that the abstractions in the book are objective truth
· A Christian believes the abstractions in that book are objective truth

So..... Why does Ken believe one book is true, and the other false? That's the question that needs to be answered.

Ken demands that one is “objectively true” and the other “subjectively true?”
Ken posits that there is no basis to believe what the Christian believes.
Yet, Ken has no basis to demonstrate his position as objective truth.
Ken says his definitions are sufficient for him to believe.
The Christian says his definitions are sufficient for him/her to believe.
“Do you not see the contradiction here?”

Is Ken trying to convince the Christian what to believe? No; it's the other way around. IOW your argument fails.

(Ken)
Post #1957 you said:
To know objectively is to know via some reference point that is able to differentiate objectivity from subjectivity. You, and I for that matter, being subjective, finite beings wholly lack this ability. Therefore, to postulate any concept as objective truth can only be discounted as not a serious intellectual position, but rather a faith statement. Knowing objectivity necessarily means that one can point to, cite, etc. a frame of reference where “all creation” (for lack of a better term) is subjected to it.
Those were your exact words. Care to try again?

(reply)
A subjective being lacking the ability to differentiate between objectivity and subjectivity does not preclude a subjective being from knowing objectivity. The concepts are wholly independent and, therefore, there is no necessary cause and effect from one to the other.

You have yet to prove we are subjective beings, and you have yet to prove we lack the ability to differentiate between objectivity and subjectivity. That’s where you need to start.

 

[Ken-1122]

Hey hey lets start here.

Say i saw a blue car and atm you were looking away.
You did not see it but i did. What does that mean?

Cheers

Unless I were looking for that ATM, it means nothing.

 

[Thomas Richard-Roy]

I can't believe you would make such an absurd claim. Go back to the post when you asked that question and you will see not only did I answer your question, but I did so in detail; giving examples.


So..... Why does Ken believe one book is true, and the other false? That's the question that needs to be answered.


Is Ken trying to convince the Christian what to believe? No; it's the other way around. IOW your argument fails.



You have yet to prove we are subjective beings, and you have yet to prove we lack the ability to differentiate between objectivity and subjectivity. That’s where you need to start.

Ken, it truly is admirable that your faith is this strong. You obviously chose not to answer my questions when I asked your quote: “Do you not see the contradiction here?” It seems obvious that you are unable to answer them and therefore you choose to ignore them and attempt to “straw man” the argument. Sadly, I expected no less. Regarding your specific post:

I can't believe you would make such an absurd claim. Go back to the post when you asked that question and you will see not only did I answer your question, but I did so in detail; giving examples.

What “absurd claim” did I make? You stated that you know objective truth then you later stated “In other words, just because you know something doesn’t mean you are right, it only means you perceive it as truth; which means you could still be wrong.”

All of Socratic logic, which you apparently are now abandoning, does then, therefore, conclude that you hold to your positions by your faith. In fact, you also wrote:

· “Why am I so certain? Because I have no reason to believe otherwise. Perhaps this isn’t enough to convince you, but it is enough to convince me; and convincing you is not necessary for me to have knowledge.”
· I’m only telling you why I believe the way I do so the only standard needed to be met is my own.
· Etc.

It is the very depths of logic and reason, as opposed to absurdity, to conclude that you are a person of faith. Denying this logical conclusion is anti-intellectual.

Regarding, “you will see not only did I answer your question, but I did so in detail; giving examples” you utterly failed to demonstrate (your standard) how you know objective reality. Your “examples” were, and are, refuted by your admission “In other words, just because you know something doesn’t mean you are right, it only means you perceive it as truth; which means you could still be wrong.” It is sophomoric to stand by the claim that you “gave examples,” but that those “examples” “could still be wrong.”

You are attempting to (and I again quote you) “have your cake and eat it too.” I truly mean this sincerely and without malice, I hope that you will begin to be mature and reasonable in your positions and responses since it is unreasonable to contradict yourself and to be “taken seriously;” again, to quote you.



So..... Why does Ken believe one book is true, and the other false? That's the question that needs to be answered.

This is a clear attempt at a straw man by you; you are changing the topic. You chose to respond to my first post when you wrote, “Welcome. I however would make that argument. Why do you ask?” To which I responded, “don't you bear the same onus to show how your statement is objectively true?”

Now, “demonstrating objectivity” (your standard) isn’t the topic. No, now the important topic is why? This is sad. And, by what objective standard is “why” the real question?



Is Ken trying to convince the Christian what to believe? No; it's the other way around. IOW your argument fails.

Sadly, here too, is yet another contradiction in your position. It seems that it is totally lost on you that you are attempting to impose your values on others. Aren’t you in fact trying to convince others that it is wrong to convince others what to believe? The answer is a clear and unambiguous yes. By this statement you are clearly stating that it is morally wrong (or what other term you’ll attempt to change the subject by) to impose one’s beliefs on another; as you impose this belief and have expectations that others adhere to it. Amazing!

Additionally, on what grounds, in any objectively moral sense, is it “wrong,” “unacceptable,” (or whatever term that you are going to attempt to hide behind) to proselytize? You’ve already proposed that there isn’t objective morality. Why, then, would you find this “wrong?” (Or, whatever other term that you want to correct me by.)


You have yet to prove we are subjective beings, and you have yet to prove we lack the ability to differentiate between objectivity and subjectivity. That’s where you need to start.

Apart from the fact that I have proven that we are subjective beings and that I have proven that we cannot differentiate between objectivity. (You utterly failed to address my “chemical reactions” point. This point clearly demonstrates that subjective beings cannot differentiate between objectivity and subjectivity. And, with your inability to differentiate between objectivity and subjectivity, you, therefore, the only logical deduction is to conclude that you are a subjective being.) It is truly amazingly sad that you A.) do not admit these points, B.) still hold to your faith despite your admission, by default (lack of response), & C.) carry on (continually behave) in such a manner as you are.

Truly with respect,

T R-R

 

[Ken-1122]

So you are denying that humans are the result of evolution?

According to science, humans are the result of lots of things; evolution being one of them.

So where did humans come from? Aliens from space?

My guess would be that cells have always existed. Likely just evolved from there

I am talking about what you are experiencing right now when you read my posts. How do you know you are not dreaming right now when you are reading my posts. And my messages are just a dream you are experiencing?

Because I can tell when I’m awake vs when I’m dreaming.

But corals are just a part of the universe and are "programmed and designed" to make a coral reef, so how did they get that ability? We can study coral reels and because the universe is orderly and intelligible we can determine how the coral makes the reef. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to. So you are not looking at the big picture.

The big picture is that there is no evidence the coral reef is the result of an intelligent creator.

 

[the iconoclast]

Unless I were looking for that ATM, it means nothing.

Hey hey

So if i saw i blue car and you happened not to be looking, and did not see it. That means nothing to you? Does it mean nothing to me?

Cheers

 

[Ken-1122]

Hey hey

So if i saw i blue car and you happened not to be looking, and did not see it. That means nothing to you?

Right.

Does it mean nothing to me?

Cheers

Only you can answer that question.

 

[the iconoclast]

Right.


Only you can answer that question.

Hey hey

Lets continue and move on to another example. Lets say you and i are enjoying each others company while we gaze at a starry sky. I see a comet blaze in the sky and you do not.

I state that i just saw a comet - which you did not.

How do you test my statement?

Cheers

 

[Ed1wolf]

You're confusing methodological with philosophical naturalism.

MN makes it out of bounds at work but not at home, PN makes it out of bounds at both places. It needs to not be out of bounds at work because there could be actual evidence for design that would get ignored or played down when they are actually DOING science.

 

[Strathos]

MN makes it out of bounds at work but not at home, PN makes it out of bounds at both places. It needs to not be out of bounds at work because there could be actual evidence for design that would get ignored or played down when they are actually DOING science.

Can you provide some examples of such evidence?