(October 6, 2014 at 8:19 pm)Alice Wrote: Care to demonstrate this refutation that only you see to me?

Go back and re-read your statement that I placed in bold for you, assuming that would have made it obvious--which, obviously I assumed wrong (Hint: Your assertion was purporting to be a true one, yes?).

Quote:I have made no such attack. For all i am concerned, you are an eighty year old philosopher with all the degrees this world can give you...

And you still do not recognize my taking an argument you gave to its end (that experience is what we ought base our truths and our knowledge upon). Would you have rather I asked whether we ought listen to our elders?

At worst, I have given you a straw man, based on your very unclear and interpretable argument (the "one" "with" all the "quotations"). You've as of yet not divorced this concept, and so I have not as of yet considered my argument a straw man.

Your argument amounted to, "We can't know everything. Therefore, we can't know anything." Which, of course, is intellectually vacuous. If your only point was that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty or infallibility, then, again, no shit, sherlock.

Quote:And no... we cannot distinguish with a certainty that is not faith-based that which is real from that which is not. We believe it because science has ruled it likely true... because we have faith in the scientific method, the peer review process, and faith in intersubjective observation of the rules of our universe (which allows for independent studies to reach conclusions equivalent to those already completed). We have these faiths largely because they clearly work... most of the time.

Equivocal use of the term "faith." Faith is not synonymous with belief on the basis of reason and evidence. It's the antithesis of those. If you want to call the belief that other minds besides your own exist "faith," you're only muddling the discourse, not advancing it.

Quote:Verifiability is intersubjective. I don't have such faith that you see what I see... you see: philosophy is... useless in a deterministic practical sense. Science has naught to do with it, only logic... and the faith required to be logical. Scientific process has no impact besides that which the individual feels it does... as it is with "believers" in any congregation... so sure of their faith, so certain within the words of their experts, and that which they can sense for themselves.

Probably a good place to start if you want to end all future interactions before they get off the ground.

Quote:A lie or not... it is all real... and this is why it is not possible to distinguish besides through arbitration.

You seem to have a gift for sloppy aphorisms. Arbitration can be rational or irrational, scientific or non. I'm not sure which you prefer, but the former in both instances typically works for me.

Quote:It remains that I do not consider logic, with its 3 rules, to be the end-all of the universe. It works pretty well for here, usually... but here isn't everywhere, and I've been a lot of places. I simply do not have faith in it, even when respecting that it's the best we have today, and that I tend to accept it face value, even though I'm well aware that it's not perfect.

Cool. When you come up with something better, maybe you'll offer more useful contributions to our discussion.

(October 6, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I would argue that emergent properties would answer your objection.

That was addressed by this line.

(October 6, 2014 at 5:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: ...Nor can the brain, as a whole, can be broken down into smaller and smaller interpreters, each assigning meaning to lesser and lesser signs. Even the smallest sign requires an interpreter no matter how tiny. You cannot build something out of nothing.

(October 6, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ... and we are back to humans defining their own morals and meaning.

a.k.a. nihilism.

(October 6, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I would argue that emergent properties would answer your objection.

Additionally, in your last sentence, you are assuming that god(s) are external of the mind. If they are only a mental construct, your argument goes down the subjective shitter ... and we are back to humans defining their own morals and meaning.

Besides he still has his own difficulties to answer for. Certainly no gods have been established so far. It seems a little strained to argue that everything we experience is only made possible by something hypothetical. Seems to me more likely that the apparent problem itself is hypothetical.

I just can't get excited by little puzzles where the definition of words appear to pose such a fuss that we are supposed to question tangible reality. "Significance" a 25¢ word of little actual significance beyond the tasks we ourselves assign it.

(October 6, 2014 at 9:15 pm)whateverist Wrote: I just can't get excited by little puzzles where the definition of words appear to pose such a fuss that we are supposed to question tangible reality. "Significance" a 25¢ word of little actual significance beyond the tasks we ourselves assign it.

Then I don't understand why some people get their panties all in a knot when I tag their positions as nihilistic. Afterall, it's such an insignificant word.

(October 6, 2014 at 9:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I would argue that emergent properties would answer your objection.

That was addressed by this line.

(October 6, 2014 at 5:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: ...Nor can the brain, as a whole, can be broken down into smaller and smaller interpreters, each assigning meaning to lesser and lesser signs. Even the smallest sign requires an interpreter no matter how tiny. You cannot build something out of nothing.

No, it wasn't, because what you wrote actually supports what I'm saying: if something cannot be broken down into component processes, but is only present when all the processes are extant, and yet it is more than the sum of those processes, you have an emergent property. It is not "something out of nothing"; it is something out many things which sometimes produce surprising results.

(October 6, 2014 at 9:13 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ... and we are back to humans defining their own morals and meaning.

a.k.a. nihilism.

My life has objective meaning. Ask my son, an external observer; he'll tell you.

See how easy that is? I have defined the meaning of my own life, but it is accepted as fact. Kinda like your god defining the meaning of your life, and you accepting it; but I'm responsible enough to do the heavy lifting myself.

Granted. Nihilist it is then. Just so long as that is understood as meaning a rejection of objective subjective states. I actually like the world, me, lots of dogs and almost as many people. So I'm not at all despairing over the loss of what I've never had.

(October 6, 2014 at 9:15 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(October 6, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I would argue that emergent properties would answer your objection.

Additionally, in your last sentence, you are assuming that god(s) are external of the mind. If they are only a mental construct, your argument goes down the subjective shitter ... and we are back to humans defining their own morals and meaning.

Besides he still has his own difficulties to answer for. Certainly no gods have been established so far. It seems a little strained to argue that everything we experience is only made possible by something hypothetical. Seems to me more likely that the apparent problem itself is hypothetical.

I just can't get excited by little puzzles where the definition of words appear to pose such a fuss that we are supposed to question tangible reality. "Significance" a 25¢ word of little actual significance beyond the tasks we ourselves assign it.

Well, when the facts don't support you, a retreat into semantics is pretty smart tactics, I suppose.

(October 5, 2014 at 4:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(October 4, 2014 at 10:10 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Dear Forest Gump,

If the purpose of life is life, would that meaning change depending on whether there is a god? How about if the purpose is to live a good life or a moral one? Because if atheists and theists reach the same conclusion, it would seem god is not necessary to the answer.

Hi Jenny

Yes. In my understanding, atheists operate on the premise that there is no ultimate justice, as that's the natural order of things. Reality. So an atheists morals are based upon an unfair system. The Christians morals are based upon a fair system, therefore our moral standards are different.

Life's a box of chocolates...

Hmmm. I don't think atheists morals are based on an unfair system, so much as they are formed in an amoral reality (i.e. the natural world isn't immoral it simply does not have morals). Good humans strive to make our morals within that reality as fair and just as possible.

It seems to me that whether there is a god or not, nature is still essentially amoral. Hurricanes doesn't destroy cities because they are evil, the question simply doesn't apply to hurricanes, or tigers who eat lambs, or diseases that kill people. But groups of people, no matter how primitive, and regardless of what god or gods they worship create moral systems.

Your proposition if I understand you correctly is that the natural order of things is moral because God somehow makes reality fair. As our current reality is clearly amoral with the exception of human beings, I can only think that you mean god's system is fair because of some kind of final reckoning after death.

The major difference between the atheist structure and the Christian structure is that atheists are compelled to form their structure from reason and Christian use The Bible and/or revelation in addition to (we hope) reason.

What I don't see is how having a moral system created by god would provide humans with more purpose in life.

(October 6, 2014 at 8:19 pm)Alice Wrote: Woah, you got some downright matrix level shit going on here. What if I told you... that every truth you know is false? Nah, you'd probably be all, "you wot mate?!", and then I'd have to hear some oily man wearing a dress defend his homeland from Nancy Drew.

I'd say prove it.

(October 6, 2014 at 8:19 pm)Alice Wrote: How very almighty of them. They must never be wrong... you sir, have the wisest of all the gods in your pocket.

Thank you.

(October 6, 2014 at 8:19 pm)Alice Wrote: They're your beliefs. What am I gonna do... tell you you're wrong, with like... evidence and shit? What have I to gain by leaving you a sniveling nihilistic mess?

Aside from the entertainment, obviously.

Your reasons don't concern me. I accept any opportunity to refine my beliefs.

(October 6, 2014 at 8:19 pm)Alice Wrote: The same way I can make the statement that the sun is nuclear, cancer can be cut out of you with a laser, and the bible is exceedingly boring (two words: numbers)... I met some lady on a train in Transylvania. She told me.

And what did she tell you about my concepts?

(October 6, 2014 at 8:19 pm)Alice Wrote: You would think that.

I would.

(October 6, 2014 at 8:19 pm)Alice Wrote: The faith in your knowledge being correct... the faith that you have the ability to recognize your knowledge's correctness... and the faith that your knowledge's correctness changes only according to patterns that you (can?) understand.

None of that is faith.

(October 5, 2014 at 4:34 am)fr0d0 Wrote: How is it subjective? I either know Gods will it I don't.

The objective purpose is justice. That's not negotiable.

Ah got it. However, since both atheist and Christians form systems of justice I don't see how life without god would be meaningless. However, justice, while a good thing is hardly the sort of meaning that gives purpose to life an a daily basis. Such a meaning would hardly, for example, cause one to want to have and raise children, or create great art, or pursue pleasure intellectual or physical for it's own sake.