Breaking down the "God sees argument"

[Whateverist]

Assume we don't have objective existence. We would then be an subjective experience only.  

Then we have two options:

Either our subjective experience of ourselves can have some justification 
Or must be completely baseless.


Assume we have objective existence.

Then we have following options.

Either our subjective experience can be justified in some degree.
It still cannot be justified at all and must be completely bases.

Fortunately nothing earthshaking rests on the resolution of this seeming paradox.  More an amusement for the mind than a practical problem.

[chimp3]

Assume we don't have objective existence. We would then be an subjective experience only.  

Then we have two options:

Either our subjective experience of ourselves can have some justification 
Or must be completely baseless.


Assume we have objective existence.

Then we have following options.

Either our subjective experience can be justified in some degree.
It still cannot be justified at all and must be completely baseless.

Saying you don't have objective existence is the equivalent to saying you don't have existence. Subjective existence is then not possible.

[RozKek]

It's simple premise.

Either A or notA.

If A is true, then not A is false. if NotA is true, then A is false.

I think I have to break it down this way, because, people often like muddying the issue, instead of dealing with the argument.

There is an objectively measured you.  For example, a moon you may have no idea what size it is, but it's size exists objectively regardless. You too exist regardless.

I am saying your traits, etc, you may not realize them all, for example, but they objectively exist. You may not realize your scale and measurement but it exists. That is to say, you don't know the degree of your intelligence for example but it exists. The same is true of your goodness, praise, or evil or inner beauty or inner ugliness.

I am saying it's the case we either objectively exist or we don't objectively exist.

Objectively measured you? The size of the moon and my 'good' and 'evil' do not exist, they're just descriptions of the moon and me. The same way the laws of physics don't exist, they're describing something that exists, the universe. You're playing word games or something.

If I'm wrong, someone point it out, be it anyone.

[RozKek]

I give up.

People here love to argue for the sake of arguing. And as long as you are like that, you will never arrive at the truth.

Alistair, again, I'm not arguing two are possible.

The argument I presented in the other thread is not only valid, but all it's premises are true and can be proven.

I don't have time really to do this anymore. If people can't acknowledge such a simple premise, it shows people are not here to learn, they want to argue and refute.

It isn't wrong for us to argue against them if we genuinely think there's something wrong/illogical with them, and that's what we're doing.

[Angrboda]

Assume we don't have objective existence. We would then be an subjective experience only.  

Then we have two options:

Either our subjective experience of ourselves can have some justification 
Or must be completely baseless.


Assume we have objective existence.

Then we have following options.

Either our subjective experience can be justified in some degree.
It still cannot be justified at all and must be completely baseless.

What do you mean by an experience being justified? If by that you mean it is based on something (objective) then you've created a tautology here (either it's justified (objective) or it's baseless (neither objective nor subjective)). The obvious response is that it's justified by subjective facts. Depending on what you mean by subjective -- is a subconsciously held truth subjective or objective? According to traditional definition, it's objective (it's not subject to an individual's opinions and attitudes). If you want to say that the "I" is a product of our subconscious brain and therefore objective, I could in part agree with you. However what objective fact would your being a college student be? It seems your continuing to attend school is a subjective decision, so part of who you are is subjective. So it appears that the answer is neither -- it's both subjective and objective. Since it's not clear on which side of the dividing line the facts of the "I" lie upon, it would be clearer if you substituted "brain based" or "not brain based". Then the substance of your argument would truly depend upon whether or not there is an independent "I" that must be perceived by an external agent to be real. I think if things were recast in this way, it would be obvious that the "I" is a brain phenomena requiring no external observer.

[ApeNotKillApe]

In future, try to clarify your position and your terms a little more thoroughly than not at all. You'll be amazed what a difference it makes to a conversation when the people you're talking to have some clue what the fuck you're talking about and don't need to flood the conversation with all sorts of irritating, simplistic questions.

[Whateverist]

In future, try to clarify your position and your terms a little more thoroughly than not at all.

Or else hide them better if you still want to sneak one past us.  

[Levi_Black]

What you're getting at:
We exist, therefore god exists.

Not necessarily.

[Edwardo Piet]

Assume we don't have objective existence. We would then be an subjective experience only.  

But the ontology of our subjective experience still exists objectively if it is to exist at all.

Is our subjectivity objectively present in the universe or is it absent? If present then our subjectivity objectively exists. If absent then our subjectivity objectively does not exist. Of course, our subjectivity does exist, even if it's only mine and you're imaginary... you still exist as a figment of my own phenomena [emoji4]

Our subjectivity is only epistemologically subjective... it still exists objectively ontologically otherwise it doesn't exist at all.

[emoji2]

For us to have subjective experience at all is for us to ontologically objectively have it despite it being epistemologically subjective.

[emoji2]

[bennyboy]

1. We either objectively exist or we don't objectively exist.

Let us not move on, before we understand what is meant.

What I mean by we of course is not hands or feet or body, but that experience we constantly call "I".

Experience is generally termed "subjective," while those things the experiencer experiences are at least sometimes called objective.

It is not true that either we objectively exist or we don't objectively exist until you sufficiently define what objective existence MEANS. Until then, we can treat your statement like a semantic Schrodinger's cat-- we both do and don't objectively exist until the statement is resolved by a sufficiently precise definition.