(June 2, 2015 at 1:36 pm)Anima Wrote: Under the logic of subject morality it is dependent upon the determination of the subject A about the given action X.  

Correct. I'll go further and say that this is precisely the situation we find ourselves in, evidenced by the observation that people have strong views pertaining to what they think is right, these views oftentimes contradict, and there being no standard measure for appeal except the opinions of ourselves and others when evaluating the correctness of them.

Quote:Thus, inconsistency is made apparent by variance of the subject being the perpetrator or the victim.

Such not need be the case, however. A could acknowledge that B acted morally (per his standard) while personally disliking the consequence (being lied to).

Quote: In both cases the perspective is of Subject A and the action is X.  Now if the quality of X is modified according to whether A is the perpetrator or the victim than this would say that the quality of X as determined by subjective morality is entirely variable and may never be determined.

Morality that is limited to a subjective determination cannot be determined objectively. Right. Objective morality implies that there is a set of values to which everyone is obliged in consideration of their moral quality being unaffected by any single individual's regard for them. Facts about the world, such as the correctness of Newton's law of universal gravitation, have such an objective quality---it doesn't matter if you agree with Newton or not when you jump from the roof of a skyscraper---whereas the values a person holds, shaping their perceived justification for slaying infidels, for example, have no necessary bearing on how others define value.

Quote: Particularly because even if the perspective and active role of Subject A remain the same the quality of the action will vary depending on how Subject A perceives or accepts the act.  Thus, if Subject B were to lie to Subject A in such a manner that was intended to benefit Subject B, but was viewed by Subject A as beneficial than it is moral.  

Yeah... According to A.

Quote:Which again is an contradiction allowing for no determination of the right/wrongness of the action.

No. The determination of the right/wrongness depends on what Subject A values. If he values the Aristotelian conception of the good life his determination of right/wrongness will agree with others who share like-minded values, but differ from the pious priest who believes that appeasing the tribal deity and stoning the insolent child is the ultimate good which rational animals ought to pursue. Again, this is in fact represents the world we find ourselves in.

Quote:Your expression of subjective morality only being subjective because the Subjects A and B value different facts.  Does not exclude a subject who defines terms respective to themselves.  Such defintion is very common in our day today activities which is why I used lying as the example.  There are a great many times where we feel we are justified, even right in lying to others.  But we do not feel the same way when others lie to us.  

Most people are not always logically consistent.

Quote:Under subjective morality the particular Subject determines the quality of the action.  If we were to argue that the quality of action is determined by the actor we would have to say the act is always moral (no matter how horrible) as the actor considered the action of sufficient rightness to engage in said action.  

No, we wouldn't. We are still free to develop our own values and meanings, and to argue them based on what we conceive to be the most rational virtues based on the evidence of our perceptions... which is exactly what people who argue for objective morality do too.

Quote:While not contradictory in regards to the specific Subject it will be rendered contradictory when implemented for multiple Subjects as the single Subject is not the only Subject that exists.

Hence, disagreements such as ours. So, what's the problem with that?

Quote:1.  Actually I had more in mind the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Newton, Einstein, and so on. Now if you do not consider what they have said meaningful or novel while other have we must state one of several possible conditions exist. Either it is not meaningful/novel, its meaning/novelty is not being comprehended by you, they are apply meaning/novelty where there is none, or its meaning/novelty is not missed by them. None of which I want to waste time arguing.

Depends on what specifics you're referring to. Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Newton, etc. made some brilliant observations. Their contributions to theology would not be included in that assessment for me.

Quote:2.  The threshold of proof or evidence (Chas) being set for the existence of God would classify as analytic apriori (to which only tautologies lie).  Now if God were proved or evidenced tautologically the response would be that it is not sufficient as it is simply begging the question (were the conclusion is assumed in the question).  However, it is stated by Kant that knowledge is predicated upon either analytic apriori (tautologies), synthetic apriori (inferred from logic without experience) or synthetic aposteriori (inferrence from experience).  As such the only proof or evidence, that is not circular, to which anything (including God) may satisfy shall be implicit and circumstantial leading to an inference.  This is a summary of Kant's 500+ page argument.  Thereby I am saying that it is impractical to set a threshold of proof or evidence for God that is beyond a threshold that may be meet by any form of knowledge we have.

God is not inferred from "logic without experience" or "inference from evidence." So, I can allow legitimate knowledge of my surroundings to be ascertained from deduction or induction without conceding that there is any justification for an uber-powerful and wise species of being that pervades all space while simultaneously existing outside of it.

Quote:Regarding the Directness of Experience by Kant (bolded):

"Truth is said to consist in the agreement of knowledge with the object. According to this mere verbal definition, then, my knowledge, in order to be true, must agree with the object. Now, I can only compare the object with my knowledge by this means, namely, by taking knowledge of it. My knowledge, then, is to be verified by itself, which is far from being sufficient for truth. For as the object is external to me, and the knowledge is in me, I can only judge whether my knowledge of the object agrees with my knowledge of the object. Such a circle in explanation was called by the ancients Diallelos. And the logicians were accused of this fallacy by the sceptics, who remarked that this account of truth was as if a man before a judicial tribunal should make a statement, and appeal in support of it to a witness whom no one knows, but who defends his own credibility by saying that the man who had called him as a witness is an honourable man." - (Immanuel Kant)

Is this from the CPR? My translation was the Meiklejohn one which I didn't much care for.

Quote: So as the physical object is external to your metaphysical consciousness within you it may not act directly upon your person or consciousness, but upon your senses and then your sensibility and consciousness.

My "metaphysical consciousness"? Is this different from my physical consciousness? (You know, that biological circuitry between the ears that Darwin beautifully demonstrated to have evolved from lower life forms over the span of millions of years, roughly seven decades after Kant's magnum opus).

Quote:This is to say the object is implicitly inferred (as synthetic aposteriori) by the consciousness. A consciousness itself which may be rejected for lacking in direct empirical proof or evidence.

Maybe my metaphysical consciousness can be rejected... but I think you'll have a hard time rejecting the consciousness that you would be required to use in rejecting consciousness.

Quote:Now as a matter of maintaining varying thresholds which people keep bring up. If we are to say that we subject an assertion regarding X to a certain threshold of proof or evidence for the sake of practicality, but we subject another assertion regarding Y to a different threshold of proof or evidence also for the sake of practicality; we are then compelled to ask what is the practicality.

I think Einstein laid it out well:
"Nothing can be said concerning the manner in which the concepts are to be made and connected, and how we are to coordinate them to the experiences. In guiding us in the creation of such an order of sense experiences, success in the result is alone the determining factor. All that is necessary is the statement of a set of rules, since without such rules the acquisition of knowledge in the desired sense would be impossible. One may compare these rules with the rules of a game in which, while the rules themselves are arbitrary, it is their rigidity alone which makes the game possible.”

Quote: While argument is then made to probability (which I naturally find hilarious as the probability of any person or thing existing is so astronomical as to be considered impossible) vs possibility.

I assume you know all of the prerequisite conditions that one would need in order to justify a statement regarding the probability of anything existing? Could you share them with us?

Quote: However, under that answer is the reality that in order to justify our own bias or desired position we need what is asserted regarding X, but not what is asserted regarding Y. In this manner we set variable thresholds for each by which assertions of X are met by a lower standard than assertion for Y. This is to say while I am ready to say my person exists and accept proof or evidence of it which is implicit and circumstantial I am not as ready to admit that God exists and will not accept proof or evidence of that which is implicit and circumstantial.

That would imply that it is equally necessary or fruitful to propose the existence of deity for the sake of advancing knowledge within any given framework... and in 4,000 years of history it's pretty obvious that isn't really the case. You can deny, for example, that other beings exist, or that objects as they exist in themselves can be known (as Kant did) because you feel that there is no standard of evidence that could convince you that everything is not an illusion or that the interaction between external objects and our knowledge of them is insufficient for telling you anything about reality as it is... but then, besides the fact that it would make no difference to how you actually experience the world (jumping off that skyscraper might be a useful experiment, however), you'd probably find many more difficulties in advancing knowledge related to such conjectures... as experience differentiates between abstract objects and those which seem to be "out there" in an objective world full of other conscious beings, it seems reasonable to proceed from that working assumption until one of these other possibilities show any sort of an advantage.

Quote:Any effort to argue around that will ultimately prove futile because decisions to set variable thresholds are of a subjective nature and not objective.

If you think the only two options available are solipsism and belief in supernatural beings, you might want to ask yourself where you could have gone so terribly awry.

Quote:Which is why I do not endeavor to make such distinction. I hold all knowledge to the same threshold of proof or evidence which is implicit circumstantial evidence. I do not even require it to be empirical as knowledge may be synthetic apriori (inferred without experience commonly by logic) or synthetic aposteriori (inferred from experience), or analytic aprior (tautological).

Everything about the world in my experience of study and observation has thoroughly substantiated the view that actual knowledge requires a harmony of both the intellect and the senses... an extreme to one is mere speculation which has proven unreliable, and the other just amounts to brute stupidity.

Quote:I would not state that circumstantial implicit empirical proof is insufficient for positing something as probable even if only vaguely defined or apprehended. Not at all. But I would have to tell you that God meets this threshold and thus may be posited as something probable even if only vaguely defined or apprehended.

Contrarily, I would state that you're completely wrong. There is no measure for defining the probability of God as there is not a single point of observation or piece of valid reasoning that suggests the existence of eternal, incorporeal, intelligences (assuming those are attributes that your version of deity or deities must possess).

Quote:Which is why most, (not all as they are not a monolith) of atheistic thought will not accept circumstantial implicit empirical proof as sufficient. There position is denial of, which they may endeavor to support by argument. Argument which is most easily made regarding the threshold of proof or evidence to posit something as probable as existing (or if more nuanced arguments to redundancy, where if duplicated than superfluous and effectively not existing even if actually existing). Since circumstantial implicit proof or evidence does allow for positing the existence of God a probable the level of proof or evidence is elevated in order to exclude allowing the positing the existence of God as probable. The side effect of this elevation of proof or evidence is the unintended exclusion of all knowledge proven or evidence by the lower level of proof/evidence which is circumstantial and implicit.

Well, believers have been using variants of the same three arguments for God's existence since Plato... and I agree with the majority of philosophers who nowadays find them utterly dubious. You got something different?

Quote:Considering that a great many arguments have made utilization of the reactionary meat model of people I woudl disagree that it is unintelligible or useless in discussion. Remember I do not consider people to be reactionary meat. I support that consideration by implicit circumstantial proof/evidence in the same manner that I support god as existing by implicit circumstantial proof/evidence.

If such a level of proof/evidence is in sufficient then it may not be state that consciousness or persons exist. To which a viable explanation for the machinations of people may be described as reactionary meat (see the zombie squid post earlier).

"Reactionary meat," "machinations," "conscious persons," etc., are valid descriptions to whatever extent their applied in appropriate situations. It doesn't mean we need to stop there when seeking the more fundamental natures of things (though I think machinations is fairly accurate on a number of levels).

Quote:To true, to true. The only crux being that ingenuity is not solely limited to being cleaver and inventive in regard to factual realization. One may be ingenious in imaginary things as one is in factual things. (Generally factual things have been understood first as an imaginary thing. Also known as Hypothesis).

Unfortunately, far too many people fail to understand critical methods and confuse the imaginations of ancient Greeks and Hebrews with realities discovered by the imaginations of illuminaries such as Darwin or Einstein. Remember, the value of a hypothesis consists in its ability to formulate models by which predictions can in principle be tested.

(June 2, 2015 at 1:40 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So, no..huh?

Oh that is him. But I think I should warn you. He can look like anything he wants so that is not only him.

And if I am to take the growing trend. He is self defining, you do not get to define him. He is who he desires to be.

(June 2, 2015 at 6:51 pm)Anima Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 1:40 pm)Rhythm Wrote: So, no..huh?

Oh that is him.  But I think I should warn you.  He can look like anything he wants so that is not only him.

And if I am to take the growing trend.  He is self defining, you do not get to define him.  He is who he desires to be.

Hey Anima! ?tion do i just put in my argument/view or intro my self.

If you worship a photo-shopped image of two guys looking to give each other hugs- and that is your god-..then so be it, you've proven to me that your god exists. I wouldn't tell that to the clergy though, if I were you....

This one is reeeeeaaaallllllyyyy llllooonnnnggggg!!!!

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: Correct. I'll go further and say that this is precisely the situation we find ourselves in, evidenced by the observation that people have strong views pertaining to what they think is right, these views oftentimes contradict, and there being no standard measure for appeal except for the opinions of ourselves and others when evaluating the correctness of them.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: Such not need be the case, however. A could acknowledge that B acted morally (per his standard) while personally disliking the consequence (being lied to).

We cannot forget that Subjects A and B are independent of one another.  Thus, according to this standard Subject A may not know anything about Subject B’s standard beyond the assumption that B shall engage only in activity which is considered moral.  To state otherwise is to say that Subject B would embark upon a course of action which they do not consider to be the rightful action, which while possible would seem to contradict the idea of self-interest where what is done in one’s own interest and is considered the rightful action.

As stated in an earlier post, we are unjustified in saying that something is subjective and then subsequently stating that the subjectivity of each Subject is so little that the Subject's subjectivities correspond with one another.

Furthermore, we must account for the fact that any given Subject shall act according to their whim even in the same situation.  This further constitutes a contradiction of subjective morality as the extent of the rule defined by subjective morality is the Subject shall act rightly in accordance with any whim at any given time to a given moral situation.  Which is to say, as stated above, the Subject always acts rightly even if they act sporadically or horribly.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: Morality that is limited to a subjective determination cannot be determined objectively. Right. Objective morality implies that there is a set of values to which everyone is obliged in consideration of their moral quality being unaffected by any single individual's regard for them. Facts about the world, such as the correctness of Newton's law of universal gravitation, has such an objective quality---it doesn't matter if you agree with Newton or not when you jump from the roof of a skyscraper---whereas the values a person holds, shaping their perceived justification for slaying infidels, for example, have no necessary bearing on how others define value.

I do not quite understand this one as you seem to be all over.  First you are stating that facts about the world have an objective quality even though there is as you put it no objective source of these facts, but only subjective sources.  So I do not follow how there can be an objective quality that is not merely coincidence to which one might make a claim of objectivity.  (We covered this at length in previous posts regarding the need to appeal to realism to give subjectives universality and validity as a reflection of part, but not all of, an objective reality).

Then your infidel assertion seems to state those who torture, kill, rape, etcetera are acting morally (you must be if you are arguing a subjective morality) and has no necessary bearing on how others define value (of the actions I presume).  Which seems counter intuitive to me as the persons who are acted upon by said infidels either directly (victims) or indirectly (bystanders and family) would most assured have their evaluation of the action affected by both the act and morality/reason of actor.  (Think cops kill kid running towards them vs. cops kill kid running towards with knife in hand)

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: No. The determination of the right/wrongness depends on what Subject A values. If he values the Aristotelian conception of the good life his determination of right/wrongness will agree with others who share like-minded values, but differ from the pious priest who believes that appeasing the tribal deity and stoning the insolent child is the ultimate good which rational animals ought to pursue. Again, this is in fact represents the world we find ourselves in.

Ah…  I see.  By limiting the Subject to a schema of value you are establishing possible uniformity between Subjects; effectual creating a proxy objective morality.  Interesting, though I would say this would be contrary to the concept of subjective morality.  Since the Subject is not acting according to their own morality but rather according to a schema of morality which is not their own I assume you are contending they will follow the schema even regarding portions they do not like.  If you are not making such an argument than you are wasting time with the introduction of a schema argument and we are back to a subjective morality where each acts according to their whim at any given time in any given situation; a subjective morality that does not allow the Subject to form any rule of moral conduct.  

Furthermore, upon introduction of a schema you would not be justified in holding any given schema as being better than another in regards to subjective morality (you could make that distinction in regards to objective morality) where the Subject in question is not even willing to act according to their inherent determination of morality.  Whether they are following the schema outlined by Aristotle, whom lacks sufficient proof or evidence to exist (where is your picture of Aristotle in accordance with our picture proofs/evidence?), or are, “appeasing the tribal deity” they are acting according to a schema which is not their own and is not proven or evidenced.

It may also be said that all Subjects who subscribe to schema A may be considered Subject A and all Subjects that subscribe to schema B may be considered Subject B.  As all subset of particular Subject of either schema shall act in accordance with the schema as if a single Subject.  So by mean of introducing a schema you endeavor to deprive the Subjects of subjectivity such that (Subject A=A1=A2=A3=An).

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: Most people are not always logically consistent.

Oh I know it!!  There is a whole Atheist forum filled with them!!

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Anima Wrote: Under subjective morality the particular Subject determines the quality of the action.  If we were to argue that the quality of action is determined by the actor we would have to say the act is always moral (no matter how horrible) as the actor considered the action of sufficient rightness to engage in said action.  

No, we wouldn't. We are still free to develop our own values and meanings, and to argue them based on what we conceive to be the most rational virtues based on the evidence of our perceptions... which is exactly what people who argue for objective morality do too.

Under a subjective morality you would.  You would not under an objective morality or objective morality by proxy which you endeavor to establish by means of a schema or the adoption of values and meanings beyond subjective whims or preferences.  In so doing you are moving the determinate of what is moral beyond the Subject to some rule the Subject must obey even if they subjectively do not think it is right or what they want. At which time they would no longer be following subjective morality.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: Depends on what specifics you're referring to. Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Newton, etc. made some brilliant observations. Their contributions to theology would not be included in that assessment for me.

Really?  Hmm…  Well that does not eliminate their brilliant contributions to metaphysics, ontology, and theology.
Guess your assessment does not define the reality

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: God is not inferred from "logic without experience" or "inference from evidence." So, I can allow legitimate knowledge of my surroundings to be ascertained from deduction or induction without conceding that there is any justification for an uber-powerful and wise species of being.

Umm.  God may be inferred both by synthetic apriori (done epistemologically by Plato in regards to the Forms) and synthetic aposteriori (done ontologically by Aristotle in regards to causality).  Kant even discusses both of these inferences of god in the Critique of Pure Reason.  

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: Is this from the CPR? My translation was the Meiklejohn one which I didn't much care for.

I am not sure what translation I have.  I will have to get back to you on that one.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: My "metaphysical consciousness"? Is this different from my physical consciousness? (You know, that biological circuitry between the ears that Darwin beautifully demonstrated to have evolved from lower life forms over the span of millions of years, roughly seven decades after Kant's magnum opus).  

YES SIR!!  The reactionary meat between your ears constitutes physical consciousness (which I would not call it consciousness but you want to) and may be shown to react without teleological purpose to stimuli; where consciousness is held to be of greater metaphysical and teleological quality than simply reactionary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness)

(By the way, Darwin did not demonstrate this evolved over millions of years...No one has.)

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: Maybe my metaphysical consciousness can be rejected... but I think you'll have a hard time rejecting the consciousness that you would be required to use in rejecting consciousness.

Ha ha.  You cannot reject my imaginary friend without making one of your own.  I like it.  You cannot reject god without accepting the existence of your person who shall reject god (both of which lack sufficient proof/evidence).  This argument seems familiar…  

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: I think Einstein laid it out well:
"Nothing can be said concerning the manner in which the concepts are to be made and connected, and how we are to coordinate them to the experiences. In guiding us in the creation of such an order of sense experiences, success in the result is alone the determining factor. All that is necessary is the statement of a set of rules, since without such rules the acquisition of knowledge in the desired sense would be impossible. One may compare these rules with the rules of a game in which, while the rules themselves are arbitrary, it is their rigidity alone which makes the game possible.”

I love this quote as it is making my very point!

As stipulated earlier in this post.  The set of rules one adopts shall be either the objective reality or serve as a proxy for the objective reality to which the Subject must adhere even if not desired.  Then it may be further argued that any proxy of the objective reality shall reach perfection as it approaches the actual objective reality.

Otherwise you are contending the creation of nonsensical rules to play a game that goes nowhere.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: I assume you know all of the prerequisite conditions that one would need in order to justify a statement regarding the probability of anything existing? Could you share them with us?

You asking just because or did your internet go out?

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Anima Wrote: However, under that answer is the reality that in order to justify our own bias or desired position we need what is asserted regarding X, but not what is asserted regarding Y.  In this manner we set variable thresholds for each by which assertions of X are met by a lower standard than assertion for Y.  This is to say while I am ready to say my person exists and accept proof or evidence of it which is implicit and circumstantial I am not as ready to admit that God exists and will not accept proof or evidence of that which is implicit and circumstantial.

That would imply that it is equally necessary or fruitful to propose the existence of deity for the sake of advancing knowledge within any given framework... and in 4,000 years of history it's pretty obvious that isn't really the case. You can deny, for example, that other beings exist, because you feel that there is no standard of evidence that could convince you that everything is not an illusion... but then, besides the fact that it would make no difference to how you actually experience the world (jumping off that skyscraper might be a useful experiment, however), you'd probably find many more difficulties in advancing knowledge, which experience differentiates between abstract objects and those which seem to be "out there" in an objective world full of other conscious beings.

Actually history does support that idea.  In fact the primary institutions of scientific knowledge, learning, and progress in nearly every society would be the religious ones who were endeavoring to understand their god or god(s) better by understanding their creation.  Any anthropologist or historian can attest to this as religious organizations are one of the primary areas of research to understand societies.

I cannot deny the existence of numerous gods under the same threshold of proof that gives rise to a particular god.  However, I can amalgamate those gods into a single entity which may thereby be designated as God.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: If you think the only two options available are solipsism and belief in supernatural beings, you might want to ask yourself where you could have gone so terribly awry.

I believe my argument was that any efforts to argue around the inherent subjective bias of pragmatism were futile.  Which I am confident in reiterating as pragmatism is a subcategory of idealism which contends the object and its practicality are determined by the Subject.  That leads back to my original post above that stated the purpose of the unattainable standard for god, with a different standard for everything else is because one does not want to believe in god rather than adopting a standard to support knowledge and letting determination follow that standard wherever it goes.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Anima Wrote: Which is why I do not endeavor to make such distinction.  I hold all knowledge to the same threshold of proof or evidence which is implicit circumstantial evidence.  I do not even require it to be empirical as knowledge may be synthetic apriori (inferred without experience commonly by logic) or synthetic aposteriori (inferred from experience), or analytic aprior (tautological).

Everything about the world in my experience of study and observation has thoroughly substantiated the view that actual knowledge requires a harmony of both.

Everything in your experience is synthetic aposteriori (inferred from experience) and not both   

I agree with the general statement that truth should agree with itself and where possible synthetic apriori and aposteriori should be in harmony, even with analytic apriori.  Though I admit that is not always possible.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Anima Wrote: I would not state that circumstantial implicit empirical proof is insufficient for positing something as probable even if only vaguely defined or apprehended.  Not at all.  But I would have to tell you that God meets this threshold and thus may be posited as something probable even if only vaguely defined or apprehended.

Contrarily, I would state that you're completely wrong. There is no measure for defining the probability of God as there is not a single point of observation or valid reasoning that suggests the existence of eternal, incorporeal, intelligences (assuming those are attributes that your version of deity or deities must possess).

I thought we had an agreement  But you went continuum fallacy quick?  

From circumstantial implicit empirical proof/evidence one may infer the existence of God such that it may be posited God is possible (which is to say probable even if slightly so) though vaguely defined or apprehended.  If possible; then slightly probable; if slightly probable then probable (though not necessarily likely).

To subsequent state that possibility cannot be an actuality simply because there is not a discreet point for determining the exact probability of the possibility to be an actuality is application of the continuum fallacy; akin to saying unless you can tell me exactly how many hairs a person must have on their head to be bald (or no longer bald) than you cannot infer that the removal of hairs from a person’s head who is not bald will make them bald.

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: Well, believers have been using variants of the same three arguments for God's existence since Plato... and I agree with the majority of philosophers who nowadays find them utterly dubious. You got something different?

Ha ha!  Atheist have been riding the “proof” pony since the beginning.  Got something new?

Then how about we endeavor to surpass our predecessors and resolve the arguments already posited?

I would recommend you not subscribe to argumentum ad numerum

(June 2, 2015 at 4:07 pm)Nestor Wrote: Unfortunately, far too many people fail to understand critical methods and confuse the imaginations of ancient Greeks and Hebrews with realities discovered by the imaginations of illuminaries such as Darwin or Einstein. Remember, the value of a hypothesis consists in its ability to formulate models by which predictions can in principle be tested.

Oh I remember.  It is the reason why subjective morality is self-contradictory.  I have not forgotten

(June 3, 2015 at 3:40 pm)Anima Wrote: This one is reeeeeaaaallllllyyyy llllooonnnnggggg!!!!

Indeed. I have to admit, considering the variety of topics that we seem to be running through---little of which really pertains to your OP that belief in a deity is a warranted assumption (for morality)---it's becoming a bit tedious.

Quote:We cannot forget that Subjects A and B are independent of one another.  

You misunderstood. By "per his standard" I only meant by the standard of A, which was that lying for personal benefit is always moral.

Quote:Thus, according to this standard Subject A may not know anything about Subject B’s standard beyond the assumption that B shall engage only in activity which is considered moral.  To state otherwise is to say that Subject B would embark upon a course of action which they do not consider to be the rightful action, which while possible would seem to contradict the idea of self-interest where what is done in one’s own interest and is considered the rightful action. As stated in an earlier post, we are unjustified in saying that something is subjective and then subsequently stating that the subjectivity of each Subject is so little that the Subject's subjectivities correspond with one another. Furthermore, we must account for the fact that any given Subject shall act according to their whim even in the same situation.  This further constitutes a contradiction of subjective morality as the extent of the rule defined by subjective morality is the Subject shall act rightly in accordance with any whim at any given time to a given moral situation.  Which is to say, as stated above, the Subject always acts rightly even if they act sporadically or horribly.

I'll grant that most will find it easy to dismiss subjective morality when defined as "the Subject shall act rightly in accordance with any whim at any given time to a given moral situation," but that's not my position so I don't really care to defend it. Like I said, I define subjective morality by the simple fact that values are strictly derived from individual experience and in this regard lack any objective quality. To say that something is wrong is only to say that you strongly disagree or dislike the intentions or the consequences involved. I would be more than happy to hear someone establish the existence of Plato's "the Good" in a credible manner but I doubt you'll accomplish much in the way of persuasion if your resources are limited to appeal to imaginary friends.   

Quote:I do not quite understand this one as you seem to be all over.  First you are stating that facts about the world have an objective quality even though there is as you put it no objective source of these facts, but only subjective sources.

You seem to be confusing facts and values. Of course there is an objective source for facts about the world... namely, the world, by which we receive impressions via the senses, and these obviously in contradistinction to the objects of pure thought.

Quote:So I do not follow how there can be an objective quality that is not merely coincidence to which one might make a claim of objectivity.  (We covered this at length in previous posts regarding the need to appeal to realism to give subjectives universality and validity as a reflection of part, but not all of, an objective reality). Then your infidel assertion seems to state those who torture, kill, rape, etcetera are acting morally (you must be if you are arguing a subjective morality) and has no necessary bearing on how others define value (of the actions I presume).  Which seems counter intuitive to me as the persons who are acted upon by said infidels either directly (victims) or indirectly (bystanders and family) would most assured have their evaluation of the action affected by both the act and morality/reason of actor.  (Think cops kill kid running towards them vs. cops kill kid running towards with knife in hand)

Yeah... persons who value the well-being of their species would find many of the acts committed in the name of divine inspiration utterly disgusting, while those who believe their actions are in accordance with the will of the Supreme Being would feel their actions perfectly justified.

Quote:Ah…  I see.  By limiting the Subject to a schema of value you are establishing possible uniformity between Subjects; effectual creating a proxy objective morality.  Interesting, though I would say this would be contrary to the concept of subjective morality.  Since the Subject is not acting according to their own morality but rather according to a schema of morality which is not their own I assume you are contending they will follow the schema even regarding portions they do not like.  If you are not making such an argument than you are wasting time with the introduction of a schema argument and we are back to a subjective morality where each acts according to their whim at any given time in any given situation; a subjective morality that does not allow the Subject to form any rule of moral conduct.

Furthermore, upon introduction of a schema you would not be justified in holding any given schema as being better than another in regards to subjective morality (you could make that distinction in regards to objective morality) where the Subject in question is not even willing to act according to their inherent determination of morality.  Whether they are following the schema outlined by Aristotle, whom lacks sufficient proof or evidence to exist (where is your picture of Aristotle in accordance with our picture proofs/evidence?), or are, “appeasing the tribal deity” they are acting according to a schema which is not their own and is not proven or evidenced

I don't see how what you consider a "proxy objective morality" is contrary to my conception of subjective morality at all. Ethical theories as diverse as Moses', Aristotle's, Bentham's, and Kant's, for example, all claim a modus operandi that each would proclaim as providing objectivity... and what are you left with? Many competing "objective moralities" that are ultimately determined by each philosopher's (subjective) evaluation of "the Good."

With regards to your question about Aristotle, are you asking in reference to Nicomachean Ethics or his broader contribution to philosophy? I find his conception of the good life and his arguments about the "golden mean" compelling... but then again, I also believe that nothing could really be more important than for a human being to live their one short life with as much happiness and peace as possibly attainable, so I value things conducive to that end, such as health, friendship, freedom, security... whereas the religious ascetic who believes that all fortunes in earthly life amount to nothingness in comparison to the bliss that awaits in eternity, for those who appease the notion of deity as contained in their holy scriptures, is obviously going to have quite a different standard of morality than mine.

Quote:Under a subjective morality you would.  You would not under an objective morality or objective morality by proxy which you endeavor to establish by means of a schema or the adoption of values and meanings beyond subjective whims or preferences.  In so doing you are moving the determinate of what is moral beyond the Subject to some rule the Subject must obey even if they subjectively do not think it is right or what they want. At which time they would no longer be following subjective morality.

They would be compelled to comply with such a rule to the extent that they value X (well-being, rational principles, etc.)... which again, that one ought to do so I believe is a subjective determination that has no basis outside of what said individual defines as most important to them.

Quote:Umm.  God may be inferred both by synthetic apriori (done epistemologically by Plato in regards to the Forms) and synthetic aposteriori (done ontologically by Aristotle in regards to causality).  Kant even discusses both of these inferences of god in the Critique of Pure Reason.  

Ha! I would agree with Schopenhauer that the term God defined honestly implies personality... which is to say, neither Plato's Forms nor Aristotle's notions of causality gets you quite so far... and while you may be able to infer the objective existence of almost anything you like so long as you can imagine it existing as such, I don't concede that you would always be rational in doing so. 

Quote: 
YES SIR!!  The reactionary meat between your ears constitutes physical consciousness (which I would not call it consciousness but you want to) and may be shown to react without teleological purpose to stimuli; where consciousness is held to be of greater metaphysical and teleological quality than simply reactionary. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness) (By the way, Darwin did not demonstrate this evolved over millions of years...No one has.)

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. It sounds to me that you're trying to divorce consciousness from the brain, which I would say is not only radically unfounded in any logic or evidence (but then, what do you even mean by "consciousness" in such a sense?), but also, the brain is with every possible sound reason held responsible for generating the phenomena we understand to be consciousness, which is why I call it physical. That you think Darwin did not demonstrate consciousness to have evolved (as a production of physicals brains, which are an integral part of numerous organisms that he did demonstrate to have evolved) makes me wonder if you believe that your consciousness developed with the brain from infancy... or perhaps you think, like Socrates, that your "metaphysical consciousness" is eternal and transmigrated from one living creature to the next? Maybe your deus ex machina specially implants it in the shape of a small "metaphysical seed" late in fetal development? Perhaps consciousness floated along in a vacuum prior to finding a channel that could sustain it? Maybe you drank from the River of Forgetfulness in Hades which is why you don't recall your earlier forms of consciousness? And when you go to sleep, perhaps your metaphysical consciousness "decides" to cooperate with your body? 

Quote:Ha ha.  You cannot reject my imaginary friend without making one of your own.  I like it.  You cannot reject god without accepting the existence of your person who shall reject god (both of which lack sufficient proof/evidence).  This argument seems familiar…  

It must be convenient to have this notion on hand that is so ill-defined and elastic that it can literally fit into every possible gap of ignorance that human brilliance has yet to fill. Thunderstorms? God. Orbit of the planets? God. Morality? God. Consciousness? God.

Needless to say, I find that pretty boring and undifferentiated from saying "I don't know," which is to my mind far less arrogant, far more honest, and actually useful in stimulating both curiosity and conversation.

Quote:I love this quote as it is making my very point! As stipulated earlier in this post.  The set of rules one adopts shall be either the objective reality or serve as a proxy for the objective reality to which the Subject must adhere even if not desired.  Then it may be further argued that any proxy of the objective reality shall reach perfection as it approaches the actual objective reality. Otherwise you are contending the creation of nonsensical rules to play a game that goes nowhere.

...Except that you tried to invoke such rules in arguing for the objective existence of abstract goods, which you left undemonstrated, and not---as Einstein did---for the utility of the scientific method as a means of discovering facts about the physical world.

Quote:You asking just because or did your internet go out?

A rhetorical question in response to a rhetorical question? (That's rhetorical too).

Quote:Actually history does support that idea.  In fact the primary institutions of scientific knowledge, learning, and progress in nearly every society would be the religious ones who were endeavoring to understand their god or god(s) better by understanding their creation.  Any anthropologist or historian can attest to this as religious organizations are one of the primary areas of research to understand societies. I cannot deny the existence of numerous gods under the same threshold of proof that gives rise to a particular god. 

Don't you think that when persons and cultures, as diversely represented by secularists/atheists, polytheists, and monotheists as the pursuit of knowledge and education has been, are all able to contribute to that project, which pertains exclusively to the world around us and to our endeavors to accurately conceive of it, then perhaps it might suggest that any particular theology that is either invoked out of piety or security isn't really very crucial to that project, even though it has often proven an impediment? Or would you be under the illusion that Homer not only must have really believed in the power of the Muses to compose epic poetry, but such a belief is an integral part to doing so? That would be beyond ridiculous.

Quote:However, I can amalgamate those gods into a single entity which may thereby be designated as God. 

Of course you can. As I said, you can invoke God for whatever you please because there is no real description of such a being that isn't largely construed ad hoc. I'm sure it's easy to do so when even theologians admit, out of only one side of their mouths unfortunately, that the deity is in principle "incomprehensible."

Quote:I believe my argument was that any efforts to argue around the inherent subjective bias of pragmatism were futile.  Which I am confident in reiterating as pragmatism is a subcategory of idealism which contends the object and its practicality are determined by the Subject.  That leads back to my original post above that stated the purpose of the unattainable standard for god, with a different standard for everything else is because one does not want to believe in god rather than adopting a standard to support knowledge and letting determination follow that standard wherever it goes.

Quote:Everything in your experience is synthetic aposteriori (inferred from experience) and not both  
I agree with the general statement that truth should agree with itself and where possible synthetic apriori and aposteriori should be in harmony, even with analytic apriori.  Though I admit that is not always possible.

Yet you would also like to add the requirement that magical silver bullets designed by ancient humans to solve really difficult questions also be admitted... and worse, revered! 

Quote:I thought we had an agreement  But you went continuum fallacy quick?   From circumstantial implicit empirical proof/evidence one may infer the existence of God such that it may be posited God is possible (which is to say probable even if slightly so) though vaguely defined or apprehended.  If possible; then slightly probable; if slightly probable then probable (though not necessarily likely). To subsequent state that possibility cannot be an actuality simply because there is not a discreet point for determining the exact probability of the possibility to be an actuality is application of the continuum fallacy; akin to saying unless you can tell me exactly how many hairs a person must have on their head to be bald (or no longer bald) than you cannot infer that the removal of hairs from a person’s head who is not bald will make them bald.

(bold mine)
We can apply Hitchen's razor here and move on since you're just repeating assertions that I already repeatedly said I reject.

Quote:Ha ha!  Atheist have been riding the “proof” pony since the beginning.  Got something new? Then how about we endeavor to surpass our predecessors and resolve the arguments already posited? I would recommend you not subscribe to argumentum ad numerum

I guess I share something in common with a-astrologists, a-faerieists, and a-unicornists!

And seriously, if you're going to accuse someone of a fallacy, you should at least know when it is and when it is not appropriate to employ. An argumentum ad populum fallacy would require a person to argue that X is true because (at least in part) Y number of people agree... which is clearly not what I said. Please do try to be more attentive to what I write.

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Nestor Wrote: I'll grant that most will find it easy to dismiss subjective morality when defined as "the Subject shall act rightly in accordance with any whim at any given time to a given moral situation," but that's not my position so I don't really care to defend it. Like I said, I define subjective morality by the simple fact that values are strictly derived from individual experience and in this regard lack any objective quality. To say that something is wrong is only to say that you strongly disagree or dislike the intentions or the consequences involved. I would be more than happy to hear someone establish the existence of Plato's "the Good" in a credible manner but I doubt you'll accomplish much in the way of persuasion if your resources are limited to appeal to imaginary friends.  

If I am to understand what you are saying correctly you are saying that subjective morality is defined by the initial acceptance of a given Subject of a given schema of morality?  After such time it is then contended that the Subject in question will adhere to that schema regardless of any subsequent determinations by the Subject.

Alas I fail to understand how this even remotely constitutes subjective morality as the Subject is not permitted to act subjectively at any point beyond the initial point (a subjective morality that is not subjective).  I would imagine that based on this description most on this forum would hold that you have given a definition of subjective morality tantamount to handing ones moral judgments over to some type of fundamentalist blind faith in a schema.  You know Religion

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Nestor Wrote: You seem to be confusing facts and values. Of course there is an objective source for facts about the world... namely, the world, by which we receive impressions via the senses, and these obviously in contradistinction to the objects of pure thought.

It would appear that Kant, Einstein, and I are making the same confusion.  As the contention of each of us is that the value of subjective things is determined by some objective truth or reality.   Otherwise we have to say the value of subjective things is determined by the subject itself and thus everything is of equal value.

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Nestor Wrote: Yeah... persons who value the well-being of their species would find many of the acts committed in the name of divine inspiration utterly disgusting, while those who believe their actions are in accordance with the will of the Supreme Being would feel their actions perfectly justified.

I would correct this to say persons who value the well-being of their species would find many of the acts committed in the name of divine inspiration utterly fantastic.   Then I would point you to the prominent everyday role religions have played in education, law, science, social advancement, protection of the populace from oppression, and social relief and aid.   Though this is what they are doing 98% of the time you are going to want to focus on the 2% that supports your belief.

Rarely (if ever) do religions expressly state to commit atrocities.  But religion is practiced by the Subject who though accepting the schema will still act in such a manner according to their whim (subjective morality).  Naturally they will seek justification for that whim wherever they can find it and by means of distortions when possible or necessary.  The desire is to blame the religion as if the persons in question could not have distorted anything else to justify their desired course of action.

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Nestor Wrote: I don't see how what you consider a "proxy objective morality" is contrary to my conception of subjective morality at all. Ethical theories as diverse as Moses', Aristotle's, Bentham's, and Kant's, for example, all claim a modus operandi that each would proclaim as providing objectivity... and what are you left with? Many competing "objective moralities" that are ultimately determined by each philosopher's (subjective) evaluation of "the Good."

A proxy objective morality would be contra to the concept of a subjective morality in that final evaluation of the rightness or wrongness of the act shall not be subjective, but shall be in regards to the schema.  The proxy objective morality attempts to approach the actual objective morality by means of various imperfect schemas.  Ideally the proxy objective morality shall no longer be a proxy of the actual, but shall indeed be the actual objective morality.

Aristotle recognize that morality may more commonly be found in the median and created a schema based on this that is an imperfect effort to approximate actual objective morality (I am a fan of the Golden Mean as well).  Bentham recognized that morality while be exercised by the self, effects and affects beyond the self and thus should not be evaluated in terms of the self.  He built a schema upon this to approximate actual objective morality based on moral valuation not determined by the self.  Kant recognized that in order for the morality of any Subject to have any validity it must appeal to the actual objective morality.  In short they are not competing objective moralities.  Per realism they are all imperfect representation of the actual objective morality.

”The truth is the simplest and most complicated thing to have existed.  While no man misses it entirely, no man hits it precisely.” - Aristotle

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Nestor Wrote: With regards to your question about Aristotle, are you asking in reference to Nicomachean Ethics or his broader contribution to philosophy? I find his conception of the good life and his arguments about the "golden mean" compelling... but then again, I also believe that nothing could really be more important than for a human being to live their one short life with as much happiness and peace as possibly attainable, so I value things conducive to that end, such as health, friendship, freedom, security... whereas the religious ascetic who believes that all fortunes in earthly life amount to nothingness in comparison to the bliss that awaits in eternity, for those who appease the notion of deity as contained in their holy scriptures, is obviously going to have quite a different standard of morality than mine.

I had no questions about Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (As I am a realist and a huge fan).  We are in agreement on the importance of a human being to live their life.  Though theist do not contend as you do that this life is meaningless compared to the bliss of the next.  To theist the cause is greater than the effect, this life precedes the next where ones conduct and choices will be reflected.  As stated by Aristotle: “Virtue is not an innate condition but a form of habit. We become virtues by doing virtuous things.”  As such it may be said that in order to attain eternal virtue one must first attain a habit of present virtue.

You only live once…  So you better make it count!

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Nestor Wrote: They would be compelled to comply with such a rule to the extent that they value X (well-being, rational principles, etc.)... which again, that one ought to do so I believe is a subjective determination that has no basis outside of what said individual defines as most important to them.

Again you are arguing a subjective morality that is not subjective other than the initial adoption.  After that the Subject is compelled to comply with the rule adopted.  Now if you are to try and say that the Subject adopts rule X and complies with that rule only when X is in accordance with his subjective evaluations.  The question follows, what does the Subject due when the rule X does not comport with the Subjects subjective evaluations.  It is assumed that your answer will be they will act according to their subjective evaluation rather than according to rule X.  In which case you are wasting your time designating a rule X when the underlying truth is the Subject acts according to their subjective evaluations (which just so happened to commonly coincide with some rule X).  If this is your answer than we are talking about the subjective morality which I am referring to where each acts according to their whim in any given situation at any given time.

Now if you do not contend this position then you are saying (as stated above) that the Subject must act in accordance to the rule X they have adopted even if that rule does not agree with their subjective evaluation.  This is far from a subjective morality but is the beginning of the process to an objective morality by first adopting an objective proxy which shall serve as the determination of the moral quality of a given action.  This proxy is to be continually refined until one finally grasps the objective morality which shall serve as the determinate of the moral quality of actions.

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Nestor Wrote: Ha! I would agree with Schopenhauer that the term God defined honestly implies personality... which is to say, neither Plato's Forms nor Aristotle's notions of causality gets you quite so far... and while you may be able to infer the objective existence of almost anything you like so long as you can imagine it existing as such, I don't concede that you would always be rational in doing so.

Kant’s critique of Plato and Aristotle are the same. That while that which is commonly referred to as God may be inferred from epistemology, ontology, or teleology, none of those inference give rise to the particular personality of God.   However, we were talking about sufficient proof/evidence to make the inference of God no matter how vaguely understood or ill defined.  To which I made my response that there is sufficient proof/evidence of the three fields of knowledge to infer the possible probable existence of God though vaguely understood or ill defined.

As was told to Stimbo and Benny earlier on in this thread; through the various forms of knowledge you can get to the existence of objective reality.  You can further consolidate all aspects of that objective reality into a single entity which may be termed God.  But one cannot get to a specific personification of God without some kind of leap of faith or imagination.  The various forms of knowledge can get you 99% of the way there but it will not get you that last 1%.  And since God needs to be 100% proven (unlike anything else, which is the argument of the threshold of proof) that 1% is deemed (by those who are opposed to the inference) sufficient to say absolutely not!!!  We anthropomorphize any number of inanimate or animate objects, but when it comes to anthropomorphizing the God inferred by epistemology, ontology, or teleology, to get that last 1%...THEN WE ARE BEING RIDICULOUS!!

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Nestor Wrote: I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. It sounds to me that you're trying to divorce consciousness from the brain, which I would say is not only radically unfounded in any logic or evidence (but then, what do you even mean by "consciousness" in such a sense?), but also, the brain is with every possible sound reason held responsible for generating the phenomena we understand to be consciousness, which is why I call it physical.

I am stating there is a difference between physiological reaction to stimiuli and metaphysical consciousness.  To your point I will concede the reactionary meat has a nerve center which responds to input stimuli with output stimuli (the means by which this nerve center produces the given output for the given input shall go undiscussed at present).  However, this sensory input/output paring at best is implicit circumstantial empirical proof/evidence of metaphysical consciousness and is not explicit direct empirical proof/evidence of metaphysical consciousness.  There does not need to be a consciousness present to match input any more than there is consciousness present in a calculator that provides any number of outputs based on the inputs entered.

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Nestor Wrote: That you think Darwin did not demonstrate consciousness to have evolved (as a production of physicals brains, which are an integral part of numerous organisms that he did demonstrate to have evolved) makes me wonder if you believe that your consciousness developed with the brain from infancy... or perhaps you think, like Socrates, that your "metaphysical consciousness" is eternal and transmigrated from one living creature to the next? Maybe your deus ex machina specially implants it in the shape of a small "metaphysical seed" late in fetal development? Perhaps consciousness floated along in a vacuum prior to finding a channel that could sustain it? Maybe you drank from the River of Forgetfulness in Hades which is why you don't recall your earlier forms of consciousness? And when you go to sleep, perhaps your metaphysical consciousness "decides" to cooperate with your body?

While I am a fan of evolution and believe it whole heartedly I must say Darwin did not demonstrate such nor does he even make reference to such in the Origin of Species.  Darwin contends that species shall adapt to their environment by means of natural selection.  He does not stipulate this adaptation shall be evolutionary or devolutionary; only that it will be more suited to the environment subsequent the change.  Darwin also focused on the evolution of plants and horticulture for his work which are devoid of the integral brains yet still evolved.  Now as living things plants react to their environment and respond to stimuli.  Are you contending they are conscious because they do so?  Are you contending they are not conscious because they have a peripheral nervous system rather than a central nervous system?

Ha ha.  I am going to have fun with this and say can you prove or have evidence that none of those alternatives are the case?  Naturally I am going to need explicit direct empirical proof/evidence.  I am willing to bet you cannot so they are hypothesis to consciousness

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Nestor Wrote: It must be convenient to have this notion on hand that is so ill-defined and elastic that it can literally fit into every possible gap of ignorance that human brilliance has yet to fill. Thunderstorms? God. Orbit of the planets? God. Morality? God. Consciousness? God.

Needless to say, I find that pretty boring and undifferentiated from saying "I don't know," which is to my mind far less arrogant, far more honest, and actually useful in stimulating both curiosity and conversation.

That it is!!!    For what it is worth I am an ardent support of strict adherence to the ideology that God may never serve as the foundation of an argument.   In order to avoid the very caricature you are making above.  Inference of God by epistemology, ontology, and teleology where not predicated upon the existence of God at the beginning of the arguments and avoid the caricature.

I find saying, “It just might be.  What else would that mean if it were” far more stimulating to curiosity and conversation than “I don’t know”.   Generally I would consider I don’t know the death knell of conversations.

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Nestor Wrote: ...Except that you tried to invoke such rules in arguing for the objective existence of abstract goods, which you left undemonstrated, and not---as Einstein did---for the utility of the scientific method as a means of discovering facts about the physical world.

HA HA!!  Einstein left the great majority of his assertions undemonstrated for more than 20 years!! Some for more than 40 years!!

And the demonstration of his assertions is again by synthetic aposteriori or implicit circumstantial empirical evidence.  The same evidence which may be utilized in the inference and assertion of God.  As I said before, I endeavor to maintain the same threshold of proof for God as all other knowledge including scientific.

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Nestor Wrote: Don't you think that when persons and cultures, as diversely represented by secularists/atheists, polytheists, and monotheists as the pursuit of knowledge and education has been, are all able to contribute to that project, which pertains exclusively to the world around us and to our endeavors to accurately conceive of it, then perhaps it might suggest that any particular theology that is either invoked out of piety or security isn't really very crucial to that project, even though it has often proven an impediment? Or would you be under the illusion that Homer not only must have really believed in the power of the Muses to compose epic poetry, but such a belief is an integral part to doing so? That would be beyond ridiculous.

Historically it would be far from ridiculous and more akin to factual. Though I do confess that I find it sad that anyone would fail to recognize the prominence belief and faith have played in scientific, social, and cultural advancement.  Many of the greatest works of art, music, and literature were inspired by the belief in the imaginary guy(s) in the sky.  The belief of unity of all things with the single creator of all things and the desire to understand that creator lead to many of the breakthroughs in science.  You may not like it.  But history really does show that the belief in the imaginary guy(s) in the sky has led to the majority of advancement and masterpieces we know and love.

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Nestor Wrote:

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Anima Wrote: I thought we had an agreement  But you went continuum fallacy quick?   From circumstantial implicit empirical proof/evidence one may infer the existence of God such that it may be posited God is possible (which is to say probable even if slightly so) though vaguely defined or apprehended. If possible; then slightly probable; if slightly probable then probable (though not necessarily likely). To subsequent state that possibility cannot be an actuality simply because there is not a discreet point for determining the exact probability of the possibility to be an actuality is application of the continuum fallacy; akin to saying unless you can tell me exactly how many hairs a person must have on their head to be bald (or no longer bald) than you cannot infer that the removal of hairs from a person’s head who is not bald will make them bald.

(bold mine)
We can apply Hitchen's razor here and move on since you're just repeating assertions that I already repeatedly said I reject.

I reject your rejection and consider your assertion without evidence as greater claim than my own (as my claim is predicted on epistemological, ontological, and teleological inference and I have yet to hear your evidence on why I may not make such inference to support your rejection).   As such we may apply Hitchen’s razor in like manner and your rejection is unfounded.  I await your evidence disproving my inferences or to reject your rejection without evidence.

(June 4, 2015 at 2:07 am)Nestor Wrote: And seriously, if you're going to accuse someone of a fallacy, you should at least know when it is and when it is not appropriate to employ. An argumentum ad populum fallacy would require a person to argue that X is true because (at least in part) Y number of people agree... which is clearly not what I said. Please do try to be more attentive to what I write.

I believe the comment was in regards to your statement that many modern philosophers find the previous logic of philosopher supporting an epistemological, ontological, and teleological inference of God onerous.  In which case the implication of your statement is that because many (argumentum ad numerum or populum) modern (argument ad novitatem) philosopher find the logic onerous than it is likely that logic is invalid.  I assure you I am paying proper attention to what you are writing and the implications therein.

(May 31, 2015 at 1:24 pm)Anima Wrote:

(May 31, 2015 at 8:01 am)francismjenkins Wrote: Okay, I don't have time for long silly discussions with religious nut jobs (I have limited patience for retarded) .... so here's my short reply. 

What is it with religious wack jobs ... always like to play philosopher and talk about logical fallacies (don't quit your day job, janitor, waitress, whatever it may be). 

History doesn't support the education/religion thing. Hmmm, duh (try actually reading history instead of your buy-bull or the stupid crap that perverted freak you call a priest tells you). 

I think I know the problem, catholicism is full of fucktards like Aquinas (who could write about absurd shit like the magic wafer for hundreds of pages). 

Anyway, enjoy your wafers (and explain to me again how it turns to jesus on the way down your esophagus)

Ha ha.  As it is biology is also filled with those same religionous fucktards.  Feel free to read up on the history of medicine and biology.  You are going to find more priests in that field than just about any other (which is saying something as priest are prevalent in every field of science).

Thankfully my day job pays 20 times what a janitor or waitress make.  Playing philosopher pays well especially if you can play with numbers and money

Don't be ridiculous.  They are turned into Jesus before they head down our esophagus

Try reading history hmm...  Well here is a list of books I read on the subject I hope 30 is enough:

I know it is not anecdotal evidence or my honest opinion, but I hope it is sufficient to give some justification to statements that history does not support your religion is anti-education claim.

Biology goes back to ancient Egypt, the ancient Greeks and Romans, early forms of medicine in the Muslim world, etc., and really begins to take off during the Renaissance (with rekindled interest in empiricism). 

Yes, many catholics were involved early on in western science (Roger Bacon, Nicole Oresme, etc.), but again ... so what? 

It doesn't change the fact that it's all based on bullshit. Moreover, I'm not saying the catholic church is particularly problematic at this point (in terms of education). The hard liners in the US tend to be evangelicals. Nonetheless, religion as a whole is hostile towards education. Yes, it's largely confined to religious conservatives, yet they only have cover and they can only get away with the shit they get away with, because you guys exist. 

Look, I have nothing against people believing ridiculous shit, and people should have every right to their silly superstitions, what I stand against is the "deference" we grant this stupid shit in our modern world. 

(June 4, 2015 at 7:16 pm)Anima Wrote: If I am to understand what you are saying correctly you are saying that subjective morality is defined by the initial acceptance of a given Subject of a given schema of morality?  After such time it is then contended that the Subject in question will adhere to that schema regardless of any subsequent determinations by the Subject.

Alas I fail to understand how this even remotely constitutes subjective morality as the Subject is not permitted to act subjectively at any point beyond the initial point (a subjective morality that is not subjective).  I would imagine that based on this description most on this forum would hold that you have given a definition of subjective morality tantamount to handing ones moral judgments over to some type of fundamentalist blind faith in a schema.  You know Religion

Blind faith? I think you may have finally discovered the difference between religious commandments, which are brandished with appeals to authority and supplemented by promises of reward and threats of punishment, and human morality, which actually entails formulating a system to live by that is most conducive to what a person believes will maximize their happiness and best avoid suffering. So, bravo.

And yes, subjective morality as I have suggested from the start is "defined by the acceptance of a given subject of a given schema of morality," which is to say, one usually hears arguments pro and con for a given scenario and then determines what they think to be correct given the values they esteem. And for these, there are no objective measures by which a person can be shown to be wrong; there can only be agreement as to what constitutes human flourishing and concession that this is what humans are really concerned about. 

Quote:It would appear that Kant, Einstein, and I are making the same confusion.  As the contention of each of us is that the value of subjective things is determined by some objective truth or reality. 

Einstein isn't talking about values; he's talking about objective truth with regard to facts about the physical world as opposed to mere ideas. I'd be curious to know what evidence or arguments you have in support of this "objective reality or truth" that determines your evaluations of goods. In your lack of demonstration for this notion thus far, you seem to be conveying that you haven't got much.

Quote:I would correct this to say persons who value the well-being of their species would find many of the acts committed in the name of divine inspiration utterly fantastic.   Then I would point you to the prominent everyday role religions have played in education, law, science, social advancement, protection of the populace from oppression, and social relief and aid.   Though this is what they are doing 98% of the time you are going to want to focus on the 2% that supports your belief.

Rarely (if ever) do religions expressly state to commit atrocities.  But religion is practiced by the Subject who though accepting the schema will still act in such a manner according to their whim (subjective morality).  Naturally they will seek justification for that whim wherever they can find it and by means of distortions when possible or necessary.  The desire is to blame the religion as if the persons in question could not have distorted anything else to justify their desired course of action.

Wow... it's kind of shocking that someone who claims Catholicism can feign utter ignorance at the barbaric notions of "righteous" household management and state governance that are contained in the Bible and the Qur'an, and their all too frequent insidious effects in the world both in the past and at present, with regards to, for example, the oppression of free thought, the promotion of superstition over science, xenophobia, sexism, slavery, etc. The list could go on but I'm not really interested in reiterating what anyone with even the slightest amount of intellectual honesty can easily discover for themselves.

Quote:A proxy objective morality would be contra to the concept of a subjective morality in that final evaluation of the rightness or wrongness of the act shall not be subjective, but shall be in regards to the schema.  The proxy objective morality attempts to approach the actual objective morality by means of various imperfect schemas.  Ideally the proxy objective morality shall no longer be a proxy of the actual, but shall indeed be the actual objective morality.

Aristotle recognize that morality may more commonly be found in the median and created a schema based on this that is an imperfect effort to approximate actual objective morality (I am a fan of the Golden Mean as well).  Bentham recognized that morality while be exercised by the self, effects and affects beyond the self and thus should not be evaluated in terms of the self.  He built a schema upon this to approximate actual objective morality based on moral valuation not determined by the self.  Kant recognized that in order for the morality of any Subject to have any validity it must appeal to the actual objective morality.  In short they are not competing objective moralities.  Per realism they are all imperfect representation of the actual objective morality.

”The truth is the simplest and most complicated thing to have existed.  While no man misses it entirely, no man hits it precisely.” - Aristotle

People desire to project their subjective values onto others by calling them "imperfect representation of the actual objective morality," a'la Plato's "Good," of which any conception is still just as subject to how a person evaluates the "a life worth living" as it ever was.

I like that Aristotle quote... Where's it from?

Quote:I had no questions about Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (As I am a realist and a huge fan).  We are in agreement on the importance of a human being to live their life.  Though theist do not contend as you do that this life is meaningless compared to the bliss of the next.  To theist the cause is greater than the effect, this life precedes the next where ones conduct and choices will be reflected.  As stated by Aristotle: “Virtue is not an innate condition but a form of habit. We become virtues by doing virtuous things.”  As such it may be said that in order to attain eternal virtue one must first attain a habit of present virtue.

You only live once…  So you better make it count!

Theists are as prone to the whims of their subjective moralities as anyone else is---except that portend the will (the absolute good!) of each of their competing deities!---but just take many Jews or Christians for example, as represented by their founding texts, the commentaries their theologians have written, and as exemplified by the monastic life throughout the history of Christendom (there was a good idea if I ever heard one!   ): they divide the soul from the body, placing all importance in the former (being akin to the strong male, while the body is associated with femininity and weakness, and the cause of so many evils! i.e. pluck your eye out so as not to lust, as Jesus says) while the latter is to be rejected, even mutilated, so as to free one (i.e. disconnect) from the world and experience the "ecstasy" of crucifying all passions that aren't transfixed on the words of their deity (which is in truth, when not man-made scriptures, their own voices), relying completely on their god and their faith (themselves projected on to what you call an imaginary friend)... history is littered with Catholic monks and priests, like men and women (well, not Catholic priests, cause God wouldn't allow that!) of other religions, who tortured themselves, even to the point of death, to ensure the upkeep of purity demanded for "salvation." But yeah... this life is uber-meaningful for the rewards it can get you in the next one!

Quote:Again you are arguing a subjective morality that is not subjective other than the initial adoption.  After that the Subject is compelled to comply with the rule adopted.  Now if you are to try and say that the Subject adopts rule X and complies with that rule only when X is in accordance with his subjective evaluations.  The question follows, what does the Subject due when the rule X does not comport with the Subjects subjective evaluations.  It is assumed that your answer will be they will act according to their subjective evaluation rather than according to rule X.  In which case you are wasting your time designating a rule X when the underlying truth is the Subject acts according to their subjective evaluations (which just so happened to commonly coincide with some rule X).  If this is your answer than we are talking about the subjective morality which I am referring to where each acts according to their whim in any given situation at any given time.

Now if you do not contend this position then you are saying (as stated above) that the Subject must act in accordance to the rule X they have adopted even if that rule does not agree with their subjective evaluation.  This is far from a subjective morality but is the beginning of the process to an objective morality by first adopting an objective proxy which shall serve as the determination of the moral quality of a given action.  This proxy is to be continually refined until one finally grasps the objective morality which shall serve as the determinate of the moral quality of actions.

Let's just work this out in practical terms. Say rule X is that it is wrong to lie. The evaluation of the subject is that the well-being of sentient creatures, by which we can include health, freedom, social relationships, and the other basic constituents that some would argue comprise our ontological needs, are what ultimately matter for the duration of a person's lifetime. We might also add that within his evaluation is that one should strive to live according to a rational framework that considers the most up-to-date empirical data. So, the initial adoption is that morality relates to these factors which define the wellness or misery of human beings. When the subject finds himself in a situation in which lying would actually promote the well-being of another, then he will reason as to whether or not, given the situation, it would be right to adjust rule X so as to allow for exceptions when similar occurrences take place. That doesn't negate the importance of rule X anymore than if one were to view smoking as harmful and yet find occasions when they allow themselves to enjoy a cigar. The same applies with virtually everything else. This is the point of raising ethical dilemmas in philosophy. Is it right to steal food from someone whom you know has an abundance in storage if your child is on the verge of death from hunger and you have no other means of providing them sustenance, and you know that if you don't steal then your child will die within a few days? Yes. Does that mean that it is pointless to regard stealing, all other things being equal, as in principal wrong? No.

Quote:Kant’s critique of Plato and Aristotle are the same. That while that which is commonly referred to as God may be inferred from epistemology, ontology, or teleology, none of those inference give rise to the particular personality of God.   However, we were talking about sufficient proof/evidence to make the inference of God no matter how vaguely understood or ill defined.  To which I made my response that there is sufficient proof/evidence of the three fields of knowledge to infer the possible probable existence of God though vaguely understood or ill defined.

As was told to Stimbo and Benny earlier on in this thread; through the various forms of knowledge you can get to the existence of objective reality.  You can further consolidate all aspects of that objective reality into a single entity which may be termed God.  But one cannot get to a specific personification of God without some kind of leap of faith or imagination.  The various forms of knowledge can get you 99% of the way there but it will not get you that last 1%.  And since God needs to be 100% proven (unlike anything else, which is the argument of the threshold of proof) that 1% is deemed (by those who are opposed to the inference) sufficient to say absolutely not!!!  We anthropomorphize any number of inanimate or animate objects, but when it comes to anthropomorphizing the God inferred by epistemology, ontology, or teleology, to get that last 1%...THEN WE ARE BEING RIDICULOUS!!

I prefer to use words that I have some sense of what it is I'm speaking about. To use the term "god," when one is speaking of the "totality of existence," or anything that is lacking intelligence or personality, is misguided, in my opinion. It's confusing and gives shelter to an overwhelming number of idiotic concepts. Besides, we already have a word for what you're speaking about in such a case: The universe. Nature also works too.

Quote:I am stating there is a difference between physiological reaction to stimiuli and metaphysical consciousness.  To your point I will concede the reactionary meat has a nerve center which responds to input stimuli with output stimuli (the means by which this nerve center produces the given output for the given input shall go undiscussed at present).  However, this sensory input/output paring at best is implicit circumstantial empirical proof/evidence of metaphysical consciousness and is not explicit direct empirical proof/evidence of metaphysical consciousness.  There does not need to be a consciousness present to match input any more than there is consciousness present in a calculator that provides any number of outputs based on the inputs entered.

If you want to discuss consciousness (or what you call metaphysical consciousness), I might suggest making another thread as there are other people here far more informed and knowledgeable about the different theories of how consciousness may possibly emerge from neural networks than I am. I'll just say that I find physical theories more compelling given the available data at this point, aside from my personal experience of consciousness developing with age and being altered in unison to brain states. Your suggestion that consciousness need not be present to match input is akin to saying that objects need not be animate simply because molecular structures form cells, tissues, organs, and functional systems... well that's actually just what being animate means. I think it's more likely than not that, to put it quite simply, to be a vast network of 100 billion nerve cells transmitting electrochemical signals is to be conscious... comparing it to a calculator and saying, "see, that isn't conscious so the brain must not be sufficient for consciousness" is a bit of a misnomer.

Quote:While I am a fan of evolution and believe it whole heartedly I must say Darwin did not demonstrate such nor does he even make reference to such in the Origin of Species.  Darwin contends that species shall adapt to their environment by means of natural selection.  He does not stipulate this adaptation shall be evolutionary or devolutionary; only that it will be more suited to the environment subsequent the change.  Darwin also focused on the evolution of plants and horticulture for his work which are devoid of the integral brains yet still evolved.  Now as living things plants react to their environment and respond to stimuli.  Are you contending they are conscious because they do so?  Are you contending they are not conscious because they have a peripheral nervous system rather than a central nervous system?

The relevant point that Darwin did demonstrate is that given natural selection in conjunction with the eons of time that have elapsed, molecular structures and the systems in living organisms that they develop into are able to multiply and diversify. Evidence of that would be the evolution of reptiles to mammals and then humans, which gave us a triune brain that contains the complexes of each while the former examples only possess those features in common that were acquired in the preceding stages.

Quote:Ha ha.  I am going to have fun with this and say can you prove or have evidence that none of those alternatives are the case?  Naturally I am going to need explicit direct empirical proof/evidence.  I am willing to bet you cannot so they are hypothesis to consciousness

Are you asking me to prove a negative? That's just... amateurish.

Quote:That it is!!!    For what it is worth I am an ardent support of strict adherence to the ideology that God may never serve as the foundation of an argument.   In order to avoid the very caricature you are making above.  Inference of God by epistemology, ontology, and teleology where not predicated upon the existence of God at the beginning of the arguments and avoid the caricature.

I find saying, “It just might be.  What else would that mean if it were” far more stimulating to curiosity and conversation than “I don’t know”.   Generally I would consider I don’t know the death knell of conversations.

Not valid inferences, but I'm more than happy to say "it just might be" too. It just might be the case that we're in a computer simulation created by mad scientists. 

Quote:HA HA!!  Einstein left the great majority of his assertions undemonstrated for more than 20 years!! Some for more than 40 years!!

And the demonstration of his assertions is again by synthetic aposteriori or implicit circumstantial empirical evidence.  The same evidence which may be utilized in the inference and assertion of God.  As I said before, I endeavor to maintain the same threshold of proof for God as all other knowledge including scientific.

Remember the value of a hypothesis, which I stated a couple of posts back? These are getting too long to be forced to have to repeat myself...

Quote:Historically it would be far from ridiculous and more akin to factual. Though I do confess that I find it sad that anyone would fail to recognize the prominence belief and faith have played in scientific, social, and cultural advancement.  Many of the greatest works of art, music, and literature were inspired by the belief in the imaginary guy(s) in the sky.  The belief of unity of all things with the single creator of all things and the desire to understand that creator lead to many of the breakthroughs in science.  You may not like it.  But history really does show that the belief in the imaginary guy(s) in the sky has led to the majority of advancement and masterpieces we know and love.

I would never discount the importance of creativity, including fiction and mythology, in the human experience. It's one of the reasons I love reading the Greeks. And sure, that can definitely inspire wonderful art and even ideas that later prove useful in science. But I try not to confuse the two, that is, reality and fiction. That's all I'm saying.

Quote:I reject your rejection and consider your assertion without evidence as greater claim than my own (as my claim is predicted on epistemological, ontological, and teleological inference and I have yet to hear your evidence on why I may not make such inference to support your rejection).   As such we may apply Hitchen’s razor in like manner and your rejection is unfounded.  I await your evidence disproving my inferences or to reject your rejection without evidence.

I'll give you one example that is often cited as an "inference" for God and let's see if you can find its flaws.
P1. Everything that begins to exist must have a cause.
P2. The universe began to exist.
C. The universe must a cause.
Inference. The cause is god.

The other alleged inferences are no better for the same reasons that I anticipate you will be able to cite.

Quote:I believe the comment was in regards to your statement that many modern philosophers find the previous logic of philosopher supporting an epistemological, ontological, and teleological inference of God onerous.  In which case the implication of your statement is that because many (argumentum ad numerum or populum) modern (argument ad novitatem) philosopher find the logic onerous than it is likely that logic is invalid.  I assure you I am paying proper attention to what you are writing and the implications therein.

I'm sure you've heard many historians cite, as an aside to their arguments for the existence of Jesus, that virtually no one in academia ascribes to the mythicist theory. So, do you also consider them to be committing an argumentum ad populum when they state that fact? Can you imagine any idea why they would do so? Do you think one might be wise to ask themselves why it is that---whether it's a majority, or most, or nearly all---experts who have considered the data or arguments find agreement on that point? Or are you just being dense?

Nestor;

I will provide response to your post on Monday. I started writing it and making sure to site various sources in a word file on Friday and left my USB at work.

So it is coming!! Just you wait!! When you least expect it....THAT IS WHEN YOU CAN EXPECT IT!!