The false self and our knowledge of it's deception proves God.

[WinterHold]

https://atheistforums.org/thread-48253-p...pid1528379

Just lol?
The religious section looks so...meh. now..spam..eggs.

Human memory is so weak !

[Neo-Scholastic]

Deception of ourselves and our knowledge of our false idol proves God.
1. Worship is what is valued most.
2. Each person tends to value themselves the most.
3. No person believes others ought to value them the most.
4. We are in double think where we value ourselves as number one but don't believe others ought to value ourselves the most.
5. Each person committed to valuing themselves the most thus creates a false belief, they don't truly believe they should be valued most and hence are believing and acting to lie.
6. Therefore we are false gods.
7. This suggests there is something we should value the most that is not us and that everything should value the most as well.
8. That being is that which out to be valued the most by us and by all (God).

Okay, MK, I’ve been defending you on other threads on the assumption that the diction of your arguments seem to reflect a different cultural perspective. I have said that you should be taken seriously and not ridiculed based on cultural prejudice. So I’m going to follow my own advice and try to translate your argument into the nomenclature of Western philosophy and see if I am right. So here I go:

1. In order from there to be values, something must have the highest value.
2. An individual’s life is his highest value.
3. Not everyone’s life can have the truly highest value.
4. Therefore an individual cannot believe another’s life is more valuable than his own.
5. Therefore an individual must believe either( a) the value of his life is higher that everyone else’s or (b) all lives have equal value.
6. No individual truly believes (a), i.e. he is lying to himself (making himself a false god)
7. If the individual believes (b) all lives have equal value, then he cannot accept Premise 1.

So either...

8a. There idea of relative value is meaningless.

Or...

8b. There is something of higher value than any particular human life.

Since either 8a or 8b could be a valid conclusion, I do not consider this an argument in favor of God; but rather, the revealing of an existential choice. Someone can be justified in believing either, but the one he or she chooses expresses something about who they are and what they actually believe.

[GrandizerII]

4. We are in double think where we value ourselves as number one but don't believe others ought to value ourselves the most.

My remark about narcissists in my previous response was in reference to this premise. Premise 4 is not [plausibly] true for everyone.

[Mystic]

Deception of ourselves and our knowledge of our false idol proves God.
1. Worship is what is valued most.
2. Each person tends to value themselves the most.
3. No person believes others ought to value them the most.
4. We are in double think where we value ourselves as number one but don't believe others ought to value ourselves the most.
5. Each person committed to valuing themselves the most thus creates a false belief, they don't truly believe they should be valued most and hence are believing and acting to lie.
6. Therefore we are false gods.
7. This suggests there is something we should value the most that is not us and that everything should value the most as well.
8. That being is that which out to be valued the most by us and by all (God).

Okay, MK, I’ve been defending you  on other threads on the assumption that the diction of your arguments seem to reflect a different cultural perspective. I have said that you should be taken seriously and not ridiculed based on cultural prejudice. So I’m going to follow my own advice and try to translate your argument into the nomenclature of Western philosophy and see if I am right. So here I go:

1. In order from there to be values, something must have the highest value.
2. An individual’s life is his highest value.
3. Not everyone’s life can have the truly highest value.
4. Therefore an individual cannot believe another’s life is more valuable than his own.
5. Therefore an individual must believe either( a) the value of his life is higher that everyone else’s or (b) all lives have equal value.
6. No individual truly believes (a), i.e. he is lying to himself (making himself a false god)
7. If the individual believes (b) all lives have equal value, then he cannot accept Premise 1.

So either...

8a. There idea of relative value is meaningless.

Or...

8b. There is something of higher value than any particular human life.

Since either 8a or 8b could be a valid conclusion, I do not consider this an argument in favor of God; but rather, the revealing of an existential choice.  Someone can be justified in believing either, but the one he or she chooses expresses something about who they are and what they actually believe.

You are right, well, we can just say "value is not meaningless" and then 8b would follow.

[Neo-Scholastic]

---

Okay, MK, I’ve been defending you  on other threads on the assumption that the diction of your arguments seem to reflect a different cultural perspective. I have said that you should be taken seriously and not ridiculed based on cultural prejudice. So I’m going to follow my own advice and try to translate your argument into the nomenclature of Western philosophy and see if I am right. So here I go:

1. In order from there to be values, something must have the highest value.
2. An individual’s life is his highest value.
3. Not everyone’s life can have the truly highest value.
4. Therefore an individual cannot believe another’s life is more valuable than his own.
5. Therefore an individual must believe either( a) the value of his life is higher that everyone else’s or (b) all lives have equal value.
6. No individual truly believes (a), i.e. he is lying to himself (making himself a false god)
7. If the individual believes (b) all lives have equal value, then he cannot accept Premise 1.

---

So either...

8a. There idea of relative value is meaningless.

Or...

8b. There is something of higher value than any particular human life.

Since either 8a or 8b could be a valid conclusion, I do not consider this an argument in favor of God; but rather, the revealing of an existential choice.  Someone can be justified in believing either, but the one he or she chooses expresses something about who they are and what they actually believe.

You are right, well, we can just say "value is not meaningless" and then 8b would follow.

Many atheists do not follow their "lack of belief" to its logical conclusion. They think it is possible to consider some things praiseworthy and other less so. And yet they have no reason to support how that can be.

[The Grand Nudger]

lol...cultural prejudice..he's canadian.........



Meanwhile, since we're all pretending that this isn't silly.....I don;t see anything in 8b about a god...so..it's open to atheists...what's the problem? What logical conclusion do you think isn't being followed to it's terminus, lol? From your comments, it seems to be that you believe that I cannot have an opinion on what is or isn;t praiseworthy, why, and why it might be more or less praiseworthy without any reference to a god.

Now...that can't be true, it's also retarded on it's face...so, help me out? I'm not interested in why you disagree with my assessment of what is or isn't praiseworthy, or more praiseworthy than the next x...I'm just wondering what on earth you could possibly mean by the statements up above.........

You must realize that "no reason" and "not my reasons" aren't interchangeable...Neo......?

[TheoneandonlytrueGod]

I'll probably get my ass in a sling here but here goes.

The false self and our knowledge of it's deception proves God.
04-04-2017, 21:54 (This post was last modified: 04-04-2017, 21:57 by MysticKnight. Edited 1 time in total.)
Deception of ourselves and our knowledge of our false idol proves God.

I do not understand ”Deception of ourselves” I have no idea what that means. I've tried to decipher what that means and have come up empty.  I cannot understand “our knowledge of our false idol”; no idea what that means either. The logic here is not Aristotelian it has to be some personal esoteric logic that defies western logic.

1. Worship is what is valued most.

Perhaps to you “Worship is what is valued most” but not for me and I suspect most if not all members of this forum. Again this has to be some sort of internal logic that defies all western logic.
And as to what I value most is not germain to this post.

2. Each person tends to value themselves the most.

I suggest you not mix singulars with plurals. “person” and “themselves”. Probably but it does not follow that it eventually leads to “God”.

3. No person believes others ought to value them the most.

Seems to be a catagorical statement that may of may not be true. But again your logic has to be something that comes from a near eastern philosophy/religion that doesn't relate to western thought processes.

4. We are in double think where we value ourselves as number one but don't believe others ought to value ourselves the most.

I have no idea what “double think” means/is. The sentence makes absolutely no sense what so ever. This is only a repeat of number 3 above.

5. Each person committed to valuing themselves the most thus creates a false belief, they don't truly believe they should be valued most and hence are believing and acting to lie.

How does valuing oneself creat a false belief? If someone values him/herself how does it come about they don't really believe they should be valued most and are therefore believing and acting a lie? Doesn't make sense, back to the esoteric logic you practice.

6. Therefore we are false gods.

We are not gods false or real, It does not follow. How does all the above show we are false gods. I'm at a total loss here.

7. This suggests there is something we should value the most that is not us and that everything should value the most as well.

That sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. Again the logic is at best obscure. I was fine up to the “not us” part, what follows makes no sense or relate to the first part of the sentence.

8. That being is that which out to be valued the most by us and by all (God).

First of all “out” should be “ought”. In any case you still haven't validated any reason for anyone to believe there is a reason for God.

Your whole argument (if in fact it is an argument) is fallacious, the conclusion does not follow from the premises you stated above. However if your logic has its basis in a near eastern or eastern philosophy/religion then I cannot refute it and have no desire to do so. Non the less it has no validity in the western world.

State your beliefs in classical Aristotelian logic “if A and B then C” and we might be able to understand what you are trying to achieve.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh but why?  It;s so much easier to blame others for our own inept communicative skills.  That's a unifying theme in all of the abrahamic religions magic books.

[Neo-Scholastic]

From your comments, it seems to be that you believe that I cannot have an opinion on what is or isn;t praiseworthy, why, and why it might be more or less praiseworthy without any reference to a god...Now...that can't be true, it's also retarded on it's face...so, help me out?...You must realize that "no reason" and "not my reasons" aren't interchangeable...Neo......?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even you Khem. I am even willing to grant that you would be justified in believing some things to be more praiseworthy than others. Belief in a transcendent hierarchy of values is, after all, a properly basic belief. However, a conviction that there is no ultimate transcendent value is in conflict with the opinion that there are values. All I am saying is unless you appeal to some transcendent source of values your opinion is unwarrented.

[GrandizerII]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even you Khem. I am even willing to grant that you would be justified in believing some things to be more praiseworthy than others. Belief in a transcendent hierarchy of values is, after all, a properly basic belief. However, a conviction that there is no ultimate transcendent value is in conflict with the opinion that there are values. All I am saying is unless you appeal to some transcendent source of values your opinion is unwarrented.

I don't see why values must logically have a transcendent source. It's logically possible for values come from within rather than without.