(August 6, 2009 at 5:50 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: 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.

No problem mate, I myself have (amazingly!) took like 2 or 3 days off from these forums myself. Been busy with stuff. I don't expect immediate replies. And if you're just being polite then that's no problem too.

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

How exactly does atheism have an epistemic structure?

Quote: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.

Okay then. So you're not claiming absolute proof there right?

Quote:Of course you say that neither exist, because you are an atheist.

Yes, I say both objective morality and God don't exist because I know of no evidence for either.

Quote: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.

If it's subjective that doesn't mean all is equal. It doesn't mean that someone in a nuthouse is just as logical and intelligent as a scientific genius, for example.

Now, because it's all subjective; the nutcase could think the scientist was the nutty one and that he was in fact the genius, and he couldn't be proven wrong - I just don't think many people world agree, with good reason. By what we mean by the words "Nutcase" and "Genius" I'd argue that the logical and intelligent scientist was the smarter one and not the guy in the nuthouse who did not demonstrate such genius.

Quote:I understand you maybe either simply can't comprehend this, or maybe you are just not willing to accept it.

Well, I just find your argument gratuitous. If indeed there definitely is no other way that subjecitve minds can be transcended, than having an objective mind, and that would indeed have to be God...I find this completely gratuitous regardless of if it's true or not becasue there's no evidence for God or objective morality.

Quote:[...]so it's not just me, the "big bad" theist who is talking nonsense.

For the record I certaintly didn't call you as such and certaintly have never intended to imply such a thing. I don't see it that way at all.

I'm not anti-theist, I'm only anti-theism. The difference? I hate the beliefs and the belief system cos I'd rather they weren't around, but I don't hate the theists because I pretty much hate no one and blame no one, regardless of their "beliefs".

Quote: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".

"2+2=4" is true by definition. '2 and 2' is the same as four when put together. Now, on the matter of the definitions, that's all subjective yes. These are just lables, it's all in the mind. So what? Mathmatics is a way of measuing things.

"2+2" doesn't actually exist outside the mind, in computers or down on paper, etc, etc...it's just a way of measuing what actually does exist, or rather - a way of us measuing what we percieve to exist.

Quote: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.

Your view has the same problem then mate. You may not believe it's all subjective but there's still no evidence that I know of for absolute objective truth, objective moraltiy, etc, etc... - so you can believe what you like but we all live in the same world! I know of no evidence for an "objective mind".

Quote: 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.

True, and I'd pick the scientist to trust lol. I think I'd have to be a psychofreak myself to pick the psychofreak!

I still completely fail to see why on earth any of this has to be objective, when we live in one world and whichever it is it makes no practical difference. I know of no evidence for any absolute objective truths so I don't believe in such a thing.

Quote: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.

This is semantic though. Cos whether there's an oibjective mind in this world or not, in practice it's the same. Either way I'd personally, subjectively, think it's indeed more rational to believe when you add 'two and two together' you get four and not five. As it happens I know of no eivdence for absolute objective truth.

Quote: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.

Ok, let's take existence as an example.

By definition, something either exists or doesn't. So it is a fact whether 'X' (whatever it is to represent) exists or not. The evidence or lack thereof for 'X' is subjective.....but it's still an objective matter whether 'X' exists or not simply because the question is an objective one by definition. By definition 'X either exists or doesn't'. Whatever we mean when we say 'objective', that's an objective question in the sense, indeed, by definition 'X either exists or doesn't'.

Yes the evidence for X is ultimatately subjective, any strong body of evidencve for 'X' that is thought as 'objective', the whole consensus, is ultimately subjective, yes....but who cares? Why does that matter? At all? It seems gratutious semantics to me, untill there's actually any evidence for any "objective mind".

Quote: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?

My sanity?

Quote: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.

Well mate, life isn't always rational, but it indeed can be. This is all experienced in my life despite the fact I know of no evidence for any "objective mind(s)" - I don't see how any of this effects me. Untill there's any evidence for any so-called "objective minds", I consider the argument a semantic and gratuitous one.

When I subjecitvely choose, who I subjectively believe to be rational, over who subjectively - at least to me- appears to be a psychofreak, yes I am not ashamed by that, no I don't see why on earth I'd need any 'objective minds' in my life... And yes, as I have said - I find your argument to be gratuitous untill there's any evidence for this "Objective mind", this "God" that you speak of.

And yes, I will subjectively judge what is evidence just like everyone else does. I can only think with my mind. Yes it's subjective, so what?

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

Atheism=Not believing in God and having no religion, and it's not a belief system.

So I wonder what on earth this 'epistemic struture of atheism' you speak of is? Could you define it precisely?

Quote: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.

I fail to see how not believing in a Supernatural being when you know of no such evidence, is self-contradictory.

By what logic do you seem to believe that it's necessarily that truth isn't understood entirely subjectively?

EvF

(August 8, 2009 at 8:46 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 8, 2009 at 8:43 pm)amw79 Wrote: Sorry JP and others. I wanted to stay out of all this and remain silent - I really did! But this comment "the miserableness of our own soul", really fucking 'got my goat'. Even accepting a notion of the soul (I'll call it the self in order to avoid any spiritual connotations), this comment just goes to show what Catholicism is based on, the idea of self-deprecation, which consequently provides the need for salvation or redemtion, which can only be given to us by, you've guessed it - a divine authority.

The first step in spiritual growth and progress is recognising that there is a problem, or in other words, that our spiritual state is low and unacceptable ("the miserableness of our own soul"). The next step is then to rise above that miserableness.

(August 8, 2009 at 8:43 pm)amw79 Wrote: If your soul is miserable, and I suspect it is (what with that pesky original sin to deal with), speak to a qualified councilor, rather than attempt to pass your miserableness, off as my miserableness. I'm rather a happy fella as my friends will testify.

What I did was exactly to say that we as Christians should not go around pretending to be God and damning other peoples souls to hell, but to the contrary focus on the miserableness of our own soul, not that of OTHERS.

So rather than saying our soul. What you mean is your soul. As you can't possibly comment on the state of anyone else's soul.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)amw79 Wrote: So rather than saying our soul. What you mean is your soul. As you can't possibly comment on the state of anyone else's soul.

We believe everyone's soul is in a miserable state after the fall, and in need of restitution. So you don't need to comment on that. You only need to focus on your spiritual growth and restitution, and ultimately salvation.

What you cannot comment on is who is going to be damned.

---

(August 8, 2009 at 8:59 pm)Ace Wrote: I'm just going to lay it out. Despite what you say an all. There is no reason for me to believe in a creator. My life runs well without that belief.

Whether your life runs well with or without it makes no difference to it's truth. There are also ignorant American evangelicals who will say the same about the theory of evolution. Their life runs well without it. But by using that as an excuse for ignorance, they are not getting closer to the truth about how biological life diversified.

(August 8, 2009 at 8:59 pm)Ace Wrote: My questions on how and why I'm here has already been answered by science. I see no reason to have any beliefs in a god.

Science does not answer the most basic existential questions, if that's what you mean.

Modern science does not answer if there is a God; it a priori excludes that, as outside the scope of it's investigation, which is the natural world.

Modern science does not answer if reality even exists; you will find physicists subscribing to the prevailing Bohrist Copenhagenist interpretation of quantum mechanics who categorically deny the existence of reality, who say to the contrary that "only observation and observers exist", or "only information and information gatherers exist".

Modern science does not answer why there is anything rather than nothing; you will find people with the interpretation of physics that, "it is highly improbable that there should be anything rather than nothing", which is of course a nonsense application of the notion of probability, which relates to the epistemic realm, not the ontologic.

The problem is simply that the scientific method was never meant to answer any of these existential questions. Answering them "scientifically" would be a violation of it's principles, specifically the principle that it's only scope of investigation is the natural and observable world.

(August 8, 2009 at 8:59 pm)Ace Wrote: God remains on the same level as other thought up characters.

He certainly does not. The God I have demonstrated is a rationally coherent and demonstrable hypothesis, within the realm of rational and empirical demonstration, and I have shown that to be the case. You have no reason to deny that to me, until you refute my arguments.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:12 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)amw79 Wrote: So rather than saying our soul. What you mean is your soul. As you can't possibly comment on the state of anyone else's soul.

We believe everyone's soul is in a miserable state after the fall, and in need of restitution. So you don't need to comment on that. You only need to focus on your spiritual growth and restitution, and ultimately salvation.

What you cannot comment on is who is going to be damned.

We believe? Who is "we"? Do you not speak for yourself, or rather a group (sect) of people?
After the fall eh? Not a pleasant thought that my life has been determined because some bloke ate an apple, and that every human being is forever born into bondage and debt to a 'loving' god for a sin committed before they existed by another human being. Sounds reasonable.

By the way, don't tell me what I shouldn't comment on, or what I should be focussing on. I'll comment as I see fit, and don't take direction on my thoughts as you do.

Quote:Of course it's your own responsibility. You have a right to death and to hell.

Ta-Da!! And there we have it folks. Mr. Jon Paul's beliefs all wrapped up in a nice neat little nut shell.

"What I say is the truth because I and some long dead catholics say it is the truth and you must believe it to be true or you will burn in hell." Paraphrased of course.


I am unimpressed with your use of uncommon words to convey bullshit.

Say "The only people who properly understand the bible are catholics. We know this because those who found our church said so."

That is essentially what you are saying when you spout "To properly interpret the bible you need to employ patristics."

(August 8, 2009 at 9:26 pm)amw79 Wrote: We believe? Who is "we"? Do you not speak for yourself, or rather a group (sect) of people?

Christians. If you didn't notice, the doctrine of the fall is a part of orthodox Christianity, the confession to which I have already pledged my religion.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:26 pm)amw79 Wrote: By the way, don't tell me what I shouldn't comment on, or what I should be focussing on. I'll comment as I see fit, and don't take direction on my thoughts as you do.

I didn't mean "you", I meant Christians.

---

(August 8, 2009 at 9:32 pm)Dotard Wrote: Say "The only people who properly understand the bible are catholics. We know this because those who found our church said so."

No, that is not what I am saying or what I have said elsewhere.

The patristics are generally recognised and used in the interpretation of the bible, both by Catholics, Orthodox and some protestants as well. And in all cases, by the vast majority of Christians in the world (the Catholics and Orthodox alone represent 1.6 billion, out of 2 billion Christians, then you can add the remaining protestants who are not extremely divergent in doctrine).

Christ on a bike! So when you said , in a reply to my post - "So you don't need to comment on that. You only need to focus on your spiritual growth and restitution, and ultimately salvation.", you were talking to Christians? Okey Dokey.

Just out of interest, (but I'm sure you'll have some semantic argument as rebuttal) do you not think it is of unusual coincidence that the exact problem which Catholicism proposes for every human being (namely "the miserablenesss of our being", and millstone of original sin, is exactky what Catholicism offeres as as miraculous solution/redemption, by following their practices. Remind you of advertising at all? (Present erroneous problem, declare your product as best solution = $$$$$$$$).

(August 8, 2009 at 10:22 pm)amw79 Wrote: Christ on a bike! So when you said , in a reply to my post - "So you don't need to comment on that. You only need to focus on your spiritual growth and restitution, and ultimately salvation.", you were talking to Christians? Okey Dokey.

English is not my first language. Excuse me.

(August 8, 2009 at 10:22 pm)amw79 Wrote: Just out of interest, (but I'm sure you'll have some semantic argument as rebuttal) do you not think it is of unusual coincidence that the exact problem which Catholicism proposes for every human being (namely "the miserablenesss of our being", and millstone of original sin, is exactky what Catholicism offeres as as miraculous solution/redemption, by following their practices. Remind you of advertising at all? (Present erroneous problem, declare your product as best solution = $$$$$$$$).

The Fall is a doctrine which is recognised by all orthodox Christians, whether they be Roman Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc.

As to whether it is a "problem", or whether it is too pessimistic about human nature, I would say no. If you look around yourself, it would rather be pessimistic to say that "everything is alright", because it would be the same as saying that you don't have an ideal for a higher and more perfect and harmonious state of being.

And because it is also a Christian doctrine that we as humans are beings made in the image of God, namely as rational and intellectual souls and bodies. Such an optimistic anthropology certainly is not affirmed in an atheistic worldview.

John Paul, I've been reading with interest all of your responses to these various points and I just wondered, are you enjoying your time here and are you getting anything out of it?

(August 8, 2009 at 11:12 pm)Darwinian Wrote: John Paul, I've been reading with interest all of your responses to these various points and I just wondered, are you enjoying your time here and are you getting anything out of it?

I am not being paid to do it, unfortunately

What I might get out of it is an intellectual challenge.

But what I get out of it no matter what, is more insight into the opinions and viewpoints of some atheists, and specifically ones that are members of an atheist internet community

---

EvidenceVsFaith,

What happened with the earlier posts in this thread, about TAG (as cited at the bottom of this post), was that I got you to admit that the epistemic structure of atheism allows no objective truth to exist, and then you tried to argue that you could simply use "subjective truth" and "subjective evidence" as sufficient for rationality. This post, and the many other posts (notably the post on page 16) about this "subjectivism" you are forced into, show why it ultimately leads to incoherence and why it shows exactly that, the epistemic structure of atheism is not sane. There are other reasons why subjectivism (that the truth is subjective) is self-refuting, notably the paradox that if truth is subjective, then it is subjective whether truth is subjective, and then truth is only subjectively subjective, but then it is also subjective whether truth is subjectively subjective, and therefore truth is subjectively subjectively subjective, et cetera ad infinitum. This infinite regress shows how the idea, in all it's absurdity, refutes it's own foundation, just like the epistemic structure of atheism.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: So I wonder what on earth this 'epistemic struture of atheism' you speak of is? Could you define it precisely?

The expression 'epistemic structure' refers to the integral set of epistemic implications for the interpretation of reality, that result from the nature of the implicit affirmations and nonaffirmations within a worldview, and their epistemic relations to each other and to other epistemes and epistemic attitudes in the worldview of the person.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: How exactly does atheism have an epistemic structure?

Any worldview has an epistemic structure, whether the worldview be atheistic or Christian. To say that atheistic worldviews are exempt from having an epistemic structure, would literally equal saying that atheists do not interpret reality without God (a - theistically), and if their interpretation of reality is not without God, that is two negatives (not... without) and one positive, twisting the whole thing to the self-contradiction that atheists do interpret reality with God, which would mean they are not atheists.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote: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.

Okay then. So you're not claiming absolute proof there right?

That depends what you mean with absolute proof. But I am claiming exactly what I said, namely that subjective minds don't live up to the criteria that the nature of the matter mandate for a such thing as "objective truth" to exist, for if there are only subjective minds, then any such notion and attempt at justification of an "objective truth" would still originate in that subjective mind and ultimately be subjective. Atheism refutes even the possibility of it's own objective truth. And then it is only left with the option of being subjectively true, and then I can say that Christianity is subjectively true as well, because there would be no difference between the two claims, except that one subject defines something else than the other subject. There would be no difference in degree of truth since there would be no outside truth apart from what is thought to be true, making the contradiction of them just as true insofar as it is thought to be.

Though of course I don't accept this subjectivism, just to support that Christianity is true. I do the opposite. For if one does not integrally affirm the ontological, objective reality of logical truth in one's epistemic structure, which exactly neccesitates the affirmation of the origin of this in an objective mind, rather than originating in a subjective mind, reducing itself to subjectivism again, then one has already denied the truth of the very denial of the ontological, objective reality of logical truth, for then an objective truth no longer exists to begin with, and the law of noncontradiction no longer applies, and then one has contradicted the very presuppositions necessary for one's own sentences.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If it's subjective that doesn't mean all is equal.

It means there is no objective standard with which to contradistinguish truth from falsity in diverse subjective views. And that does mean that all subjective views are equal, because you cannot appeal to anything but a subjectively originated notion of truth to justify truth, and another subjective person can do the same with another subjective notion of what is true without any epistemic difference.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Now, because it's all subjective; the nutcase could think the scientist was the nutty one and that he was in fact the genius, and he couldn't be proven wrong - I just don't think many people world agree, with good reason. By what we mean by the words "Nutcase" and "Genius" I'd argue that the logical and intelligent scientist was the smarter one and not the guy in the nuthouse who did not demonstrate such genius.

In my example, it was the scientist who argued that 2+2=5.

In any case, what you are doing is simply arguing ad hominem, and appealing to an arbitrary and subjective selection of who is right or wrong. You have not escaped the subjectivism.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:[...]so it's not just me, the "big bad" theist who is talking nonsense.

For the record I certaintly didn't call you as such and certaintly have never intended to imply such a thing. I don't see it that way at all.

I'm not anti-theist, I'm only anti-theism. The difference? I hate the beliefs and the belief system cos I'd rather they weren't around, but I don't hate the theists because I pretty much hate no one and blame no one, regardless of their "beliefs".

What I meant was simply this: if your way of argument (simply repeating notions that are in direct contradiction with the epistemic structure of an atheistic worldview) actually worked and was valid, it would have been used by the atheists who have tried to refute TAG. But it has not.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote: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".

"2+2=4" is true by definition. '2 and 2' is the same as four when put together. Now, on the matter of the definitions, that's all subjective yes. These are just lables, it's all in the mind. So what? Mathmatics is a way of measuing things.

"2+2" doesn't actually exist outside the mind, in computers or down on paper, etc, etc...it's just a way of measuing what actually does exist, or rather - a way of us measuing what we percieve to exist.

2+2=4 and the truth of that proposition exactly cannot exist outside of the mind. That is why I posite the need for an objective mind for logical coherence. For if the truth of the proposition is grounded in mere subjective arbitrarity, then saying that 2+2=5 is equally true, because that is another subjective and arbitrary judgement. To say that 2+2=4 is true because of the nature of the logical proposition it states, you have to ultimately either reduce it again to a subjective and arbitrary notion which is merely convened, just as well as 2+2=5 is convened, or to an objective mind which makes it objectively true.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Your view has the same problem then mate.

It certainly does not.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: True, and I'd pick the scientist to trust lol. I think I'd have to be a psychofreak myself to pick the psychofreak!

But you have no reason to do so, except subjective arbitrarity, and in that case it is equally mandated and true to pick the opposite proposition.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: This is semantic though. Cos whether there's an oibjective mind in this world or not, in practice it's the same. Either way I'd personally, subjectively, think it's indeed more rational to believe when you add 'two and two together' you get four and not five.

You repeat this again and again. But it makes no difference how many times you repeat it.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Ok, let's take existence as an example.

By definition, something either exists or doesn't. So it is a fact whether 'X' (whatever it is to represent) exists or not. The evidence or lack thereof for 'X' is subjective.....but it's still an objective matter whether 'X' exists or not simply because the question is an objective one by definition. By definition 'X either exists or doesn't'. Whatever we mean when we say 'objective', that's an objective question in the sense, indeed, by definition 'X either exists or doesn't'.

Yes the evidence for X is ultimatately subjective, any strong body of evidencve for 'X' that is thought as 'objective', the whole consensus, is ultimately subjective, yes....but who cares? Why does that matter? At all? It seems gratutious semantics to me, untill there's actually any evidence for any "objective mind".

What you are doing is semantic, because you are positing it to be an objective question "by definition", and thus positing the 'objectivity' in the realm of mere subjective definition, rather than positing the objectivity of the question in an ontological reality of objective logical truth in affirming the existence of an objective mind in your epistemic structure, which embodies logical truth, as does a Christian. By your semantic argument, to the contrary, it only depends on what you choose to define. By that standard, I could equally as well define that X might both exist and not exist on the same time, because it is objectively possible 'by definition'.

What you are choosing to define here, is actually the law of noncontradiction.

The reason you do that is that even admitting that it is possible that a thing can literally contradict itself and both exist and not exist and both be true and false, ultimately leads to nonsense. For if a thing can both exist and not exist, or both be true and false, then it is also both true and false that a thing can both be true and false. And that is also both true and false, et cetera ad infinitum. And there logical coherence went in the garbage can. And that is the exact reason you so want to affirm the law of noncontradiction. But unfortunately your only means of doing it is mere arbitrary definition.

But the fact is that these "laws of logic" do not represent ontological realities in the epistemic structure of an atheistic worldview, but only subjective notions that embody no objective representation of reality, in and of themselves, but only do so insofar as they are thought to do so. Or don't do so insofar as they are not thought to do so.

For that reason, it is indeed possible in the epistemic structure of atheism, that X is both true and false, both exists and does not exist on the same time, and that this is both true and false on the same time, and that that is both true and false, and ad cetera ad inifinitum. In other words, atheism is led into the logical incoherency of Trivialism.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: My sanity?

Exactly. And the epistemic structure of atheism forces you to abandon your sanity.

(August 8, 2009 at 9:00 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Untill there's any evidence for any so-called "objective minds", I consider the argument a semantic and gratuitous one.

I have in numerous posts already explained the reason why the question of evidence is entirely irrelevant to this epistemological issue, because an epistemic structure and it's nature always precedes any evidentiality. Like the rules of logic precede any specific application of logical thinking. I will reiterate it just one last time, and I expect you to read this and either understand it or tell me where it's incomprehensibility lies. As far as I can see, your problem is that you equate the proposition "There is sufficient evidence for X's existence", with the proposition "X exists". The latter proposition is presupposed regardless of the evidence, the former is not. The latter proposition doesn't even address evidence, the former does. Now, I do claim there is evidence for Gods existence, independently from TAG, which in fact renders your objection meaningless wholly apart from the TAG, but I still understand that any already-existing evidence is wholly irrelevant to the TAG argument, because it strictly deals with the latter proposition and it's epistemic consequences and coherence, "X exists", not the pre-existing evidence in favour of or against it.

What you really need to understand is the bolded paragraph, which is the most simplistic way I have been able to put it so far.

(August 6, 2009 at 5:50 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: 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 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.

(..)

What my epistemological argument then concludes (upon the incoherence of the epistemic structure of atheistic worldviews), 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.

Additionally, I will quote again all the posts in which I dealt with this much earlier in the thread, the point of which you still haven't fully understood.

(July 18, 2009 at 5:16 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(July 18, 2009 at 5:01 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(July 18, 2009 at 1:06 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: To have truth or evidence, first you need the presumption that truth even exists (in the metaphysical sense).

I would think, that to rationally believe there is absolute objective truth in the first place there has to be some indication - i.e. evidence - that there is objective truth. Would you not agree there?

But that has nothing to do with the epistemic structure of a worldview. A worldview does not need to be evidenced, for the epistemic structure of that worldview to be the epistemic structure of that worldview. That is simply an analytical fact which is agnostic with regards to truth and evidence. Worldviews are subjective, they are not themselves affirmative proof for or against that worldview. They are facts of peoples presuppositions, not objective facts. The worldview only needs to presupposed for the implicit epistemic structure to be the epistemic structure of that worldview. In other words, what evidence there is for the worldview has nothing to do with whether or not it is presuppossed. The only premise necessary for a worldview to be a worldview is that the worldview is presupposed, or taken to be true.

Whether there is evidence that there is an objective truth is a wholely other question which ignores the metaphysical precepts that are implicit in such a quest for evidence. Because there are some premises for whether or not there can be an objective truth, which objectively speaking, to be epistemologically correct, need to be assumed, for it to be even possible to believe that any evidence is possible which so establishes such an objective truth. The problem is that atheism simply does provide or grant the premises for this in its epistemic structure, and I have already given the reasons why. And so, no evidence can transcend the presuppositions which are already implicit in the epistemological presupposition an atheist worldview brings to the table, in the quest for objective truth. That means if an atheist claims an objective truth he simply is being incoherent with the epistemic structure of his own worldview, without knowing it. In other words, we have a self-contradiction.

This is an epistemological, analytical, rather than evidential paradox.

(July 18, 2009 at 6:04 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(July 18, 2009 at 5:37 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: There needs to be evidence for something objective do you not think though, in order to rationally believe in it?

That depends what you mean.

It's very problematic if you are saying we need "objective proof" that there is a such thing as "objective truth".

Because it begs the question that there can be objective truth foundations, by demanding "objective proof" that such can be.

It presupposes that there already is a such thing as objectivity.

Any notion of objective truth merely means something which is dogamtically held to be objective epistemic foundation for a belief. So you are saying you want objective epistemic foundations for the contention that there is a such thing as objective epistemic foundations. That is simply not possible. Any argument or proof has to presuppose that there can be objective epistemic foundations if it wants to pretend to provide objective epistemic foundations for the possibility of objective epistemic foundations!

It is implicit already in the quest for evidence. Meaning that the question is one of presuppositions, not of evidence.

So to answer: can there be proof or evidence for the existence of objective truth, I will reply that that depends entirely on what your presupposition is. Whether I believe it? I believe it cannot be coherently proven by agnostic means, because any search for such proof already has presuppositions which are not agnostic. It can only be proven by working from already-existing presuppositions, namely that there is such a thing as objective epistemic foundation, or objective truth.

(July 18, 2009 at 6:52 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: EvF, I am afraid that we are simply talking in two different directions. I had two parts of my foundations for transcendental monotheism: metaphysics built on empirical observations of reality, neccesitating Gods existence for the actuality of our reality, and, the epistemological necessity for transcendental monotheism.

Now, you are addressing the epistemological part, with an evidentialist approach. That is not going to work, because the epistemological part addresses the very nature of epistemic foundations, and thus the conditions necessary to say that anything can be taken as valid proof/evidence for an objective truth, or in other words, an objective epistemic foundation for a given contention. The only other option than to integrate this objectivity into your epistemic structure, is to claim that you will simply use subjective proof as a starting point, but then it is just that - subjective. Any other person can claim another subjective conclusion if there is no objective standard for objective epistemic foundations for logical truth to begin with. And then you have no way to say anything objectively about reality as an atheist, because no integral part of your epistemic structure transcends the abstractions of your own mind.

(July 18, 2009 at 6:30 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: No, I'm saying there's evidence for reality in science for example - the consensus. Objective in the sense of existence;

What do you mean there is evidence for reality? Do you mean with "evidence", objective epistemic foundations for the belief that reality exists? If so, you are begging the question of an objective standard which transcends subjectivity, for epistemic foundations, and that is simply not consistent with a non-monotheistic epistemic structure, which provides no objective standard for logical truth, except abstractions of the brain chemistry, and then you are contradicting your own epistemic structure.

If you are not talking about objective epistemic foundations for the belief that reality exists, you are merely talking of subjective abstractions, which is not something which provides an objective epistemic foundation for the belief that reality exists - only subjective, in which case you cannot adscribe to it any truth that transcends your own mind. In either case, you are unable to propose anything objectively about reality as an atheist.

(July 18, 2009 at 6:30 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: and I am wondering where the evidence is for any objective 'truth' as in absolute truth - that we can absolutely know

I've already shown you the error there lies in this question. You cannot provide objective epistemic foundations for the existence of objective epistemic foundations, without begging the question or presupposing it to exist. Either you commit the fallacy of begging the question, or you presuppose it to exist on grounds of proper basicality (that it is integral in your epistemic structure), but since that contradicts a non-monotheistic epistemic structure, you are then in fallacy again.

(July 18, 2009 at 6:30 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: and (if you wish to know) I also - more specifically - need evidence to believe there are any morals or values whatsoever that are objective.

Read the first paragraph in this post if you want to understand why that question completely talks in another direction than what I meant with "objective epistemic foundations" for moral truth.