I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[amw79]

Again, read through the read. What of, my arguments HAS been refuted? I have seen no refutation of A) the a posteriori argument from potentiality/contingency........

The Cosmological Argument. Correct? Or are you speaking of something else entirely?

Please reply without the word-salads. For example instead of something like "causes are ontically prior to their effects" Just say "causes bring about their effects". Really, no one is impressed with your impressive use of a thesaurus and a latin phrase book.

If I propound an argument a contrario a posteriori, please don't repudiate a priori.
It's ab absurdo from ab irato.


Well, ok, not as an impressive use as yours, but you get the picture. It doesn't help the communication of your thoughts. And I want to know your thoughts on this cosmological argument. Not the thoughts of some long dead catholic dudes. 'k?

This has been the whole problem with this thread really. Its quite instructive to note that most here could sum up some of the greatest ideas ever proposed - concepts of logic, freedom or democracy; theory of evolution by natural selection, theory of relativity and special relativity - in plain, succinct language, however JP has for 30 pages unsuccessfully attempted to explain his a posteriori argument, using language not used outside of advanced theology.

Any challenges have been met with "You don't understand" and links to catholic definitions of terms - one of which was about 3 pages of denifition for two words - actuality & potentiality.

Again, I say the argument is set up as untestable and unobservable, and as such deserves no further attention

[Jon Paul]

however JP has for 30 pages unsuccessfully attempted to explain his a posteriori argument, using language not used outside of advanced theology.

The words are used outside of theology all the time, and their origination is certainly not in theology. And I have not been unable to explain my argument. You have been unwilling to accept my explanation, and unwilling to tell me what exactly your problem is with understanding it so that we could actually have a discussion about it.

Any challenges have been met with "You don't understand" and links to catholic definitions of terms - one of which was about 3 pages of denifition for two words - actuality & potentiality.

Again, I say the argument is set up as untestable and unobservable, and as such deserves no further attention

Note, that you have said the terms "are set up to reach a pre-defined conclusion", which would imply question begging. To support that claim, you will have to show me where either my argument or these two terms in any way beg the question. If you don't point this out, then the fallacy lies in your dismissal of my argument, which is begging the question that my argument is wrong, not in my argument.

The two words I can explain easily, again, if that is what you want.

Actuality, from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

* Main Entry: ac·tu·al·i·ty
* Pronunciation: \ˌak-chə-ˈwa-lə-tē, ˌak-shə-\
* Function: noun
* Inflected Form(s): plural ac·tu·al·i·ties
* Date: 1618

1 : the quality or state of being actual
2 : something that is actual : fact, reality <possible risks which have been seized upon as actualities — T. S. Eliot>
— in actuality : in actual fact

Potentiality, from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

* Main Entry: po·ten·ti·al·i·ty
* Pronunciation: \pə-ˌten(t)-shē-ˈa-lə-tē\
* Function: noun
* Inflected Form(s): plural po·ten·ti·al·i·ties
* Date: 1625

1 : the ability to develop or come into existence
2 : potential 1

More elaborate definitions:

Potentiality:

Initially from Aristotle: dÚnami$(dynamis): capability of existing or acting, potentiality, power,
faculty, capacity.

Translated to Latin as potentia, from potere/posse (be powerful, be able).

· Common usage:

§ Capable of being but not yet in existence, latent.
§ Having possibility, capability, or power.
§ Possessing the capacity for growth, development.
§ Synonyms: dispositional, virtual, possible, unrealized, unexpressed, latent, potency,
conceivability.

· Philosophical usage:

§ Aptitude to change, to act or to be acted upon, to give or to receive some new determination
(capable of determination).
§ Potentia = determinable being.

Actuality:

· Initially from Aristotle: ™neršgia (energeia): activity, operation, performance, full reality, act,
functioning, actualization.

· Also from Greek: ™ntelšceia (entelecheia): full, complete reality; state of completion or perfection;
the form that is actualized, actuality, perfection.

· Translated to Latin as actus (act, motion, action), from agere (act, do).

· Also from Latin: actualis (what exists in reality, effective, active), actualitas (reality, effectiveness).

· Common usage:

§ Existing and not merely potential or possible.
§ Synonyms: real, occurrent, existent, realization, entelechy, substantiality, determination.

· Philosophical usage:

§ The fulfillment of the capacity to change, to act, or to give or receive some new
determination.
§ Actus = determined being.

Now, these terms are widely used in language, and in all areas of science, not because they represent a philosophy per se, but because they represent a philosophy of language which makes it much easier to state things clearly, and distinguish between that which is only possible/potent (potentiality) and that which is not only possible but really actual (actuality). Potentiality, in this context, can be used as a synonym for possibility, or potency. These terms have enjoyed an extensive use in physics. The only way to really dispute them is to dispute that there are actual things, and potential things, and that these two kinds of things are not the same, which would be nonsense.

Heisenberg on potentiality versus actuality:

“The transition from the ‘possible’ to the ‘actual’ takes place during the act of observation.”

The probability function….contains statements about … possibilities or better tendencies (“potentia” in Aristotelian philosophy), and these statements are completely objective… (p.53)

It should be emphasized, however, that the probability function does not in itself represent a course of events in the course of time. It represents a tendency [potentia] for events and our knowledge of events. The probability function can be connected with reality only if one essential condition is fulfilled: if a new measurement is made to determine a certain property of the system. Only then does the probability function determine the probable result of the new measurement. The result of the measurement will again be stated in terms of classical physics. … It is only in the third step that we change again over from the “possible” to the “actual.” (Heisenberg, 1958, p.46)

The observation, on the other hand, enforces the description in space and time but breaks the determined continuity of the probability function by changing our knowledge of the system. (p. 50)

A real difficulty in the understanding of this interpretation arises, however, when one asks the famous question: But what happens “really” in an atomic event?
(p. 50)

… the probability function does not allow a description of what happens between two observations. … the term “happens” is restricted to the observation. (p.52)

“The probability function combines objective and subjective elements. It contains statements about possibilities or better tendencies (“potentia” in Aristotelian philosophy) and these are completely objective,…and it contains statements about our knowledge of the system, which of course are subjective in so far as they may be different for different observers.” (P&P,p.53)

“The observation itself changes the probability function discontinuously; it selects of all possible events the actual one that has taken place. Since through the observation our knowledge of the system has changed discontinuously, its mathematical representation has also undergone the discontinuous change and we may speak of a ‘quantum jump’ ” (P&P, p.54)

This is one out of several applications. In any case, there is no excuse for not knowing what these terms mean now, or for calling them theological preconceptions when they are clearly not.

---

The Cosmological Argument. Correct? Or are you speaking of something else entirely?

You could call it in the category of cosmological arguments if you wanted to. But I don't think that it would help you in explaining the substance of the argument, since it says nothing about how it is a cosmological argument, or that is, from what premises it argues and to what conclusions, in regard to the cosmos.

Something like the Kalam Cosmological argument would be a far more "clean" and non-ambigiuous cosmological argument.

---

Whether stuff is subjective or not. We know from obvious sane experience that either something exists or it doesn't.

But you are only proving my point. The transcendence of conceptual realities beyond our minds and beyond subjective construction is an intuition and idea which is based on the fundamental knowledge we have through our sense experience of the world and the objects in it.

That's going by 'objective has to be absolute' again. These are two different things. If everything is ultimately subjective then objectivity is 'merely' stuff like, strong scientifc consensus, etc.

The problem is that you are positing truth to be merely a matter of convention and construction. It is an absolute subjectivist view of truth, that you propose, that it is only true because we think it is true, only true because of our consensus, and that is ultimately what you are claiming if we analyse your position.

Whereas, I don't advocate the position of us having or being the absolute truth as subjective individuals. I advocate the position that it exactly exists independently of us, and that we can approach it and contain objective truths in our subjective viewpoints by affirming conceptual realities that exist objectively, and that the degree of truth in our subjective views is determined by how near it is to the objective truth, which in my epistemic structure, exists independently of what we think about it, unlike in yours, where truth is what we think it is, since you can only ever logically proceed from subjective notion of objective truth->subjective notion of objective truth, and an actual objective truth requires transcendence and self-existence, as being a conceptual reality already conceived of by an objective intelligence rather than being contingent upon subject convention.

The law of noncontradiction/the excluded middle again. I've dealt with this in the very above post.

Yes, you are saying that if 'everything is subjective' then there is no objectivity so nothing is really true. But I am not arguing that, I am arguing that stuff either does or doesn't exist, but we all subjectivivly understand that with experience. We could believe that the above doesn't apply and either nothing exists or something can both exist and not exist, etc, etc. But that doesn't stop me from rationally believing it's insane.

You are only really proving my point, by positing the truth of the logical absolute known as the law of contradiction, as something which is fundamentally warranted by our sense experience of the world and the objects in it. In other words, our subjective minds have grasped a conceptual reality which exists indepedependently of us grasping it, which is a viewpoint you are unable to take because your epistemic structure reduces it to a subjective convention which is only true because it is thought to be true, just like it (in this subjectivism) would be true that the Earth was flat if we thought it to be - which is obviously not true, yet it would be true given the belief that it was true, in atheism, and that fact proves that the epistemic structure of atheism is logically incoherent and out of accord with reality.

I have learnt from experience like everyone else has. We can't transcend our own minds, we only know what we know. How could we do otherwise? So what? We understand and experience subjectivly, yes. So what?

Exactly. We don't "transcend our minds" in and of ourselves. We understand and experience subjectively. Which is why, if there is not an objective conceptual reality of logical absolutes, exisiting independently of subjective minds, in an objective intelligence that can conceive and therefore underbuilds this conceptual reality, then there will never be a conceptual reality of the truth which does transcend our minds, that we can subjectively approach and by this come nearer to the real truth about things, rather than simply constructing truth as a convention, the only possibility in subjectivism.

To believe that stuff either does or doesn't exist, objectively is one thing.

To simply assert the law of contradiction and construct it is not even approaching reality, so long as your epistemic structure does not mandate it's conceptual reality. And since the only option you are left with is exactly subjective convention and reassertion, I say that your sense experience and knowledge of conceptual reality oif the law of contradiction contradicts your atheistic epistemic structure in failure to affirm the existence of an objective, intelligent mind with the power of conception that underbuilds conceptual realities that are a manifest in space, time and matter, and transcends them, since the conceptual reality is not itself space, time, or matter.

There can only be degrees of objectivity, if there is an outside actual objective standard of truth, it self distinguished from subjective viewpoints (since contradistinguishing subjective viewpoints with a subjective viewpoint does not lead to any degree of objectivity) with which to contradistinguish different subjective viewpoints to compare the degree of that objectivity present in them. I've already dealt with this and given many examples of what I mean in the above posts.

I don't see how the argument makes any sense. It seems entirely semantical.

It's not semantic. It's the most important thing to understand for the entire argument.

The issue is that you construct the truth to be the consensus of some people; not because it's just simply the truth regardless of what anyone thinks about it; not because it's a conceptual reality which we confirm through our experience. Not because we, as subjects, are approaching something greater than a subjective consensus, through our intelligent understanding of reality: namely an objective truth which is a conceptual reality wholly independent of what we think about it, or to which extent our consensus affirms it; but exactly only because of your construction.

In so far as we merely construct truth to be a matter of consensus and convention, we are constructing it after our own subjective wishes, not after the reality which is really what is important.

And if we do that, then we are bound to be right, because then we cannot go wrong. We cannot fail, if we are the judges of truth, if there is no truth apart from our construction of what the truth is.

That means that, you might construct the truth to be atheism, under this subjectivism, but I might construct it to be Christianity. In either case, we are equally right, so long as we are constructing the truth without addressing the truth as it is independently of what we construct; the conceptual reality of objective truth which atheistic epistemic structures cannot affirm.

People have different beliefs. So beliefs are a subjective matter. Some believe in objective truth, others don't. I believe that it is logical to believe that something, indeed, objectively - does or doesn't exist! And I require evidence to believe it does.

But you are only contradicting your own epistemic structure, because you don't have justification for any objective belief which doesn't itself originate in a subjective conception, since objective truth simply does not exist in your epistemic structure. Only subjective notions of truth based sheerly on convention.

So where does subjectiity fall? You can say 'my view is no more valid than any one else's subjective viewpoint'...but wait, what does that even mean or imply? I beg to differ with my viewpoint

It seems you haven't grasped the example I gave with the objective indifference between any two views. It means that you haven't achieved anymore epistemic justification of your belief, than any other subjective viewpoint. Since there are (as I claim) some subjective viewpoints more objectively true than others, this is necessarily false, and hence, the atheistic epistemic structure is incoherent and unable to conform to reality.

I don't see what your point even is. How does any of it apply to reality? Obviously my experience is subjective, it can't be otherwise. So my belief in whether truth is objective or subjective stems from that. There's no alternative to subjective because I am me.

Of course we are subjective, and that has been my point all along. We are still subjective in my epistemic structure; but we, as subjective minds, approach something that exists independently of subjective minds: the conceptual reality of objective truth. My argument exactly states that no one subjective individual defines that conceptual reality, no amount of subjective consensus defines absolute truth because absolute truth exists in itself independent of subjective definitions, but we can actually contain objective truth in our beliefs, because such a thing exists, unlike in the epistemic structure of atheism, where subjective individuals exactly get to define objective truth for themselves, by convention or consensus, since there is no objective truth existing as a subsistent reality independent of subjective convention, in an objective (e.g. omniscient) intelligence with the power of conception.

[Edwardo Piet]

But you are only proving my point. The transcendence of conceptual realities beyond our minds and beyond subjective construction is an intuition and idea which is based on the fundamental knowledge we have through our sense experience of the world and the objects in it.

We know what we know through our own experience of life, we can only - in any given moment - know what we know, yes. It's subjective, yes. So what?

You have not shown that an 'objective mind' exists.

Objective truth exists in the real world. X either does or doesn't exist. We do our best subjectivily to reach this. There's no reason to believe that objective truth in the real world has to be an objective 'mind'.

Objective truth can exist whether we can necessarily correctly reach it or not. There doesn't have to be any transcendence.

The problem is that you are positing truth to be merely a matter of convention and construction.

Something is either objectivly true or it isn't. That's logically obvious by definition. Something does or doesn't exist. Something has colour or it doesn't. It makes a sound or it does, etc, etc. Duh.

Objective truth exists in the real world. Our subjective minds can be right or wrong about that. There's no reason to believe in any transcendence.

Whereas, I don't advocate the position of us having or being the absolute truth as subjective individuals. I advocate the position that it exactly exists independently of us

As do I. But we cannot absolutely know it because we all have our own subjective minds. This is fine. There's no reason for absolute knowlege to be needed, no reason for any 'objective mind' to be needed. And no reason for any 'transcendence' that you speak of.

There is a possibility we are right or wrong. The possibility of being right about what is objectivly out there is all that is needed. We do not need absolute knowledge or transcendece, there doesn't have to be an 'objective mind'. Objective truth can exist in the real world anyway.

You are only really proving my point, by positing the truth of the logical absolute known as the law of contradiction, as something which is fundamentally warranted by our sense experience of the world and the objects in it. In other words, our subjective minds have grasped a conceptual reality which exists indepedependently of us grasping it, which is a viewpoint you are unable to take because your epistemic structure reduces it to a subjective convention which is only true because it is thought to be true[...]

The fact this world in our experiences appears to have evidence backing it up, that shows that hthis world is rational and logical, that follows laws, shows us that things logically do or don't exist etc. We could be wrong, this isn't absoultely proven, objective proof might not exist out there, but there is evidence.

You say that logic has to be established before we can evidence anything. But the thing is, we are born and grow up with some rationality and logic anyway, it's just the way we think as humans, and we learn through education. And our experience is evidence for the logic and rationality of the world. So I do not agree that evidence doesn't start before logic.

Evidence is what beliefs are based on. If you believe the universe is logical and you believe in logical rules and have logical thoughts, that is because you have evidence for such things. If the evidence is correct then that's knowlege, it can also be incorrect and it turns out that it 'wasn't evidence', but the point is that all beliefs are in some sense related to evidence. Because they're either based on evidence or lacking in evidence, so it's basically all evidence focused, either evidence or a lack of it.

Exactly. We don't "transcend our minds" in and of ourselves. We understand and experience subjectively. Which is why, if there is not an objective conceptual reality of logical absolutes, exisiting independently of subjective minds,

This makes sense...

in an objective intelligence that can conceive

This doesn't follow -

IF objective truth exists then we don't need to absolutely know it. There's no reason that it has to be shown to us by an 'objective mind/intelligence'/'God'. There's no reason to believe in transcendence.

The issue is that you construct the truth to be the consensus of some people; not because it's just simply the truth regardless of what anyone thinks about it; not because it's a conceptual reality which we confirm through our experience. Not because we, as subjects, are approaching something greater than a subjective consensus, through our intelligent understanding of reality: namely an objective truth which is a conceptual reality wholly independent of what we think about it, or to which extent our consensus affirms it; but exactly only because of your construction.

No. Objective truth can exist without an objective mind. We don't need to know of it for it to exist, there doesn't have to be transcendence.

Truth doesn't exist because of my belief. It exists independent of that. Because of the evidence of all the logic and rationality in this universe independent of my own personal beliefs (stuff happens that I disagree with and don't accept, etc, etc, etc, etc).

There is evidence that this world has logical laws, I believe this through my experience. I do not believe that I create logic itself and that it's 'only because of construction'.

You believe truth is objective and so do I. You believe there is an 'objective mind' too, I do not - and there's no reason to believe that.

There's no reason for transcendence to exist. As you say - objective truth exists independently of us. So we don't have to be transcended by an objective mind. It exists independent of us, and independent of whether we believe in it or not.

I believe objective truth exists. I don't have to absolutely know that for it to exist. There doesn't have to be any transcendence.

That means that, you might construct the truth to be atheism, under this subjectivism, but I might construct it to be Christianity. In either case, we are equally right,

No, because there's no actual logical indication for God existing. In other words - no evidence. This is indepedent of whether stuff is subjective or not. The logic we are brought up in matters, it is not all equal. Because all the logic any of us have ever known is understood subjectively...all the logic in the known universe is understood subjectively!!.

It continues to be a complete total and utter failure on your part when you continue to assert that evidence cannot exist rationally without an objective mind, and that the fact we have subjective minds, without an objective mind means 'anything is just as true as anything else'. This is nonsense.

How is this nonsense? No, not because we absolutely know it. Once again - evidence through experience without any need for an objective mind.

No objective mind doesn't mean that 'anything goes' regards to truth. People can believe what they like - that doesn't make it so. There's no evidence for that.


Important bit:
All beliefs are established on evidence or related to it - a lack of it (faith), and our beliefs are what we understand about the world. So evidence has to be established before logic, because we can only understand logic through our beliefs, and beliefs are to be based on evidence (or bad evidence, a lack of it - 'faith').

If the world was chaotic and worked completely different to how it logically does, then our experience of that would be evidence of that. Since all our beliefs are based on our evidence, right or wrong - even logic itself is.

Logic exists independent of us. But we only have a reason to believe in it because there's evidence of it - if the world was chaotic and insane and a lot less logical, we'd have a reason to believe it was like that instead. Whether we'd be capable considering how irrational, chaotic and illogical the universe would be

So JP, I will end this post by saying that you can't be asserting objective or subjecive truth as a choice before evidence. Because if objective truth exists on the outside (as I believe it does) - this exists independent of our beliefs.

On the question of choosing to believe in an objecitve mind or not, we absolutely do need to demand evidence first. As we do to believe anything. Beliefs are a matter of evidence or lack of it, they are a matter of evidence or faith. And evidence is the rational way.

You even can't assert logic at me before evidence. Because whether I believe in your 'logic' or not, shall be based on evidence. Your logic could be wrong. I'll let my evidence decide.

EvF

[Jon Paul]

There's no reason for transcendence to exist. As you say - objective truth exists independently of us. So we don't have to be transcended by an objective mind. It exists independent of us, and independent of whether we believe in it or not.

I agree that truth exists independently of whether we believe it or not, which has been my point all along.

But you are claiming it now, as an atheist. My question to you is, then, how that is the case given atheism. For instance, in which sense does the law of contradiction exist in the physical universe independently of whether a mind has conceived of it and how do you demonstrate this to be the case without appealing to a minds conceptual realisation of it?

[Dotard]

Please link me to your argument. Maybe I was reading something else as I was sure it was a cosmo argument. Kalam or not? Is it the Kalam one you are using or your own?

[theVOID]

An argument, JP style:

JP: God created morals

MAN: Why do you say that?

JP: I have already explained myself

MAN: You simply made an assertion and provided no evidence. What evidence do you have to support that claim

JP: That's not relevant.

---

I agree that truth exists independently of whether we believe it or not, which has been my point all along.

But you are claiming it now, as an atheist. My question to you is, then, how that is the case given atheism. For instance, in which sense does the law of contradiction exist in the physical universe independently of whether a mind has conceived of it and how do you demonstrate this to be the case without appealing to a minds conceptual realisation of it?

The law of (non)contradiction is testable, god is not.

[Darwinian]

Ah, that's better, the abridged version

It always amazes me how the deeply religious seem to either shy away from the concept of evidence or twist and mutate it to mean what they want it to mean.

Why is that I wonder? Oh, yes. It's the only way that they feel they can add any verisimilitude to their story.

If the Universe looks as though there is no God, behaves as if there were no God and follows predictable rules that don't seem to require the presence of a God then I don't think that it is unreasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no God.

Ooh.... I quite like that, think I'll use itas my sig..

[theVOID]

What amazes me is their assumptions hold more weight that fact.

[Kyuuketsuki]

An argument, JP style:

JP: God created morals

MAN: Why do you say that?

JP: I have already explained myself

MAN: You simply made an assertion and provided no evidence. What evidence do you have to support that claim

JP: That's not relevant.

ROFL ... in a nutshell that's exactly!

Kyu

[theVOID]

An argument, JP style:

JP: God created morals

MAN: Why do you say that?

JP: I have already explained myself

MAN: You simply made an assertion and provided no evidence. What evidence do you have to support that claim

JP: That's not relevant.

ROFL ... in a nutshell that's exactly!

Kyu

That, aside from incoherent sentences riddled with linguistic ejaculation, is the only thing that i got from the first 17 pages. I'm unaware if anything was achieved in the latter part of the discussion but i highly doubt it.