I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[LEDO]

So why are we required to have moral standards?

We are not required to have moral standards unless we want to make moral judgements. The only way to avoid making moral judgements is to remain silent, as no human person can avoid making moral judgements.

For instance, you are unable to say that anything is worse than anything else for anyone but yourself, if you have no objective epistemic foundations for moral truth. You cannot even say that it's worse for someone else to take a knife and cut your genitals off than not to, since he is merely living up to his own subjective standards if there is no objective standards which apply to you both. And then you are unable to complain over it if that really happens.

Since you will end up predicating moral truths and making moral judgements no matter what, it follows that you are being inconsistent with your epistemic structure and making irrational judgements for which you have no grounds in objective reality.

By "objective" I suppose you mean something that is real and examinable to the scientific standard.

By objective, I mean that which transcends every single human mind. For every single human mind is subjective, and if there is nothing beyond subjective minds, there is no objective standard that in and of itself applies to all subjective minds for reaching objective truth.

A lot of double speak nonsense. Sounds like you let a philosphy class fuck up your head. The truth is neither objective, subjective, moral, or immoral. It exists with or without us. Truth is subject to false interpretation and false meaning. Truth has nothing to do with the human mind or its comprehension, or judgements.

[Jon Paul]

A lot of double speak nonsense. Sounds like you let a philosphy class fuck up your head.

You did nothing to refute anything I said.

The truth is neither objective, subjective, moral, or immoral.

I have never spoken of a an "immoral" truth. This simply shows that you understand nothing.

It exists with or without us. Truth is subject to false interpretation and false meaning. Truth has nothing to do with the human mind or its comprehension, or judgements.

Right. The problem is that you dont realise you are presenting a transcendental perspective of truth right now, and that there is absolutely no warrant for this in a non-monotheistic epistemic structure. You are contradicting the epistemic structure of your own worldview, without knowing it. There are only the abstractions of human subjective minds, there is only brain chemistry. Not any "objective truth" which somehow exists apart from human minds, since objective truth is simply a subjective notion in the epistemic structure of nonmonotheism.

[thornweaver]

I won't lie. I do not understand your argument. It doesn't seem that the others grasp entirely what you are saying about not believing to be self-contradictory either. I assume that you made your posts to get across why you believe in your god. However, if your post isn't understood, than it doesn't serve that purpose. I want to understand, I really do. You said if you change the language you use it wouldn't do your post justice, but if you don't you just have a mess that no one here understands as well as you do. I am sure you understand I cannot just take your word I should believe in God without understanding your reasoning behind it. So, could you please try to rephrase it some.

[Jon Paul]

I won't lie. I do not understand your argument. It doesn't seem that the others grasp entirely what you are saying about not believing to be self-contradictory either. I assume that you made your posts to get across why you believe in your god. However, if your post isn't understood, than it doesn't serve that purpose. I want to understand, I really do. You said if you change the language you use it wouldn't do your post justice, but if you don't you just have a mess that no one here understands as well as you do. I am sure you understand I cannot just take your word I should believe in God without understanding your reasoning behind it. So, could you please try to rephrase it some.

The problem is rather that I would be raping the English language and using words beyond their definitions, which I doubt will make you understand much more.

But do say, what do you want me to rephrase?

If anyone still hasn't understood this, I have presented two different foundations for my transcendental monotheology.

One is the a posteriori argument from empirical observation of the (meta)physics of reality.

The other is the epistemological impossibility of the contrary being true (e.g. the fact a non-monotheological/atheist/naturalist epistemic structure accounts only for the abstractions of subjective brain chemistry, not a transcendental objective truth, and therefore can't possible be true according to its own epistemology).

---

I am going on vacation for a week Will return after then and answer any questions there might be.

Regards,
JP

[fr0d0]

An empirical observation of the metaphysical - so hard evidence of something abstract.


I must admit I have no clue what you're saying. Even this concise summary. Saying that though I haven't bothered to look up the words you're using either. ..Strike that - I just did and it didn't help.

Could you point us/ me in the direction of a simplistic, ie layman's guide to philosophical literature, and especially the Thomistic tradition please?


What concerns me is this is a type of presentation that propagates the very fault with Catholicism at the reformation. (ie Catholicism sought to hide the meaning of what was in fact very simple in the interest of amassing power at all levels, exactly what Jesus himself demonstrated the greatest anger towards in the temple. The holy of holies which Jesus smashed.)

[LEDO]

A lot of double speak nonsense. Sounds like you let a philosphy class fuck up your head.

You did nothing to refute anything I said.

The truth is neither objective, subjective, moral, or immoral.

I have never spoken of a an "immoral" truth. This simply shows that you understand nothing.

It exists with or without us. Truth is subject to false interpretation and false meaning. Truth has nothing to do with the human mind or its comprehension, or judgements.

Right. The problem is that you dont realise you are presenting a transcendental perspective of truth right now, and that there is absolutely no warrant for this in a non-monotheistic epistemic structure. You are contradicting the epistemic structure of your own worldview, without knowing it. There are only the abstractions of human subjective minds, there is only brain chemistry. Not any "objective truth" which somehow exists apart from human minds, since objective truth is simply a subjective notion in the epistemic structure of nonmonotheism.

You did nothing to refute your brain is fucked up by double speak philosophical nonsense either. Truth exists outside of the human mind. It has nothing to do with your poly-thesitic religion.

[Edwardo Piet]

[quote='Jon Paul' pid='23428' dateline='1248022812']
[quote='EvidenceVsFaith' pid='23427' dateline='1248021459']
All 'subjective' evidence isn't equal. Some is therefore 'objective' in that sense.[/quote]
On what grounds do you say that "all subjective evidence isn't equal"? Subjective grounds. In other words, you are subjectively judging that all subjective evidence isn't subjectively equal.[/quote]

[quote=EvF]So? Evidence is based by subjectivity and then the consensus is said to be objective because it's so strong. it doesn't have to be absolute to be said to be objective.
[/quote]

[quote='Jon Paul' pid='23428' dateline='1248022812']
It is not objective at all if it doesnt transcend subjective minds. [/quote]

Eh? That, in itself - is nonsense! It only makes sense if what you are describing is the absolute not merely the objective. You are describing absolute objectivity. And there is no evidence of anything absolute (as far as I know) including absolute objectivity. Objectivity is built upon a consensus, not something that is shown to everyone and can transcend all subjective minds regardless of whether they accept it or not with their own subjective brain! Unless you are talking about absolute objectivity - which there is no evidence of.

[quote=Jon]Yes, I have. You simply didn't read my post on page 2 then. The last post on page 2 - read it. Here I quote:

[quote]You ask me what evidence there is. I will give you an answer, but it's a long one. So don't ask such questions if you don't want long answers

[..][/quote]

Sorry, I missed that.

Yes I want to know what the evidence is. That's why I asked the question in the first place...

but, you can post a massive chunk if you wish...however: All I need is any evidence, however little for God's existence because I am yet to see any. Not even one tiny tiny tiny tiny particles worth of evidence. As far as I'm concerned there's zero evidence for God...

So you can post a load of evidence if you wish. I don't need that though....I'm asking for any evidence, however small and however weak - any valid evidence.

So we could start in little bits perhaps? Perhaps you could start by giving me just any evidence - according to you - and we will move on from there?

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

I am indeed speaking of your god as arbitrary on the basis that there are hundreds/thousands of other gods who are or have been claimed to exist and none of them have ever had a single shred of supporting validatable evidence. That you believe it exists is fine, but it also opens the logical door for me to view your argument as insane (and I do).

Right. But this is a straw man argument. I am not merely claiming any God to exist, but claiming the only logically reasonable kind of theism: transcendental monotheism. The attributes of such a God are not defined by arbitrary predication, but by logical necessity. For if such a God transcends reality, which is the definition of the hypothesis, the attributes logically follow of themselves: it must be beyond time (eternal), beyond space (omnipresent), beyond the finite limitations of the universe it itself spawned (omnipotent, omniscient), immutable (transcending causality) and so on and so forth. These are logically necessary attributes, if we want to be consistent with the definition of God as being the transcendental source of reality. They are not arbitrary theistic claims with no logical grounds.

No it is not a straw man .,.,., a strawman is when you set up an analogous scenario, destroy it and declare the original scenario defeated by that analogous defeat ... I have not set up such a scenario (though it is entirely possible I have used another) and therefore you are either lying or mistaken.

Same thing as far as I can tell. As far as I know there are no objective truths ... care to tell us one or more?

Exactly. You as an atheist are forced to acknowledge that there is no objective truth, due to the very epistemic structure of atheism. In other words, in the epistemic structure of atheism, atheism is not even true itself, nothing is true, because there is no truth. Truth is an abstraction of an ape-mind, which has no value beyond it's apparent predictive survival qualities (and even that is another abstraction of the brains chemistry which has no transcendent truth value). Everything is reduced to the brain chemistry, and nothing more.

Lovely I am sure ... now would you care to answer the question I asked you and not the question you decided you wanted to?

Language is a communication tool. If you come to a forum and say a load of stuff in a language that is not readily comprehended then you are failing in the basic use of language because you are NOT communicating. You need to explain yourself in the sort of language that the denizens of this place understand.

There are no replacements for the expressions I use. Language is indeed a communication tool, and I am being very clear as to what I am communication in terms of meaning. If I used everday language, I would likely be abusing many words beyond what they were intended for.

Yes there are replacements, if there weren't no one would ever be able to learn a subject and you, in my opinion, are using that excuse as a way to evade the points I am raising.

You didn't deal with why your argument wasn't special pleading therefore I will assume it is until you have raised a rational argument against it.

You haven't provided any argument why it is a special pleading. My argument, given it's rational grounds, fulfills the criteria for proper basicality, as far as I can see. If it doesn't, then you are going to have to show me where it invokes special pleading.

It is special pleading because you are implicitly excepting your claims from the usual requirements of evidence and a rational explanation of the same.

Metaphysics is one of those academic, meaningless concepts that gets bounced around in these circles yet no one has yet demonstrated it is any way of value so I dismiss it and (along with Asimov and Feynman discussed later) I think I am in good company!

Right. As I've already said, metaphysics are implicit in any communication of meaning. If you don't like that, remain silent. But you cannot say anything without implicit metaphysics. Also, the fun is really that an atheist will claim to be "rationally driven", yet when it suits you, you will simply call rational arguments for "useless metaphysics" without demonstrating where it errs. That is a red herring.

How dare you come to OUR forum and insist one of us cannot comment validly on your arguments you arrogant disingenuous [expletive deleted] when you havened even answered the point raised ... answer the [expletive deleted] points I have raised!

Kyu

[LEDO]

---

All 'subjective' evidence isn't equal. Some is therefore 'objective' in that sense.

On what grounds do you say that "all subjective evidence isn't equal"? Subjective grounds. In other words, you are subjectively judging that all subjective evidence isn't subjectively equal.

So? Evidence is based by subjectivity and then the consensus is said to be objective because it's so strong. it doesn't have to be absolute to be said to be objective.

It is not objective at all if it doesnt transcend subjective minds.

Eh? That, in itself - is nonsense! It only makes sense if what you are describing is the absolute not merely the objective. You are describing absolute objectivity. And there is no evidence of anything absolute (as far as I know) including absolute objectivity. Objectivity is built upon a consensus, not something that is shown to everyone and can transcend all subjective minds regardless of whether they accept it or not with their own subjective brain! Unless you are talking about absolute objectivity - which there is no evidence of.

Yes, I have. You simply didn't read my post on page 2 then. The last post on page 2 - read it. Here I quote:

You ask me what evidence there is. I will give you an answer, but it's a long one. So don't ask such questions if you don't want long answers

[..]

Sorry, I missed that.

Yes I want to know what the evidence is. That's why I asked the question in the first place...

but, you can post a massive chunk if you wish...however: All I need is any evidence, however little for God's existence because I am yet to see any. Not even one tiny tiny tiny tiny particles worth of evidence. As far as I'm concerned there's zero evidence for God...

So you can post a load of evidence if you wish. I don't need that though....I'm asking for any evidence, however small and however weak - any valid evidence.

So we could start in little bits perhaps? Perhaps you could start by giving me just any evidence - according to you - and we will move on from there?

EvF

---

If god doesn't exist who is tying my vacuum cleaner cord in knots?

[Purple Rabbit]

How do you know that god is not contingent upon anything else? Is it god's word you go by? That would be circularv reasoning.

Because of my conception of God, which I have already explained in detail, which specifically logically necessitates him as noncontingent upon anything outside of himself, because that would be a contradiction of the logical precepts and metaphysics involved in the claim.
Contrary to the causality of the universe, which in its very nature of impure actuality is constantly re-contingent upon an outside actuality for the actualisation of new potentialities that enter
into the causal procession.

In short, your answer is that you define your god as not contingent upon anything else because you see that defining him otherwise leads to logical contradiction. However eloquent it is a thoroughly unsatisfying answer because it does not adress the question HOW you KNOW this fact. You seem to conceive your own facts. This will not do as an argument because it is circular reasoning.

This is a contradiction. If only god provides the absolute moral preceptives they are de facto dependent upon god.

Only Gods noncontingent actuality can embody absolute morality, so they are not dependent upon any contingency, but sheerly a part of noncontingency.

if not only god provides these absolute moral preceptives they are independent upon god and we in fact do not need god to find absolute moral.

Only Gods noncontingent actuality can embody absolute morality, so no, they are not independent upon the noncontingency, since they themselves are a part of noncontingency. They are not merely dependent on noncontingency either, since they are a part of it.

You have given no evidence for this and you have not given evidence for the fact that the god conception you defend here, the RC version of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe, necessarily identifies with the non-contingent absolute you use here in your answer as a placeholder. If your god makes moral choices about what is good and what is right, as told in the bible, your god picks and selects certain moral tenets in favour of others. This act which he does from his own free will is contingent upon him. If he really is the absolute he necessarily encompasses all possible moral tenets and there is no such distinction as good moral and bad moral.

Please stop the verbal fuzz cloud and answer the question. How do you know that your god with his specific RC-characteristics that indicate choice of specifics identifies with the non-contingent absolute?