I've just had an epiphany. It always seemed to me like Presuppositionalism was dancing on the edge of solipsism. I now realize my perception was wrong. Presuppositionalism *IS* solipsism with an absurd twist.

They begin with solipsism as the basis for their "philosophy" but then carve out a special exception for themselves. This special exception is based upon the bare assertion that their god bails them out, using a contrived definition of their god as the being that bails them out, thus enabling them to arrive at their desired conclusion that their god exists.

In sum, it's solipsism but with a bunch of logical fallacies piled on top.

But then, isn't this the essence of religion?
Step 1: Create a problem that doesn't exist.
Step 2: Posit your god as the solution for said problem.

But then, I'm probably "whining" about religion again. I'm not sure how my criticism constitutes "whining" exactly, but since he feels he's entitled to redefine "objective" to suit his needs, he can be expected to redefine other words as well.

(July 10, 2013 at 5:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It’s interesting that you have now changed the definition of a good salesman from one who generates new clients to one that generates sales; it’s amusing that you cannot keep your own analogous proof straight.

Generating new clients IS generating sales. However, a salesman who could not gain new clients might still claim to be a "good salesman" if he can show an increase in sales for his efforts. For example, he could recover lost accounts or cross-sell to existing accounts. All of this is would provide objective data to support his subjective evaluation that he is a "good" salesman.

The point of this analogy, which seems utterly lost on you, is that (let me put this in bold for your benefit)...

not all subjective opinions are equal.

Some subjective opinions are supported by rational argument and objective data. Others are not. In my analogy, the salesman has nothing to show for his efforts and so my assessment that he's a bad salesman, though a subjective assessment, is on stronger grounds than his assertion to the contrary, which has nothing to support it aside from his bare assertions.

Now you continue to argue that the hypothetical salesman's subjective assessment of himself is just as valid as contrary opinions despite the fact that objective data supports one opinion and not the other. This only serves to underscore the problems with discussing philosophy with a solipsist. The problems with discussing philosophy with a presuppositionalist is a variation on that theme. Where the solipsist will respond to all your arguments with "nuh-uh", the presuppositionalist will respond to all your arguments with "nuh-uh, unless you believe in my favorite sky-daddy".

Quote:you must first demonstrate that humans have a specific and intrinsic purpose and duty in life.

Why?

Quote:Yet, the only reason you seem to ascribe to moral subjectivism is because several philosophers you’ve clearly never read also do.

When have I said that?

I've already stated the reasons I believe in moral subjectivism is because morality can't be represented in numbers or plugged into a spreadsheet. You can't measure morality the same way you can measure temperature, mass or velocity. Discussions about whether an action was moral or immoral require judgment, not measurement.

That said, not all subjective evaluations are equal. The entire point of my salesman analogy is that some evaluations are supported by reason and objective data where others are not. This is a point completely lost on you because you're a solipsist with a twist.

This is, by the way, the second time you've employed this strawman and the second time I've corrected you. I trust there won't be a third?

Quote:Contracts are only binding if all parties know what is in them, has the ability to agree to them or opt out of them; so where is this social contract? How does one agree to it? If any such contract did exist (which you have not proven one does) it still does not demonstrate that we ought to treat others as we want to be treated. You’ve got quite the hill to climb.

Climbed, flagged, point hopelessly lost on you and we're moving on.

Quote:I thought we were supposed to treat others how we want to be treated?

I've never asked for undeserved respect. I do not expect it from others. I thus feel quite comfortable in mocking positions which earn no respect.

Quote:You’ve given me plenty of arbitrary reasons or opinions, but arbitrary reasons and opinions are meaningless. Morality deriving from God is not only meaningful and useful, but as you have helped to demonstrate it’s the only definition of morality that is logically defensible.

We've already been all over why GodWillsIt is neither meaningful nor useful, points have been lost on you and we're moving on.

Quote:How do you know that’s the criteria? Did you just make that up? People are not self-aware until around two years old; do infants therefore not have existential rights?

Infants do evidently think and feel.

Quote:Because it is generally harmful to others and typically not how we wish to be treated by one another.

Quote:Nice circular rationalization! For being the boy who cried circularity on this forum you sure don’t seem to avoid it in your own reasoning.

- It’s morally wrong to treat others how we do not want to be treated
- Why?
- Because that makes you a hypocrite
- Why is being a hypocrite wrong?
- Because it’s being dishonest
- Why is being dishonest wrong?
- Because it’s treating others how we do not want to be treated
- Why is treating others differently than you want to be treated morally wrong? (Return to the Top)

One thing does allow me to break the circle: the argument you offer is also hypocritical. It involves a double-standard that is not justified.

Quote:

Quote:Double standards like the kind you hypothetically suggest require justification. Why is it OK for you to persecute atheists but not for atheists to persecute you?

That’s not a principle of reasoning. If I want to better my life by treating others differently than I want to be treated, why is that morally wrong? Where does this moral obligation for sacrificing my greater good for the good of others come from?

You still haven't justified your double-standard. The burden of proof is on you to do so. If you can't, my single-standard is less complex and therefore a more solid and defensible evaluation. Remember how not all subjective evaluations are equal?

Quote:Not only this, but couldn’t god change the distance between two objects if He wanted to?

Then the objective measure would change as reality changes. That would not make the measure of distance subjective.

Quote:Let’s look at the definition you keep using…

4. Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. (Webster’s)

Did you catch it? The example? An objective OPINION? Given your bizarre usage of the word, how could an opinion ever be objective since opinions derive from the mind?

It is my opinion that the current outdoor temperature in the town in which I live is 74 degrees Fahrenheit. My objective opinion happens to be correct.

Quote:The negation of that premise leads to the impossibility of all knowledge.

So you "know" it's true that your god is the standard because if you didn't assert that your god is the standard you couldn't know anything? And that's how you "prove" that your god is the standard because if you didn't make that bare assertion, you make the bare assertion that you couldn't know anything?

Quote:We know of Yahweh through the things that are made and His revealed word, anything conceptualized beyond that is irrelevant.

And naturally your interpretation is the correct one and everyone else is getting it wrong.

Quote:I do not need evidence when I have proof.

You have no "proof", unless you've redefined this word as well.

What you have are bare assertions and contrived definitions that you utilize to work backwards toward your desired conclusion. The very fact that you rely heavily upon hack philosophy underscores how you have jack to offer as proof.

Christianity has no storehouse of magical artifacts like Paul's magic handkerchiefs. It can't offer any repeatable demonstrations like healing the sick or casting out demons. It can't produce either booming voices from the sky or angels visiting humans. All of these things exist in the holy book you claim represents reality (and the being that created it) and yet all of these things are conspicuously missing now that we have the technology to both record and broadcast them all over the world.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but you offer no evidence of any kind, much less proof. All you offer is hack philosophy and so you fail to meet your burden of proof before anyone even responds.

(July 10, 2013 at 11:21 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I've just had an epiphany. It always seemed to me like Presuppositionalism was dancing on the edge of solipsism. I now realize my perception was wrong. Presuppositionalism *IS* solipsism with an absurd twist.

Nope, your conceptual scheme reduces to solipsism, mine does not.

Quote: They begin with solipsism as the basis for their "philosophy" but then carve out a special exception for themselves. This special exception is based upon the bare assertion that their god bails them out, using a contrived definition of their god as the being that bails them out, thus enabling them to arrive at their desired conclusion that their god exists.

No, if anti-Biblical conceptual schemes reduce to solipsism (which they do), and we know that solipsism is false then the Biblical conceptual scheme is proven true through the impossibility of the contrary. It’s perfectly sound. The fact you do not like it is irrelevant.

Quote: In sum, it's solipsism but with a bunch of logical fallacies piled on top.

Your view of reality? Indeed.

Quote: Step 1: Create a problem that doesn't exist.

No, I didn’t create the problem, your view of reality did and it’s a problem that you seem incapable of resolving.

Quote: Step 2: Posit your god as the solution for said problem.

He is the only solution to the problem; the Christian conceptual scheme does not reduce to solipsism, yours does.

Quote: But then, I'm probably "whining" about religion again.

Appears to be the norm.

(July 10, 2013 at 5:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Generating new clients IS generating sales.

No it’s not, I could sign up new clients all day long and if they do not make any purchases I didn’t generate any sales. As an analogy it totally fails, but if you insist on sticking with it then by all means please do because it proves nothing.

Quote: All of this is would provide objective data to support his subjective evaluation that he is a "good" salesman.

objective data? There’s that word again! How could it be objective if it’s determined and created by the will of the clients deciding to make purchases? According to you it must be independent of all beings. If you’re going to use the word correctly, please use it correctly all the time.

Quote: The point of this analogy, which seems utterly lost on you, is that (let me put this in bold for your benefit)...

not all subjective opinions are equal.

You’re tossing out another red herring I see, we’re not talking about mere subjective opinions which your analogy deals with, we’re talking about moral subjectivism which your analogy has nothing to do with. Since we’re discussing moral subjectivism and not some sort of career duty subjectivism all opinions are equal because you cannot prove there’s a purpose or moral obligation to being a living Human being; therefore you cannot generate any “objective” data.

Quote: Some subjective opinions are supported by rational argument and objective data. Others are not. In my analogy, the salesman has nothing to show for his efforts and so my assessment that he's a bad salesman, though a subjective assessment, is on stronger grounds than his assertion to the contrary, which has nothing to support it aside from his bare assertions.

In a pragmatic sense of the term, yes the salesman is a “bad” salesman because he’s not fulfilling his duties that come with taking on the role of being a salesman (isn’t the politically correct term these days salesperson?). As I have already pointed out this is proving an irrelevant thesis because you have not proven there are any obligations, duties, or purpose to being a living Human being.

Quote: Now you continue to argue that the hypothetical salesman's subjective assessment of himself is just as valid as contrary opinions despite the fact that objective data supports one opinion and not the other.

According to your definition of objective, that’s not objective data, it’s subjective.

Quote: This only serves to underscore the problems with discussing philosophy with a solipsist. The problems with discussing philosophy with a presuppositionalist is a variation on that theme. Where the solipsist will respond to all your arguments with "nuh-uh", the presuppositionalist will respond to all your arguments with "nuh-uh, unless you believe in my favorite sky-daddy".

If the salesman or his employer believes his purpose is something other than generating sales, then you have no basis to say he’s wrong because you cannot prove that’s his purpose under all circumstances. The fact that your conceptual scheme undermines the possibility of all knowledge is not my problem. It actually makes you the solipsist though, not me.

Quote:Why?

You’re trying to prove that moral subjectivism does not reduce to all opinions being equally valid, you’re trying to do this through proof by analogy (I assume that was the purpose of the analogy rather than to waste my time). In your analogy you’re comparing the actions of a salesman with his duties and purpose that come with the role of being a salesman. In order for this not to be committing the fallacy of the faulty analogy your analogy must have an area of similarity with what you are trying to prove. So in order to prove one moral opinion concerning human behavior is superior to another you’ll need to first prove that people have intrinsic moral duties and purpose to compare with their behavior just like you compared a salesman’s behavior with his duty to sell. Until you do this all moral opinions are equally valid because someone can just believe it is their purpose in life to kill, and the better they are at killing, just like the salesman being good at selling, the more morally good their behavior is.

Quote:When have I said that?

You implied that was the case when you simply dropped the names of a few philosophers rather than actually providing their arguments (you did provide one of their theories, but it was not an argument at all).

Quote: I've already stated the reasons I believe in moral subjectivism is because morality can't be represented in numbers or plugged into a spreadsheet. You can't measure morality the same way you can measure temperature, mass or velocity. Discussions about whether an action was moral or immoral require judgment, not measurement.

That seems to be quite the non-sequitur, why is something automatically subjective simply because it cannot be represented numerically?

Quote: That said, not all subjective evaluations are equal. The entire point of my salesman analogy is that some evaluations are supported by reason and objective data where others are not. This is a point completely lost on you because you're a solipsist with a twist.

Solipsist with a twist? That’s catchy. Your analogy proves nothing until you can prove that people have duties and purpose in order to judge their behavior in relation to. As it stands it’s a faulty analogy.

Quote: This is, by the way, the second time you've employed this strawman and the second time I've corrected you. I trust there won't be a third?

Asserting that by pointing out that you’ve committed the fallacy of the faulty analogy I am erecting a straw-man is itself a straw-man; which is kind of funny. I have given you very clear reasons as to why your analogy fails, now you can either fix it’s problem or let the fallacy stand.

Quote:Climbed, flagged, point hopelessly lost on you and we're moving on.

So you cannot prove a social contract even exists? So all of that rambling on and on by you about it was irrelevant? Noted.

Quote:I've never asked for undeserved respect. I do not expect it from others. I thus feel quite comfortable in mocking positions which earn no respect.

So since the Marquis de Sade wants to be tortured and sexually assaulted he’s justified in torturing and sexually assaulting others! People who want to commit suicide by police force are justified in shooting others because they themselves want to be shot! There’s secular morality for you!

Quote:We've already been all over why GodWillsIt is neither meaningful nor useful, points have been lost on you and we're moving on.

No, we’ve been all over why you do not like the God solution, but you not liking something proves nothing; I am not surprised you want to tuck tail and run from that topic.

Quote:Infants do evidently think and feel.

Which was only part of your criteria, you also said the object must be self-aware and infants are not self-aware beings yet; so I will ask again, how do you know that is the criteria for having existential rights and do infants have them?

Quote:One thing does allow me to break the circle: the argument you offer is also hypocritical. It involves a double-standard that is not justified.

That doesn’t break the circle at all. Why is treating others differently than you want to be treated, being a hypocrite, and being dishonest all morally wrong without relying upon a circular rationalization? You are being a hypocrite though by now invoking Tu Quoque after objecting to me supposedly using it in regards to axioms. Oopsies!

Quote:You still haven't justified your double-standard. The burden of proof is on you to do so. If you can't, my single-standard is less complex and therefore a more solid and defensible evaluation. Remember how not all subjective evaluations are equal?

What double-standard is that? So far the only special pleading I’ve seen has been on your part, objecting to me having axioms when you have more of them, objecting to me supposedly using circularity when you just used it above, so sounds like you’ve got some housekeeping to do before you bring up double-standards with me.

Quote:Then the objective measure would change as reality changes. That would not make the measure of distance subjective.

Sure it would because the only reason the distance was ever there to begin with was because God’s mind determined and created it just like God’s laws, making it a subjective distance; and according to your weird definition if something is subjective it cannot be objective from anyone else’s perspective.

Quote:It is my opinion that the current outdoor temperature in the town in which I live is 74 degrees Fahrenheit. My objective opinion happens to be correct.

Did you decide to have that opinion? Is it a product of your mind? Then it’s not objective, according to you. This is priceless; you’ve gotten yourself so tangled up in your own pointless contrarianism.

Quote:So you "know" it's true that your god is the standard because if you didn't assert that your god is the standard you couldn't know anything? And that's how you "prove" that your god is the standard because if you didn't make that bare assertion, you make the bare assertion that you couldn't know anything?

Bare assertion? I do not think that means what you think it means The possibility of knowledge requires God to exist, that’s supported by the fact that competing secular schemes reduce to absurdity, so if we can know anything at all, we can also know that God exists. Proof through negation, and it’s valid and sound.

Quote:And naturally your interpretation is the correct one and everyone else is getting it wrong.

Well not naturally, but logically yes. I’ve changed my interpretation over the years because others have logically shown me that mine was in error, that’s what rational people do.

Quote:You have no "proof", unless you've redefined this word as well.

Valid and sound deductive proof, you whining about it does not prove anything.

Quote: What you have are bare assertions and contrived definitions that you utilize to work backwards toward your desired conclusion. The very fact that you rely heavily upon hack philosophy underscores how you have jack to offer as proof.

Hack philosophy? Like what? Obviously you’re as ignorant of how epistemology works as you are axioms, what a waste of time. By the way, a bare assertion is a “just so” assertion that has no reason behind it, I have numerous logical reasons for my beliefs so they are not bare assertions. It’s so hilarious that all of this whining comes from the guy who years ago claimed he knew deductive logic exists because “he likes the results he gets when he uses it”. Well shucks, I guess I know God exists because I like the results, fair is fair! Classic!

Quote: Christianity has no storehouse of magical artifacts like Paul's magic handkerchiefs. It can't offer any repeatable demonstrations like healing the sick or casting out demons. It can't produce either booming voices from the sky or angels visiting humans. All of these things exist in the holy book you claim represents reality (and the being that created it) and yet all of these things are conspicuously missing now that we have the technology to both record and broadcast them all over the world.

That’s funny considering that repeatability and the beliefs necessary to generate all of that great technology presuppose that the God of scripture exists. Ironic to say the least.

Quote: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but you offer no evidence of any kind, much less proof. All you offer is hack philosophy and so you fail to meet your burden of proof before anyone even responds.

Sweet! You tossed out the extraordinary claims/extraordinary evidence canard! This will be really fun! What qualifies a claim as extraordinary, what is extraordinary evidence, and why does an extraordinary claim require it?

(July 11, 2013 at 6:27 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No it’s not, I could sign up new clients all day long and if they do not make any purchases...

...then they're not "clients". They're, at best, "leads".

Unless, of course, you're continuing in your strategy of redefining words as you go.

The rest of your post is a collection of bare assertions and near-incoherent babble. Nothing that requires any refutation. So unless you have anything else to offer, I'm going to say Q.E.D.

(June 19, 2013 at 12:09 am)rexbeccarox Wrote: Putting it very simply:

Rape is wrong, morally or otherwise. Why? It hurts people.

Blasphemy is not wrong. Why? It doesn't hurt anyone.

Homosexuality is not wrong. Why? It doesn't hurt anyone.

Remind me to never have you treat a wound of mine

Really simple? Yup, that's really stupid, and fundamentalistic

(July 11, 2013 at 7:49 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: ...then they're not "clients". They're, at best, "leads".

Pro bono lawyers have clients who don’t pay a dime. It’s funny how you want to debate the details of your fallacious analogy but you don’t want to actually defend anything actually relevant to your position.

Quote: Unless, of course, you're continuing in your strategy of redefining words as you go.

It’s my strategy of using words correctly. How are meters and degrees objective if they’re not independent of all being’s minds? How are distance and temperature objective if they're not independent of all being’s minds? How is the number of clients gained objective data if it’s not independent of all being’s minds? If those things are all objective then God’s moral laws are also objective; don’t hate me for forcing you to be consistent for once in your life.

Quote: The rest of your post is a collection of bare assertions and near-incoherent babble. Nothing that requires any refutation. So unless you have anything else to offer, I'm going to say Q.E.D.

Translation: DeistPaladin got destroyed and doesn’t know how to defend his position.

I am perfectly fine with you allowing my arguments to stand un-refuted.

Regards,

SW

(July 12, 2013 at 4:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Translation: DeistPaladin got destroyed and doesn’t know how to defend his position.

Well, you just go on believing that. Personally, I prefer to leave such verdicts to the readers.

(July 12, 2013 at 4:06 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Well, you just go on believing that. Personally, I prefer to leave such verdicts to the readers.

Of course you would! You know that an audience full of anti-Christians is going to prefer a poor man’s atheist’s arguments over a Christian’s no matter how absurd and fallacious they may be. You also appear to be ignorant of the fact that the merits of arguments are independent of their ability to persuade or gain approval from the masses, so whether or not the readers think you won the argument is…you guessed it…as irrelevant as your fallacious analogy was. We could always just take the thread on over to ChristianForums.org and see who the readers think won it over there. Study up! I am sure we’ll tango again.

(July 12, 2013 at 4:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: We could always just take the thread on over to ChristianForums.org and see who the readers think won it over there.

Unfortunately, I've been banned at Christianforums.org. They don't like it when people make arguments against Christianity, even when the critic confines his/her arguments in their apologist section.

Good luck finding a Christian forum that doesn't censor and/or ban critics of Christianity. The fact that they don't allow debate and censor comments that hurt their feelings says much about the merits of the arguments on your side.

Sad to say, the only place you'll find where you can openly debate religion on a level playing field where comments won't be censored is on an atheist forum like this one.

But as I've said, you go on thinking that you won. You are, after all, a solipsist with a twist, so reality is up for grabs for you anyway.

Quote:No, they are not descriptive, they are normative laws. Perhaps you should spend more time studying the fact you cannot reason from the descriptive to the normative, that’s invalid.

Why would I care if reasoning from the descriptive to the normative is invalid? As I've told you many times, I'm not interested in arguing what morality -ought to be- argue that with someone else.

Quote:
Raping a woman can be a morally good act simply because a society says so? Sickening. Atheism really does erode morality.

It doesn't matter whether or not you or I would sign on with such a thing, as the bit the makes morality relative is the bit that isn't confined to your head. Other people. Other goals. Other norms. Atheism isn't a determining factor in whether or not something is relative. Even if there were no atheists, your vying theistic moralities would be relative. It doesn't even matter if everyone is a goddamned atheist Stat - their vying moralities would be relative.

(June 12, 2013 at 5:08 pm)Big Blue Sky Wrote: Actually russia was much better under the Bolshevists than it is now

Quote:"Insulting religious feelings in public can be punished with up to three years in prison"

http://freethinker.co.uk/2013/06/12/russ...-gay-laws/

Really, I'm not really surprised. The Russians and non-EU slavics are quite conservative when it comes to matters like this.