Then you and I have nothing else to discuss.

Minimalist: we can not provide evidence that ANYTHING exists at all outside of our own consciousness. Your argument makes no sense, Outside of my own subjective perceptions I can not prove I am actually typing on this keyboard and responding to you. I can't prove the keyboard exists, that you exist, or even that I exist with any objective certainty. It is entirely possible that everything is purely a figment of my imagination, or a figment of your imagination. Any believe in objective reality outside our own consciousness necessitates...

Please stop trying to make us believe that your brain exists.

(December 18, 2011 at 6:47 pm)amkerman Wrote: That belief would correctly be described as a belief in a monotheistic diety.

You're just making this up as you go, aren't you?

(December 19, 2011 at 2:32 pm)amkerman Wrote: Minimalist: we can not provide evidence that ANYTHING exists at all outside of our own consciousness. Your argument makes no sense, Outside of my own subjective perceptions I can not prove I am actually typing on this keyboard and responding to you. I can't prove the keyboard exists, that you exist, or even that I exist with any objective certainty. It is entirely possible that everything is purely a figment of my imagination, or a figment of your imagination. Any believe in objective reality outside our own consciousness necessitates...

And maybe were all in the matrix or just a part of a dream........

So fucking what.

I live in the real world that doesent rely on faery folk to make it work.

(December 18, 2011 at 6:55 pm)amkerman Wrote: If "God" does not exist there can be no such thing as a bad person or a good person.

That's quite the claim there. Care to back it up with something resembling facts? No?

No surprise there, neither could the rest of your buddies.

---

(December 18, 2011 at 7:12 pm)amkerman Wrote: completely logical and practical

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Jaysyn I can only back up my claims with logical argument. I have presented no facts.

"good" and "bad" are simply labels humans have attached to things by virtue that humans are conscious beings. Without conscious observation, nothing can be inherently "good" or "bad". A belief that in objective reality things are "good" or "bad" necessarily must mean that consciousness is a primary property of the universe. A belief in such would correctly be termed a belief in "God".

(December 18, 2011 at 7:25 pm)amkerman Wrote: You claim that the fundamental forces of nature have nothing to do mental concepts of morals, yet you admit that fundamental forces of nature produced conscious thought, and in fact everything in the universe... Logically those forces then do in fact form our notions of morality.

That was the most epic jump to conclusions I have ever seen. Olympic level. Your mental gymnastics are quite outstanding too.

Rhizo-The "intelligent perceiver" may supply the "meaning", but that doesn't have anything to do with existence. Two rocks would still be two rocks (objectively speaking) if there were no one to contemplate the number two, or rocks (if the statement lacked any meaning). "Meaning" and "existence" have their own words and definitions for exactly this reason. "Meaning" is anthropic bias writ large. Meaning to whom, in relation to what?

We my be figments of our own imaginations, that being said, this notion is bankrupt of any descriptive or explanatory power. It is indistinguishable from my vantage point from a universe that is not a figment of my imagination. If I am living in a solipsistic universe, my inner solipsist has created a universe which is decidedly not solipsistic. I do not appear to be able to bend or shape the laws in this imaginary world to anything even remotely approximating my own will (which would imply that my will isn't yanking the levers, if any will is yanking the levers at all) and it very much appears to be that things can be demonstrated to exist beyond any reasonable doubts. No leap of faith is required. A leap of faith would be required for me to propose that you are all figments of my imagination, this doesn't appear to be the case. Nonetheless solipsism is a very sturdy argument. Of course, being a concept created by humans in service of a system created by humans to describe what appears to be true to humans we might be ignoring the possibility of bias or error. That's why we look for something beyond what we can imagine or dream up to confirm or discredit our suspicions and conjectures.

Amker- Perhaps the universe is not subjective, and these concepts which you keep invoking are. After twenty some odd pages I can say conclusively that you've completely fucked up a TAG/Sufficient Reason combo. It wouldn't have mattered if you got it right, it would still be garbage. You have no argument. This thread title was deceitful.

The only thing you've managed to do here is show that anything can be called god by people who are inclined to do so. Most of us (perhaps all of us) were already well aware of this. You can call jelly bellies, leprechauns, and obviously even yourself "god" all you like. It's just tossing words into the air.

(December 19, 2011 at 2:40 pm)amkerman Wrote: Jaysyn I can only back up my claims with logical argument. I have presented no facts.

"good" and "bad" are simply labels humans have attached to things by virtue that humans are conscious beings. Without conscious observation, nothing can be inherently "good" or "bad". A belief that in objective reality things are "good" or "bad" necessarily must mean that consciousness is a primary property of the universe. A belief in such would correctly be termed a belief in "God".

I call bullshit on this.

You seem to be suggesting that 'moraity' requires some sort of external arbiter seperate from the society they live in.

yet look at history.

It was ok in the roman era to strangle an unruly child.
The spartans killed any newborn baby that had any defect.
Slaves were kept for thousands of years.


All of the above were not immoral in the societies they took place in.

From these diferences between past and present morailty we can deduce that morality is the product of the times and society and not some external source.

Therefore this argument for god is invalid.