Rhythm: that is my entire point. You are making my argument for me. A belief that things actually have "meaning" beyond that of human perceptions requres a belief in what would be called "God". We denote whether things "exist" through conscious observation. we are inextricably bound by our own consciousness. To believe that the universe continues to "exist" outside of consciousness denotes that things exist independently of conscious observation. Humanity has never been able to demonstrate that anything exists at all outside of conscious observation, it is the only tool we have to make observations. If consciousness ceases to exist, the universe very may well go on in some form, but there is no tool humanity has to make that observation besides consciousness. For all intensive purposes then, the end of consciousness would necessarily mean the end of existence. If there is nothing to observe the universe, then the universe can't exist. I mean isn't that the stance of a strong atheist? Since there has been no observation of "God", God does not exist?


That was the best response by anyone yet.

---

jaysyn: my argument is not an argument for the existence of God, I agree with everything you stated in your response, and I have stated the same many times.

Morality may be a purely subjective construct of complex systems like society. That is the logical belief for atheists to hold rather than an objective morality.

---

i meant downbeat plumb not jaysyn

(December 19, 2011 at 3:13 pm)amkerman Wrote: Rhythm: that is my entire point. You are making my argument for me. A belief that things actually have "meaning" beyond that of human perceptions requres a belief in what would be called "God".

No it doesnt.
We accept that things have meaning because that is the evidence that we have, our senses percieve the universe and our brains interpret it.
Just as they have evolved to do no need for a god here.

Quote:We denote whether things "exist" through conscious observation. we are inextricably bound by our own consciousness. To believe that the universe continues to "exist" outside of consciousness denotes that things exist independently of conscious observation. Humanity has never been able to demonstrate that anything exists at all outside of conscious observation, it is the only tool we have to make observations. If consciousness ceases to exist, the universe very may well go on in some form, but there is no tool humanity has to make that observation besides consciousness. For all intensive purposes then, the end of consciousness would necessarily mean the end of existence.

You do realise that your just rambling like a stoner now dont you ....dude

Quote: Since there has been no observation of "God", God does not exist?

Now your getting it.

(December 19, 2011 at 7:03 am)Darwinning Wrote: Constructing this response took more time than I was initially willing to invest. I presume that is why many of the other posters on this forum have resorted to shorthand responses like "word-salad". I think what they mean is something along the lines of the above.

In my case, my response of "Plonk" held many meanings: a) A more thoughtful reply would be a waste of time either in terms of educating the OP or my amusement shredding his argument, b) I do not suffer fools gladly, and c) The epicness of his fail hurts my head.

Thanks for taking the time to attempt to educate the OP - though I fear you're casting pearls before swine.

A belief that something holds a meaning doesn't rely on god. It relies on our own sense of "meaning". You can attribute whatever meaning you like to god, or pertaining to god, or call that meaning god itself. You're the one doing the attributing, not the cosmos. You're the one expressing a "function" primary or otherwise, not the cosmos. What you're doing here is jumping between distinct claims in an argument without the justification that goes between, with nothing to tie them together. I'm attempting to help you try and make a point though, sure. Trying to explain to you that this argument has a form and script that you haven't followed which is why it's coming out as word salad. When you reach that point we can start to talk about why the argument (properly communicated) still doesn't work.

(December 19, 2011 at 2:44 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 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?

Yes, so you agree with me.

Here is what I think:

1. Things exist objectively
2. Intelligence based judgments require a subjective point of view in relation to those things
3. Therefore there are no objective intelligence based judgements

I think the practice of placing objective in front of morality is an example of creating a noncognitive sentence.

Maybe I'm a crazy optimist but I think amkerman might be coming close to a rational position. If we can only get him to stop conflating judgments about things and the things themselves. That seems to be the sticking point.

You're an optimist.

Hey here is a fun video about tolerance, solipsism, and the argument "I feel this is true"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snm...re=related

(December 19, 2011 at 4:49 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: I think the practice of placing objective in front of morality is an example of creating a noncognitive sentence.

I agree on this point. In order for morality to be objective, it would have to exist independent of any observer, including the entity who originated the tenets of said morality, even if that entity is a deity.

In my view, any non-material construct that is the product of intelligence cannot be objective, even if that intelligence is vastly superior to humankind's.

This thread is really bringing out the existentialist in me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXMi7jQNa8c

(December 19, 2011 at 5:28 pm)aleialoura Wrote: This thread is really bringing out the existentialist in me.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXMi7jQNa8c

---

Thanks for posting that, Alei - I enjoyed it.

Frederich Nietzsche Wrote:[...] If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

I have found the above quote to be quite haunting in my life-long struggle with depression (currently winning!), both as a reminder of the dangers of the abyss, and the sick comfort I find there in my darkest hours. Difficult to explain.