Wallym

I came to this argument, and it may have helped me somewhat, but at the end, I'm not sure if it had anything to do with my realization and sight of my soul/God/the light all over again, but it may help you:

1. If we don't know objectively praise/value/goodness/perpetual identity is true, it's reasonable to believe we don't know essential features about it.
2. If we know it has to be eternally linked such that it's somewhat eternal or of a magical nature or it must be linked to God and the Absolute or know a soul is required for us to know it's true,  we know essential features about it (ie. the only way to know it's true is this and that...).
3. Therefore makes no sense to essentially say we don't know objective praise/value/goodness/perpetual identity out of saying we don't know if magic or soul or etc, is true, because in this case, we realized some essential features about it, which should make us realize we do know objective praise/value/goodness/perpetual identity is true.    

In other words, we are rejecting we have any objective knowledge about by having knowledge about it, which makes no sense. It should make us realize, we have knowledge of it in reality and accept the whole package.

Wow, that argument is full of veritable shit.

(December 31, 2015 at 9:59 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Wallym

I came to this argument, and it may have helped me somewhat, but at the end, I'm not sure if it had anything to do with my realization and sight of my soul/God/the light all over again, but it may help you:

1. If we don't know objectively praise/value/goodness/perpetual identity is true, it's reasonable to believe we don't know essential features about it.
2. If we know it has to be eternally linked such that it's somewhat eternal or of a magical nature or it must be linked to God and the Absolute or know a soul is required for us to know it's true,  we know essential features about it (ie. the only way to know it's true is this and that...).
3. Therefore makes no sense to essentially say we don't know objective praise/value/goodness/perpetual identity out of saying we don't know if magic or soul or etc, is true, because in this case, we realized some essential features about it, which should make us realize we do know objective praise/value/goodness/perpetual identity is true.    

In other words, we are rejecting we have any objective knowledge about by having knowledge about it, which makes no sense. It should make us realize, we have knowledge of it in reality and accept the whole package.

I would have to think on it quite a while to come up with an opinion on the overall reasoning.  But I have a problem with one of the assertions.

I believe it to be a certainty that objective value can not exist in the universe as I understand it.

Because I can only have knowledge relating to the universe as I understand it, I can't have knowledge of the nature of the universe that would include objective value.  So to your second point, I do not have the knowledge that some magical nature would result in objective value or if anything could result in objective value, because that would require knowledge of the universe as I do not understand it.

It's an interesting idea, but it requires people to think they have knowledge of essential features that I don't think they could really possess.

(December 31, 2015 at 7:41 pm)wallym Wrote: I wonder if people put on a happier face on an atheist forum

No. They're about the same sort of peppiness in my group, which doesn't allow theists.

Some people are afraid. Some aren't. Some are both.

Wallym.

You believe the nature of the universe is purely material and as such reject any chance of objective value/praise/etc.

But if you give the chance that the nature of the universe was magical or there was a magical creator or that there was a spiritual reality to us, do you believe objective value is then possible?

If you assume the latter, you know an essential feature about it. That it must be magical/spiritual for example. 

Even if you don't assume the latter, if you know objective value cannot be true in a purely naturalism world (ie. no supernatural), you know an essential feature about it.

That it cannot be true or real in a purely naturalism world.

Why do you think you are so certain of this property of objective value?

(January 1, 2016 at 2:55 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Some people are afraid. Some aren't. Some are both.

Everything gone. All humans, not just you, don't live but cease to exist. I don't know how people can not be afraid of that.  Even if you don't care about your personal everlasting life, what about other humans? What about other creatures?

(January 1, 2016 at 3:13 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(January 1, 2016 at 2:55 am)thesummerqueen Wrote: Some people are afraid. Some aren't. Some are both.

Everything gone. All humans, not just you, don't live but cease to exist. I don't know how people can not be afraid of that.  Even if you don't care about your personal everlasting life, what about other humans? What about other creatures?

Scary or not, if this is what will happen eventually, then the reasonable thing to do is to accept such a fate, not deny it.

You can be scared of a thing, yet accept it as truth. You don't have to like your truth.

I agree with you. I also say something we are scared of things we should not be. And we hate things we should not hate. In that case, if they are truth, we ought to learn not to fear them and not to hate them.

(January 1, 2016 at 3:10 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Wallym.

You believe the nature of the universe is purely material and as such reject any chance of objective value/praise/etc.

But if you give the chance that the nature of the universe was magical or there was a magical creator or that there was a spiritual reality to us, do you believe objective value is then possible?

If you assume the latter, you know an essential feature about it. That it must be magical/spiritual for example. 

Even if you don't assume the latter, if you know objective value cannot be true in a purely naturalism world (ie. no supernatural), you know an essential feature about it.

That it cannot be true or real in a purely naturalism world.

Why do you think you are so certain of this property of objective value?

You're asking me to try and reason on an idea that I can not fathom in a reality that I can not fathom.

Let's replace the idea of objective value with 1+1=3.  

Could you know anything about a universe in which 1+1=3?  Can you even begin to understand how 1+1 could ever = 3? 

A property of 1+1=3 I am certain of, is that it doesn't exist in a purely naturalism world.  

I think you are mislabeling not existing in purely naturalism as an example of essential knowledge, by incorrectly thinking it implies existing in not purely naturalism.  But we know nothing of the non-naturalist world so we have no way of knowing if objective value could exist there, or if even if the non-naturalist world could exist as we have no essential knowledge of that either.  They are both 1+1=3.