(August 6, 2009 at 12:48 pm)amw79 Wrote: This is where we differ, and I say that developed cultural consensus provides authority to morality from which truths are developed.

You can apply exactly the same to logic, which is an evolved, developed, human cultural phenomenon, not a transcendent phenomenon. Cultural, moral and scientific consensus are how truths are arrived at.

Sure, it may provide some subjective authority by convention. It may be authoritative in the sense of societally subjective convention, just like Christian monotheism may be authoritative in the sense of societally subjective convention. It becomes no more epistemically authoritative for that reason, which is the only kind of "authority" I were speaking of. If you were to claim that it is epistemically authoritative by being subjectively (societally) so ad populum, then ou are arguing ad populum, an informal fallacy, which could be used to support a variety of other views that you don't subscribe to.

(August 6, 2009 at 12:48 pm)amw79 Wrote: Aside from the above clarification, I have no problem with your epistemological argument, as it's pretty much stating the obvious.

Thank you for the intellectual honesty. Sometimes atheists will simply listen to what I say, without listening, and just dispute it no matter what because it comes from me.

(August 6, 2009 at 12:48 pm)amw79 Wrote: Your aposterioritic argument is just a theologically wordier version of "there must be a 'first cause'", but simply positing that "Goddditit" may solve the 'first cause' problem for you, but is not evidence in itself, and MUST be backed up, as it's entirely unsatisfactory for non-theists.

I don't know what you mean with it solving the "first cause" problem .... for you. First of all, my argument doesn't built on the preconception of a "first cause". Secondly, are you implying with the "for you" that I present a logically coherent theism, or that it is simply a subjective abstraction which makes no sense?

The aposterioritic argument seems to me to be a 'first cause argument', albeit one which uses more metaphysical language, but if you'd like to rephrase it, by all means.... I'm saying that suggesting or asserting "goddidit" (i.e. the first cause) may satisfy you, but its an unsubstantiated assertion, which must be backed up by, you've guessed it - evidence. People have said "godddidit" to explain almost everything, for which science has ended up repeatedly correctly the religious view of the day by means of data and evidence.

(August 6, 2009 at 2:11 pm)amw79 Wrote: I'm saying that suggesting or asserting "goddidit" (i.e. the first cause) may satisfy you, but its an unsubstantiated assertion, which must be backed up by, you've guessed it - evidence. People have said "godddidit" to explain almost everything, for which science has ended up repeatedly correctly the religious view of the day by means of data and evidence.

I think I realise what you mean. But it doesn't apply to my argument, if you go back and read it. It doesn't invoke an abitrary "God" for no reason, i.e. "godddidit". It comes to the conclusion of what we call God, not by arbitrary predication or affirmation, but by reasoning towards divine simplicity, by discerning fundamental a posteriori knowledge of our reality and world.

"It comes to the conclusion of what we call God, not by arbitrary predication or affirmation, but by reasoning towards divine simplicity, by discerning fundamental a posteriori knowledge of our reality and world."

There is no reasoning when it comes to the divine because your whole belief system relies entirely on faith and not reason.For a subjective mind trying to reason about the existence of God or trying to relegate everything to divine simplicity he immediately runs straight into a wall.Because your god is beyond natural reasoning and therefore requires a belief in the supernatural or as you like to say objective reasoning which requires a presupposition that God exist as a starting point.It's good that you separate the two worldviews of objective and subjective minds since as an atheist I can only see things from a subjective point of view.The fact that I am an atheist obliterates any possibility of ever seeing things from your objective point of view.Atheist such as myself demand and require subjective evidence of this god.

The very idea or concept of a god is an insult to the intelligence of a true atheist,and the onus to prove the existence of such a being falls on the one making the claims (the believer).I am of the opinion that faith and reason are two concepts that are completely at odds with one another just like science and theism.Because god exists on this so called transcendental plain he is beyond the reach of science and therefore at least in my mind his existence is untennable.

(August 6, 2009 at 3:07 pm)chatpilot Wrote: There is no reasoning when it comes to the divine because your whole belief system relies entirely on faith and not reason.

Stop defining "my belief system" for me. If you had read the Fides et Ratio by Pope Jon Paul II you would see that this statement of yours is not at all in accord with the Roman Catholic (and indeed orthodox Christian) perspective of the relationship between reason and faith. If you had read Thomas Aquinas, or indeed the much earlier patristics, like Augustine, you would see again and again that science and philosophy is used to explain the doctrines of the Church, and that Christendom has historically been far from anti-rationalistic or anti-logical. It is the religion of the Truth, the Logos who is God, who is the eternal Word and intelligence, begotten of the intellect that is God, and as such faith and reason can never truly be in contradiction or conflict, but only in a union of harmony. Reason and faith can only be distorted into disharmony by our human limitations of knowledge and proper use of reason. For faith is both the intellective willing consent of belief, but it's also the both spiritually and intellecutally enlightening reception of the Spirit of God. The only thing faith and reason can be opposed to is the false wisdom of the teachers of falsehood.

(August 6, 2009 at 3:07 pm)chatpilot Wrote: For a subjective mind trying to reason about the existence of God or trying to relegate everything to divine simplicity he immediately runs straight into a wall.Because your god is beyond natural reasoning and therefore requires a belief in the supernatural

This is simply idiotic "reasoning". Or it is not reasoning at all. You have provided no reason to suggest that we cannot reason about the existence of God. God is beyond human reason, but he is beyond everything, he is also beyond human faith; it doesn't mean His existence cannot be known.

(August 6, 2009 at 3:07 pm)chatpilot Wrote: or as you like to say objective reasoning which requires a presupposition that God exist as a starting point.

But that in no way means we cannot reason about his existence, even though it is also true that denying his existence is self-contradictiory.

(August 6, 2009 at 3:07 pm)chatpilot Wrote: It's good that you separate the two worldviews of objective and subjective minds since as an atheist I can only see things from a subjective point of view.The fact that I am an atheist obliterates any possibility of ever seeing things from your objective point of view.Atheist such as myself demand and require subjective evidence of this god.

Subjective evidence? Anything you subjectively accept as evidence is subjective evidence. Therefore I can evidence the existence of pink unicorns subjectively, and subjectively I can prove that I am God, because I am the subjective judge of what is evidence and what is not, and I take my excellence to be evidence that I am God. But that does not mean that I have proven it objectively. I appeal rather to logical argumentation to approach objective truth rather than subjective abstraction.

(August 6, 2009 at 3:07 pm)chatpilot Wrote: just like science and theism [are completely at odds with each other]

That is not at all the case. Science, at least taken to mean the scientific method, has little or nothing to say about the theological proposition of monotheism.

(August 6, 2009 at 3:07 pm)chatpilot Wrote: Because god exists on this so called transcendental plain he is beyond the reach of science and therefore at least in my mind his existence is untennable.

God is transcendental, but that does not mean we cannot know he exists by reason, like it doesn't mean we cannot know he exists by faith. For he has made us in his image, as a rational creature, and given us the power of intellection of the intelligible reality he created, which reveals the work of the divine hand of it's creator.

(August 6, 2009 at 11:51 am)Jon Paul Wrote: I didn't say it because I "can't think of any other way".

And I didn't say you said it either. I said "if". I'm saying that you haven't given evidence that God is necessary for moral objecitivity. You've just explained that if he exists then he could do so (because he's God and he can trascend such minds) you haven't shown that there could be no other way.

Quote: it has not transcended the realm of subjective mind if there is not an objective mind.

As far as you can conceive you mean.

Quote:There is evidence/a foundation for monotheism, anyway, but that has nothing to do with this argument.

But if there's no evidence for God or objective morality, so there's no objective moral mind that you call God, where's your argument? If you're just saying "There can be no objective morality without God!" So what? Neither exist! Where is this going? If it's an argument it's gratuitious!

Quote:It is subjective so long as there is no objective mind which transcends subjective minds. If there is, it is not.

Indeed. And there's no evidence of an 'objective mind' anyway, so who cares?

(August 5, 2009 at 9:35 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: It's just like - You: "Without God there is no objective morality!" Me: "So? Who cares because neither exist!"

Jon Wrote:If that is the case, what are you complaining about?

Indeed, what am I complaining about?...

Answer? - nothing!.

Quote:It's not an agnostic matter when you bring it into an argument which is entirely epistemologically analytic and therefore precedes any notion of truth or evidence to analyse the very conceptions of truth and evidence in various epistemic structures.

No because evidence is represented as a strong indication to be true. It's agnostic. It isn't gnostic. That would be absolute proof - that would be gnostic. Evidence is agnostic.

Just as, I don't claim the absolute, I claim things with certainty, but not absolute certainty. And I expect evidence - that doesn't mean I expect absolute proof nor does it mean I'm gnostic. On the contrary. Evidence and agnosticism are both humble. Claiming the absolute and being gnostic isn't.

Quote:I am not defining "subjective" as "meaningless". I am defining it in it's proper sense: pertaining to the (individual) subject. As soon as logical and moral truth becomes subjective (because there is no God - no objective mind), it is therefore no more authoritative than a persons favourite colour. One day 1+1 might equal 2, another day it might equal 5. And one day or age killing babies for fun might be alright; in another age it is not.

That's quite obviously complete utter and total nonsense. Because - you are saying without an objective mind there is no objectivity, and without objectivty 1+1 could=5. That's utterly ridiculous. Whether there's a God in this universe or not 2+2 is still 4! And killing babies is still considered wrong by those who aren't baby killers! Either way!

It's like you think that without an objective mind, absolute objectivity etc, then it's meaningless. If everything is ultimately subjective that does not mean that everything is equal to someone's 'favourite colour' - evidence still exists! Someone's favourite colour is someone's favourite colour. But there are still facts about this world, and still strong evidence for them - even is some totally ignorant people can't see them! Does everyone have to be perfect for truth to exist according to you? What's wrong with subjectivity?

There is a matter of degree you know. With out without a subjective mind there is still evidence. Absolute proof is not needed. Evidence is enough. Nothing wrong with subjectivity - there's no evidence for the objecitity but this world is still comprehendable to some extent to us mere mortals, whether it's some more than others or not - the fact it's subjective doesn't matter.

There. Is. Still - Evidence!

It's not all equal to "favourite colour" - that's like saying 'A totally doolally, deluded, insane, delirious psychofreak's opinion is equal to a top scientist on scientific matters, the fact the scientist is a scientist and is not totally insane, is irrelevant - because it's all subjective you see!' That's just plain ridiculous.

EvF

(August 6, 2009 at 2:19 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 6, 2009 at 2:11 pm)amw79 Wrote: I'm saying that suggesting or asserting "goddidit" (i.e. the first cause) may satisfy you, but its an unsubstantiated assertion, which must be backed up by, you've guessed it - evidence. People have said "godddidit" to explain almost everything, for which science has ended up repeatedly correctly the religious view of the day by means of data and evidence.

I think I realise what you mean. But it doesn't apply to my argument, if you go back and read it. It doesn't invoke an abitrary "God" for no reason, i.e. "godddidit". It comes to the conclusion of what we call God, not by arbitrary predication or affirmation, but by reasoning towards divine simplicity, by discerning fundamental a posteriori knowledge of our reality and world.

This is all well and good, but we all know that philosophical and metaphysical reasoning can be a wasteful, semantic excerise. We've all heard the one about the philosophy student who goes in the pub after a lecture, and says to a bloke "Actually metaphysically speaking, that table isn't there", and the other bloke puts his head through it.....

Even foregoing how you get to your "divine simplicity", the consequences of your conclusion are a creative, loving, intervening god, which is an extraordinary claim - which therefore requires extraordinary evidence

(August 6, 2009 at 2:19 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: I think I realise what you mean. But it doesn't apply to my argument, if you go back and read it. It doesn't invoke an abitrary "God" for no reason, i.e. "godddidit". It comes to the conclusion of what we call God, not by arbitrary predication or affirmation, but by reasoning towards divine simplicity, by discerning fundamental a posteriori knowledge of our reality and world.

You do realise that introducing "god" as an answer to a question actually causes far more problems for science that it solves don't you?

Kyu

P.S. If you don't start answering questions & points that others (including me) put to you I will be left with no choice but to push for moderator action ... remember this theist, this is an atheism forum and YOU are the guest here. Our tolerance of the kind of disingenuous crap you're pulling can be low.

Kyu

(August 6, 2009 at 5:26 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: P.S. If you don't start answering questions & points that others (including me) put to you I will be left with no choice but to push for moderator action ... remember this theist, this is an atheism forum and YOU are the guest here. Our tolerance of the kind of disingenuous crap you're pulling can be low.

I'll try to answer as many points as I can. But after all I am the guest, in your house, so I am sorrounded by people who are not guests and therefore owe no loyalty to me and are all asking me questions on the same time.

If some questions, which I think I have already answered or are not serious enough to answer (like: did your priest rape you as a child?), are left unanswered, then please excuse me. I don't think theres any need to moderate me for that reason, when you don't moderate such questions.

By the way, EvF: the reason my reply to you didn't come before this post, is that I just spent at least 20 minutes writing a reply, and then my browser crashed. I will re-write it as soon as my frustration over my computer allows me to.

---

(August 6, 2009 at 4:54 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: What's wrong with subjectivity?

Nothing is wrong with subjectivity. Something is wrong with the epistemic structure of atheism.

(August 6, 2009 at 4:54 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(August 6, 2009 at 11:51 am)Jon Paul Wrote: I didn't say it because I "can't think of any other way".

And I didn't say you said it either. I said "if". I'm saying that you haven't given evidence that God is necessary for moral objecitivity. You've just explained that if he exists then he could do so (because he's God and he can trascend such minds) you haven't shown that there could be no other way.

Quote: it has not transcended the realm of subjective mind if there is not an objective mind.

As far as you can conceive you mean.

No, I did not exclude any options because I hadn't conceived of them, but because the nature of the matter itself mandates an option which lives up to particular criteria which subjective minds do not live up to.

(August 6, 2009 at 4:54 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: But if there's no evidence for God or objective morality, so there's no objective moral mind that you call God, where's your argument? If you're just saying "There can be no objective morality without God!" So what? Neither exist! Where is this going? If it's an argument it's gratuitious!

Of course you say that neither exist, because you are an atheist. That is exactly what the argument says.

Whether you "believe" in God or not, you need to presuppose logical standards and laws and rules, TRUTH, to evidence anything at all. If the rules of logic are not true, then evidentiality is not possible.

In other words, we need the right theory to fit the data, before we can make correct predictions about the data. We need logical coherence before we have logical evidentiality.

So what my argument does is analyse the grounds/foundation which exist before we have evaluated the evidence for something. It analyses the grounds/foundation on which precede evidentiality; on which eventual evidentiality is built upon. That grounds/foundation is, the epistemic structures of already existing worldviews. It is epistemological and analytic; it deals with epistemology, and logical coherence. Not logical justification, evidencing or other evidential matters, which already have epistemelogical presuppositions that my epistemological argument thus analyses.

By bringing the reasons or grounds on which people accepted a certain worldview into the analysis of the epistemic structure of the worldview, you are committing something like the genetic fallacy, since we are not dealing with an evidential question, but one of "which theory fits the data" - of logical coherence.

I understand you maybe either simply can't comprehend this, or maybe you are just not willing to accept it. Which either it is, the discussion is not going to progress until you actually understand the significance of this difference for the argument. I will again, repeat, that there are atheists who have understood this difference, so it's not just me, the "big bad" theist who is talking nonsense.

(August 6, 2009 at 4:54 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: That's quite obviously complete utter and total nonsense. Because - you are saying without an objective mind there is no objectivity, and without objectivty 1+1 could=5. That's utterly ridiculous. Whether there's a God in this universe or not 2+2 is still 4! And killing babies is still considered wrong by those who aren't baby killers! Either way!

It seems you are appealing to a transcendent factor. It seems you think that, "the truth is that 2+2=4 regardless of what any subjective minds think about it".

(August 6, 2009 at 4:54 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: It's not all equal to "favourite colour" - that's like saying 'A totally doolally, deluded, insane, delirious psychofreak's opinion is equal to a top scientist on scientific matters, the fact the scientist is a scientist and is not totally insane, is irrelevant - because it's all subjective you see!' That's just plain ridiculous.

Indeed it is, and it's exactly the kind of epistemological problem the epistemic structure of an atheist worldview gives. Because you have only subjective minds. Between the scientist and the psychofreak, you don't have a nr. 3, transcendent objective factor to appeal to, "the objective truth regardless of what subjective minds think of it". You don't have anything outside of the two subjective minds in question to appeal to, except other subjective minds.

The problem is that, if there are only subjective minds, then the "truth" is not "regardless" of what subjective minds think about it. Then, indeed, the truth is only the truth insofar as it is thought to be so by subjective minds. And then the subjective convention that 2+2=5 is just as true insofar as it is thought to be so, as 2+2=4 is true insofar as it is thought to be so. And truth is only true insofar as it is thought to be so if it is not true because of a transcending, objective factor, wholly independent of what is thought about the truth.

Say, subject 1 ("Scientist") thinks that 2+2=5. According to his notion of truth, this is true. Subject 2 (say, "Psychofreak") thinks that 2+2=4. Vice versa. If there are only subjective minds, no objective truth existing apart from subjective minds, then what factor do you appeal to in order to decide who is right and who is wrong? Who has the truth and who has not? Since there are only subjective minds, you can only appeal to another subjective factor, another subjective notion of truth, originating in another subjective mind. But you have not, thereby, epistemologically achieved anything more than subject 1 (Scientist) who thought that 2+2=5.

That is the problem, and it is just one of many incoherencies the epistemic structure of atheism necessarily leads to.

What my epistemological argument then concludes, is that atheism is a theory which "does not fit the data" (in my metaphor), or in preciser words, a worldview with an incoherent epistemic structure which contradicts and refutes itself. So it does not pass the test of logical coherence, before the question of evidentiality/what is evident.

This is the very reason why I hate philosophy when it is used to argue about religion,all it does is complicate matters more with all its terminology and outlandish definitions.I stick to my guns when I say that reason and religion just like science and religion are totally incompatible with each other.The bible for instance has been proven scientifically unsound on so many known scientific principles that in my mind that alone disproves its divine origin and authenticity.

You cant reason about metaphysical things because to the subjective mind the metaphysical or supernatural world does not exist and can't be proven to exist.The fact that this god is outside of the realm of the natural world and exist on a transcendental plain put him or it outside the realm of scientific scrutiny.Jon I have a question for you:Where do you get this certainty of so called absolute truth regarding the scriptures and the god it describes?