Nestor; let me apologize for the delayed reply. I was not in a rush as several of the points you have brought up are already covered in the other pages of this thread. Nonetheless I will try to give sufficient response to save you the trouble of reading through everything again.
Regarding the self contradiction of subjective morality we made reference to the Subject A lying for their own benefit to Subject B. Under subjective morality the moral quality is to be determined according to that of Subject A. As such the action of lying for ones own benefit is held as moral. Now if we are to continue to view the situation from the perspective of Subject A, but swap the actors to Subject B lying for their own benefit to Subject A. From the perspective of Subject A the action would be immoral. So in the same respect (moral quality of lying for personal benefit) as perceived by same person (Subject A) the action is both moral and immoral at the same time (since the act is not designated as time dependent and may be held at anytime).
Two this there are two responses:
1. Regarding the measure necessity or even utility of the "God" concept there are indeed any number of works which will far exceed anything I could write in a forum by men of far greater than intellect. Nearly every philosopher that is not trying to arguing God does not exists comes to the conclusion of the necessity of utility of God as at least a concept or the philosophical God.
2. As an atheist I expect the argument to the objective existence of God (I sort of wonder why you attempted the linquistic path you embarked upon). As stated repeatedly throughout this thread it is taken that by proof you mean direct explicit empirical proof rather than circumstantial implicit proof. I readily admit that there is not sufficient direct explicit empirical proof of God. However, I must further stress that there is not sufficient direct explicit empirical proof of anything which is not tautological (see the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant for greater explanation of actual and synthetic apriori and aposteriori). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
I recognize that you did not deny the existence of consciousness. However, in accordance with the general Atheistic threshold of proof, what is your direct explicit empirical proof of consciousness? As I said several posts earlier, arguing a threshold of direct explicit empirical proof allows you to state that God does not exists for lack of proof, but it also negates the existence of everything you hold as proven to exist. You win the battle (god does not exist), but you lose the war (nothing exists).
There is ample circumstantial implicit empirical proof of consciousness; like the phenomena of experience (change in brain activity is not indicative of consciousness, though it is indicative of physiological response to stimuli.) But as stated just above, circumstantial implicit empirical proof is not sufficient proof of the existence of a thing.
Ha ha!! As compelled by the Atheistic threshold of proof: "What proof do you have that the environment contains others capable of thought and communication?" other than reactionary meat responding to stimuli in a manner that implies thought and communication. "And hopefully someone will eventually discover"...You whipping out the faith card? Do you "believe" the day will come?
(May 29, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Nestor Wrote: Hmmm. The example reminds me of those who argue in favor of a deity which (who?) bestows rewards on its favorite tribe for following commands to commit genocide while prohibiting murder as an evil that is deserving of capital punishment. Anyway, I don't see the problem with subjective morality simply because it's possible to be inconsistent, which is not the same as self-contradiction---that would require one to say that it is both right and wrong to lie with regard to the same person, at the same time, and in the same respect.
Regarding the self contradiction of subjective morality we made reference to the Subject A lying for their own benefit to Subject B. Under subjective morality the moral quality is to be determined according to that of Subject A. As such the action of lying for ones own benefit is held as moral. Now if we are to continue to view the situation from the perspective of Subject A, but swap the actors to Subject B lying for their own benefit to Subject A. From the perspective of Subject A the action would be immoral. So in the same respect (moral quality of lying for personal benefit) as perceived by same person (Subject A) the action is both moral and immoral at the same time (since the act is not designated as time dependent and may be held at anytime).
(May 29, 2015 at 3:50 pm)Anima Wrote: Interesting. As i would argue that a production of language that is useful in describing veritable phenomena is imaginary in exactly the same sense as godhead. The distinction being the "personhood" linguistic production is regards to phenomena of self where as the "Godhead" linguistic production is in regards to a more teleological subject.
(May 29, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Nestor Wrote: Well, I think you demonstrate further down the necessity of linguistic items such as "I" even if these items fail to describe anything with definite boundaries or objective existence, the same way that you might perceive the floor that presently sustains your body as a "solid plane" of "continuous magnitude" when we know in actuality that there are innumerable minute atoms surrounded by large gaps of empty space comprising every body in human perception. It's imaginary in the sense that it's one of many blunt conceptual aids used to describe phenomena between object and subject on a practical level, consistent with personal experience, but doesn't actually come close to truly representing the fundamental nature of beings and their surroundings. That's partly a problem of language, partly a problem of how brains process information received by the senses. When someone is able to establish "God" as a concept that approaches the same measure of necessity, or even utility, that you pointed out is involved in our sense of being continuous individual identities, I think you might have something of an argument for the benefits of deity as a concept, but still will not have offered anything in support of its objective existence.
Two this there are two responses:
1. Regarding the measure necessity or even utility of the "God" concept there are indeed any number of works which will far exceed anything I could write in a forum by men of far greater than intellect. Nearly every philosopher that is not trying to arguing God does not exists comes to the conclusion of the necessity of utility of God as at least a concept or the philosophical God.
2. As an atheist I expect the argument to the objective existence of God (I sort of wonder why you attempted the linquistic path you embarked upon). As stated repeatedly throughout this thread it is taken that by proof you mean direct explicit empirical proof rather than circumstantial implicit proof. I readily admit that there is not sufficient direct explicit empirical proof of God. However, I must further stress that there is not sufficient direct explicit empirical proof of anything which is not tautological (see the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant for greater explanation of actual and synthetic apriori and aposteriori). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
(May 29, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Nestor Wrote: I didn't deny the existence of consciousness... that would be a bit difficult. I'm only denying the existence of self as it immediately appears to conscious beings.
I recognize that you did not deny the existence of consciousness. However, in accordance with the general Atheistic threshold of proof, what is your direct explicit empirical proof of consciousness? As I said several posts earlier, arguing a threshold of direct explicit empirical proof allows you to state that God does not exists for lack of proof, but it also negates the existence of everything you hold as proven to exist. You win the battle (god does not exist), but you lose the war (nothing exists).
(May 29, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Nestor Wrote: There's ample evidence for consciousness. You know, like the phenomenon of experiencing this present conversation, or the changes one undergoes with alternative brain states. That said, like libertarian free will, precisely defining---and then locating---the "I" of my thoughts, seems to be an entirely different matter. Btw, you do realize that difficulty in one subject that the sciences appear exclusively poised to address has no bearing on the validity or soundness of theology, right? So, are we just setting the god thing to the side to discuss a far more interesting topic or are you trying to make a (fallacious) argument here?
There is ample circumstantial implicit empirical proof of consciousness; like the phenomena of experience (change in brain activity is not indicative of consciousness, though it is indicative of physiological response to stimuli.) But as stated just above, circumstantial implicit empirical proof is not sufficient proof of the existence of a thing.
(May 29, 2015 at 5:18 pm)Nestor Wrote: I'm not advocating a dogmatic attachment to the self as a metaphysical entity with certain existence... I'm simply utilizing the best known means to continue living in an environment that contains others who are capable of thought and communication, and hopefully someone will eventually discover more as to what the relation is between mind and matter, concepts I think it would be nearly impossible to proceed without.
Ha ha!! As compelled by the Atheistic threshold of proof: "What proof do you have that the environment contains others capable of thought and communication?" other than reactionary meat responding to stimuli in a manner that implies thought and communication. "And hopefully someone will eventually discover"...You whipping out the faith card? Do you "believe" the day will come?
