You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sorry for delay in getting back to the thread.

No prob

Every other theist with contradictory beliefs says the same thing, that their self assessment tells them they are right. You can't all be right, therefore your self assessment is not enough to say that you are. What else do you have?

No more than you, who are included in the body of contradictory beliefs. Self assessment rules your waves too.

. But fine, if you want to make this more embarrassing, lets break it down:
I asked that if we reject god, is that a choice on our behalf. You said no[/quote.

So far so good.

(choice was defined along the lines of a will able to operate in two directions. You can chose a cream bun or chose a chocolate eclair. )

At this point, this would agree with my assessment that our salvation (which is predicated on accepting god) is out of our hands and therefore 100% arbitrary.

Your assessment is that if not choice (as outlined above) then arbitrary.

But can we eliminate arbitrary by other means? What other bridge can there be?

You then try some argument as if I'm making a category error. It's not a case of "choose to reject" vs "choose to accept", it's actually a case of "choose to reject" vs do nothing, because our ability to accept god is nobbled (by god making us blind to god).
So what should I do?

That's the bridge argument alright - except that the word choose in 'choose to reject' implies choice. Which above is defined as a will able to act in two directions.

Since will is suggested by me as only being able to operate in one direction, if it operates at all, we cannot use the word 'choose' in my proposal.

We can say things like 'will against' or 'refused to love the truth'. They better indicate a single act of will, with no unintended inference that a will act in the other direction is possible.

Additionally, if more an aside. Our ability is nobbled by our being sinful. God didn't do it, sin did. And your sin-infection can be laid at Adams feet. He introduced the blind bug to mankind.

Argue that if rejection is an active choice that we are aware of, then "do nothing" must be an active choice that we are aware of too, therefore you are fundamentally contradicting yourself and haven't even answered the original question? (don't mistake a lack of required effort to continue to do nothing for a lack of active choice to continue to do nothing).

If you make that argument we would have to figure out how an act of will is involved in doing and changing nothing, when no will act achieves the same thing.

Ockhams Razor would appear to apply. Along with Newtons Law - objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an exterior force. In this case the force would be will act moving the at rest object.

That's the active will bit. As far as awareness goes, we would appear to be aware when we are not actively willing. Aware of where we occupy and if willing to move, aware we are willing to move

Or accept your point and argue that it doesn't change the situation. If we can't choose to accept god because we are blind to him, then our "rejection" of him must be equally nobbled.

Then you could argue that point. It would be difficult, I think, because if our will can act in one direction and not the other, then that would be that.

Suffice to say, I can't be said to be contradicting myself when you have not chosen which argument strand you want to follow. Conclusions of either argument aren't forgone in your favour. It would appear self evident, for example, that doing nothing means no movement or change of position. Therefore will act to do nothing superfluous to requirements.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Who gives you the authority to assert that you have made a mistake?

Me. Its the same authority that produced scientific method. If we didn't self recognize our ability to err, why would we seek a solution?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

No it isn't, it is an assessment of the test results

But an assessment of the NCT test results of my mates €800 Almera indicated it was robust and fit for use. But the tester bent things to cover the fact that the cat convertor innards had been removed.

What my friend knew was based on an assessment: the NCT test is straight. When it wasn't in fact.

No matter - we can be wrong in what we think we know. The point is that our sense of knowing rests on an assessment of ours.

, not an assessment of the self or one's own actions.

The action involving self is the assessment that the test is providing accurate information. For you need to assess the information as accurate in order for you to know the test has indeed been passed (a.k.a. robust and fit).

Whether the test is or isn't accurate isn't, as I say, the point. What we know can turn out to be wrong. But your knowing rests on your assessment

More specifically an assessment that the analysis of a set of observations carried out by someone else fall within agreed and documented ranges. Worth noting that just because an assessment demands a technical skill, e.g. manually carrying out a chi square test, doesn't imply self assessment.

Mistakes can't be made or data corrupted?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Who gives you the authority to assert that you have made a mistake?

Me. Its the same authority that produced scientific method. If we didn't self recognize our ability to err, why would we seek a solution?

You misunderstood yourself.

You are not, as you appear to think, allowing the reasonable possibility that you could be mistaken which is philosophically defensible position. Instead, you are making a positive, and completely subjective, assertion that you are making an objective mistake. You're essentially dividing by zero and hoping to come up smelling of roses.

So - again - who or what gives you the authority to declare that you have made a mistake?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

You misunderstood yourself.

You are not, as you appear to think, allowing the reasonable possibility that you could be mistaken which is philosophically defensible position. Instead, you are making a positive, and completely subjective, assertion that you are making an objective mistake. You're essentially dividing by zero and hoping to come up smelling of roses.

So - again - who or what gives you the authority to declare that you have made a mistake?

Objective? Since my position is that such ideas are founded in self, objective can't but rest in the overarching subjective*

*Where subjective is defined as lone view.

Therefore, if I say I made a mistake it is because I, ultimately, am the decision maker. There is nothing I can refer to, to add concrete objectivity, that I don't sit in authority over. Rendering your 'objective' an objective with a small 'o'. Something subservient to and a product of my being a Subjective.

I could, of course, be mistaken. I might not be in agreement with any actual objective reality (with a big 'O'). But there is no authority, outside myself, that I can access to decide on that matter. It is I, and only I, who can assess.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mistakes can't be made or data corrupted?

Of course they can, to err is human. However making an error in something you assess does not somehow magically change the action from assessing something else to self assessment.

When I talk about robust tests I'm referring to having controls, blinds and redundancy in place to minimize potential exposure to most sources of error, including but not limited to human error. When we provide results it is to a declared accuracy at a stated level of confidence.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

No more than you, who are included in the body of contradictory beliefs. Self assessment rules your waves too.

This is not an answer to my question, just a wish that I am the same as you.
I reject subjective evidence in favour of objective evidence, so my views are fundamentally not based on self-assessment, for the very reason I asked my question. So try again and this time answer it:
Every other theist with contradictory beliefs says the same thing, that their self assessment tells them they are right. You can't all be right, therefore your self assessment is not enough to say that you are. What else do you have?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's the bridge argument alright - except that the word choose in 'choose to reject' implies choice. Which above is defined as a will able to act in two directions.

Since will is suggested by me as only being able to operate in one direction, if it operates at all, we cannot use the word 'choose' in my proposal.

We can say things like 'will against' or 'refused to love the truth'. They better indicate a single act of will, with no unintended inference that a will act in the other direction is possible.

Additionally, if more an aside. Our ability is nobbled by our being sinful. God didn't do it, sin did. And your sin-infection can be laid at Adams feet. He introduced the blind bug to mankind.

If we do not actively choose to reject god, if it is not a choice that we are even aware of, then god saving us is not based on something we are actively, or even aware of, doing. Therefore it is as a result of gods own choice and as god is completely unbound by any rules (all powerful, omnipresent), it is 100% arbitrary. Calling if "choose to" or "will to" makes no difference here.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you make that argument we would have to figure out how an act of will is involved in doing and changing nothing, when no will act achieves the same thing.

Ockhams Razor would appear to apply. Along with Newtons Law - objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an exterior force. In this case the force would be will act moving the at rest object.

That's the active will bit. As far as awareness goes, we would appear to be aware when we are not actively willing. Aware of where we occupy and if willing to move, aware we are willing to move

You are still mistaking a lack of effort for a lack of choice. Lets keep it simple - we have two outcomes - acting which causes an effect, not acting which causes nothing. If we are aware of this then not acting is a choice to not cause the effect that acting would otherwise cause.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then you could argue that point. It would be difficult, I think, because if our will can act in one direction and not the other, then that would be that.

This means nothing, so lets try again:
If we can't "will to" accept god because we are blind to him, then "our will" to reject him must be equally nobbled.
If I force you to do something, then even if you apply the physical effort to do it, I am the one ultimately responsible for it being done.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suffice to say, I can't be said to be contradicting myself when you have not chosen which argument strand you want to follow. Conclusions of either argument aren't forgone in your favour. It would appear self evident, for example, that doing nothing means no movement or change of position. Therefore will act to do nothing superfluous to requirements.

You have contradiccted yourself on every front.
If we can only "do something" or "do nothing" then that it still a choice between two possibilities.
If we are not aware of this choice, and one possibility requires no effort, then the deck is stacked against us in such a way that we can't win, without the dealer (i.e. god) doing it for us.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Therefore, if I say I made a mistake it is because I, ultimately, am the decision maker. There is nothing I can refer to, to add concrete objectivity, that I don't sit in authority over.

But who gave you that authority to decide what's true and what's false?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I could, of course, be mistaken.

That's a logically defensible position, but your position that you are mistaken is completely indefensible as it requires you to take an objective position on a subjective basis.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is not an answer to my question, just a wish that I am the same as you.
I reject subjective evidence in favour of objective evidence, so my views are fundamentally not based on self-assessment

You would have to show how objective is arrived at without than being rooted in self-assessment (Subjective). It might be helpful to define:

- Objective as that which is real, irrespective of whether we have access to that reality.
- objective as that part of Objective we consider ourselves as being able to access.

Naturally, to get from little o to big O requires a mechanism. I suggest self at root of that mechanism


If, for example, you decide that multiple observations provide more objectivity than sole observations then you would have to explain how you arrive at this conclusion. Without the use of your own assessment that multiple improves on sole.

If we do not actively choose to reject god,

Some rigour:

I have said that the word "choice" isn't being used. Choice indicates will operable in two directions (e.g. active for/ active against).

"Will act" and other such expressions is the term. In the context of my proposition only one will act direction is possible: will act against.

The other state possible is no will act. No will act isn't active for or against. No will act is simply no will act. The will doing nothing.



Also, the rejection isn't of God (although that is, by extension, what it is ). The rejection is of truth.


Correcting your statement thus:

"If we do not willfully reject truth"

.. if it is not a choice that we are even aware of

Not rejecting truth isn't a choice (from above). Nor is it a will act. You are exposed to the truth by God. If you don't will act to reject (or turn away, deny etc) you will stay exposed to it.

Whilst rejection is a will act (and the only will act we can perform), not rejecting is not a will act.

Not will act... No will act.


I'll pause here. You are utilising incorrect terminology and building on that. I've corrected things to show you where things are wrong. You might reconsider the whole on that basis?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

But who gave you that authority to decide what's true and what's false?!

Myself. I grant myself the authority. Final authority in fact.There is no other place to obtain final authority on the matter of true and false.

I can't grant it to anyone or anything outside of me. To do so would require me to decide it's true that there is another who has authority over me. How can I establish this is true if I haven't the authority to decide what's true?

By a process of elimination, I must be the final authority.

Of course, having the final say on true and false grants you to ability to decide on truth and falsity within yourself. And so you can detect self-error. And refer to externally provided systems, such as empirical method or the mechanisms of sin, to correct yourself. You do grant authority over you to others in that case. But not final authority.


-


Of course, because I am my own authority, what I decide true or false might not be the case. I mean, what Objective Standard can I calibrate myself against? I am subjective (aka a lone view)

Any Objective Reality that there is might be other than I suppose it.


-

To point to outside yourself is like the Catholic who insists the Magisterium has authority to tell them what is true. True Christianity in this case.

It is however, the individual who has decided for himself that the Magisterium is their higher authority. Making the individual the highest authority.

[An aside. God seeks to remake man to be his children. That is the level of stage setting we were born onto, you and me.

To paraphrase the Bible 'there is no intercessor, no priests or pastors or gurus or scientific bodies or go-betweens between God and a man, (save JC and he's God)'.

Biblically, my argument as to 'me: final authority' happens to stack up. Me, the final authority on what I held to be true and what I held to be false, facing God at Judgement. Nothing or nobody else standing in front of me as my higher authority.

Only my Higher Authority before me.

The one in the presence of whom I have spent a life deciding what I would do each time when confronted with His truth and his adversaries lie (all that is false). Whether and/or not I believed in Him is irrelevant. I decided either way.

.. but I mean that as an aside]

That's a logically defensible position, but your position that you are mistaken is completely indefensible as it requires you to take an objective position on a subjective basis.

I said

Objective? Since my position is that such ideas are founded in self, objective can't but rest in the overarching subjective*

As I have been saying, your idea of 'objective' is actually a product of the Subjective (that is, stand alone view). If these Subjective>objectives happen to match any actual Objective Reality then they move from being objectives to Objectives.

There is no way for us to establish the Subjective-objective becoming actual Objective though. Bar being self-satisfied that this is so.

Again, each method we apply to gain insight in the Objective Reality we hold to be there, is calibrated off self decision as to true and false.

We all bootstrap in the end. Until we die.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Of course they can, to err is human. However making an error in something you assess does not somehow magically change the action from assessing something else to self assessment.

Your knowledge rests on your confidence. Where do you get that confidence?

As we shall surely see...

When I talk about robust tests I'm referring to having controls, blinds and redundancy in place to minimize potential exposure to most sources of error, including but not limited to human error. When we provide results it is to a declared accuracy at a stated level of confidence.

You are mounting your primary assessment (for your knowing relies on confidence in the test result) into a pile of sub-assessments. Each contributing part-confidence to make up the whole . And were we to go digging into each we would see they too would rest on sub assessments.

(you might dispense with one central sub-self assessment at this point. Namely 'we'. Any confidence stemming from 'we' rests on own appraisal that 'we' provides more confidence than 'me'. It is 'me' who decides an aspect of 'me' isn't necessarily as reliable as 'we', and so defers to 'we'

Clearly, "we" on its own cannot demonstrate that more confidence is to be obtained by employing "we". That would be a circular argument)

So lets dig. Blinding produces confidence. And that sub confidence helps build the final confidence in the knowing being discussed. Lets then assess blinding and where you get your confidence. Where, other than self assessment that blinding generates confidence would blinding obtain that attribute?

If referring to more sub-assessments you might just fast forward to the base of the inverted pyramid of confidences. And tell me about the base building blocks on which all else is built. It would save time.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your knowledge rests on your confidence in your assessment. Where do you get that confidence?

As we shall surely see...





You are mounting your assessment into a pile of sub-assessments. Each requires your confidence. And were we to go digging into each we would see they too would rest on sub assessments.

So lets dig. Blinding produces confidence. And that sub confidence helps build the final confidence in the knowing being discussed. Lets then assess blinding and where you get your confidence. Where, other than self assessment that blinding generates confidence would blinding obtain that attribute?

I think you're talking utter nonsense and are failing to make anything that even approaches a cohesive argument. People can and do assess things other than themselves all the time. If this was not the case we would not need the term self assessment as we could simply use the term assessment. The larger part of human knowledge is neither subjective nor vested in the individual, it is something accrued and revised collectively over generations. When I make a technical assessment, in conjunction with others, it is on the basis of a collective understanding acquired, tested and revised over an extended period of time by a large number of people. Much as you fail to be able distinguish between what it means 'to know' and 'to believe' you seem to struggle with the concept of human knowledge that is not vested in the individual. I have a tiny fragment of that crystallized human knowledge in a bookshelf behind me as a type. Frankly I find it rather bizarre that you struggle with this but then maybe it is a necessity if you tag the label 'god did it' to anything you don't fully understand.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I think you're talking utter nonsense and are failing to make anything that even approaches a cohesive argument. People can and do assess things other than themselves all the time. If this was not the case we would not need the term self assessment as we could simply use the term assessment. The larger part of human knowledge is neither subjective nor vested in the individual, it is something accrued and revised collectively over generations. When I make a technical assessment, in conjunction with others, it is on the basis of a collective understanding acquired, tested and revised over an extended period of time by a large number of people. Much as you fail to be able distinguish between what it means 'to know' and 'to believe' you seem to struggle with the concept of human knowledge that is not vested in the individual. I have a tiny fragment of that crystallized human knowledge in a bookshelf behind me as a type. Frankly I find it rather bizarre that you struggle with this but then maybe it is a necessity if you tag the label 'god did it' to anything you don't fully understand.

I think you would be better starting the first thing you disagree with rather than going off on one. If for no other reason than dispelling the impression that you are diverting.

Mark started off like that. Then he obliged to my request to go line by line. Within no time he had changed a term I'd used (will act only possible in one direction) to a term of his own insertion: 'choice' (which implies will possible in two directions)

The error (his error) is the problem in following the argument. You might find the same if you apply the same step wise process.

Knowledge. A function of confidence. From where confidence?.

And so forth.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think you would be better starting the first thing you disagree with rather than going off on one.

Right so Ted, wouldn't want to go off on one. Maybe better just to revisit your own enlightened comments instead.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I thereby dismiss your disagreement. Its all piffle and waffle.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Pathetic.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's Infantile level stuff. Transparently so.

Perhaps these comments are really just self assessment, which is after all your ultimate truth.

I for one have had enough of this pigeon chess and will leave you to it.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Right so Ted, wouldn't want to go off on one. Maybe better just to revisit your own enlightened comments instead.

I'm a bit surprised by this. The very quality process you lean on for your knowledge would operate line by line yet when it comes to this it's problematic for you. You're "off and running" with a treatise on how you think it is rather than dealing with the issues posed.

You point to the collective, for example, but don't tell me how YOU conclude the collective as buttressing YOUR knowledge in some other-than-self way.

You are being asked line by line. Your knowledge rests on confidence in a test. If you had no confidence you wouldn't be on here saying 'I know'

Your confidence. Sourced from somewhere.

It can't be someone elses confidence in the test (or if it is, it is your confidence in them and their confidence in the test). Can kicked down the road.

Your confidence then turns to sub components of the test. The bits that make it up. And kicks the can down the road

I want to trace where this confidence comes from.

Your knowledge starts with you and your confidence and ends, I suggest, with you and your confidence in you.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Myself. I grant myself the authority. Final authority in fact.There is no other place to obtain final authority on the matter of true and false.

So you're saying that subjective truth and objective truth are the same thing - since the first, in your strange world, dictates the second. And that your own opinions hold supreme authority over all external reality.

That's complete self-centered nihilism. Or in maths terms, you've divided yourself by zero and declared that you possess infinite knowledge.

/overandout

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

So you're saying that subjective truth and objective truth are the same thing - since the first, in your strange world, dictates the second.

The argument rests on who has final authority on true and false. If not you then who? And how do you grant that authority to what or whomever that authority is.

Without arguing in a circle.


-

What I conclude to be objective (small o) is a product of my final Subjective* say. What is Objective is an entirely different matter. It is as it is, whatever I might conclude. My objective might not be Objective. And might be.

Best I can do is judge whether or not and get on with the day.

(*as defined. Subjective = lone total view. NOT based on just emotion, feelings etc.- i.e. subjective)


Thus no to this...

And that your own opinions hold supreme authority over all external reality.

.. since all external reality is Objective and my opinions don't govern it. How could my opinions hold supreme authority over, for example, God?? Clearly that is not what I am arguing towards.

Good grief man!

That's complete self-centered nihilism. Or in maths terms, you've divided yourself by zero and declared that you possess infinite knowledge.

Is that true or false? You deciding? Or have you a higher authority who says so? And if so, how did this authority obtain its position over you without your agreeing to it first?

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

So you're saying that subjective truth and objective truth are the same thing - since the first, in your strange world, dictates the second. And that your own opinions hold supreme authority over all external reality.

That's complete self-centered nihilism. Or in maths terms, you've divided yourself by zero and declared that you possess infinite knowledge.

/overandout

I think they've decided they are god
:rolleyes:

Myself. I grant myself the authority. Final authority in fact

Maybe thats the idea of this thread, antiskeptic wants people to believe in them as a god. A weak, meaningless, useless god, but a god none the less.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would have to show how objective is arrived at without than being rooted in self-assessment (Subjective). It might be helpful to define:

- Objective as that which is real, irrespective of whether we have access to that reality.
- objective as that part of Objective we consider ourselves as being able to access.

Naturally, to get from little o to big O requires a mechanism. I suggest self at root of that mechanism

I don't need to define any of that. Objective, regardless of which definition you want to weasel in, is not the same as subjective. Therefore self-assessment (which is purely subjective) does not come from objective reasoning or logic. Regardless of any of that, you still are deflecting from answering my question so I'm going to keep asking it until you answer it:
Every other theist with contradictory beliefs says the same thing, that their self assessment tells them they are right. You can't all be right, therefore your self assessment is not enough to say that you are. What else do you have?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll pause here. You are utilising incorrect terminology and building on that. I've corrected things to show you where things are wrong. You might reconsider the whole on that basis?

I'm not going to waste anyone's time responding the rest of your post as I already addressed all your points in my previous post. Go back to my post, try to get past the first sentence in the second paragraph and maybe we will get somewhere.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mark started off like that. Then he obliged to my request to go line by line. Within no time he had changed a term I'd used (will act only possible in one direction) to a term of his own insertion: 'choice' (which implies will possible in two directions)

Please don't lie about what I did.
I both took your term and showed how it doesn't stop my term still applying and took your term and showed how you were still wrong even if we only used it. You deleting large swathes of my post to pretend I didn't does not change what I wrote and what is visible for everyone to see.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

So you're saying that subjective truth and objective truth are the same thing - since the first, in your strange world, dictates the second. And that your own opinions hold supreme authority over all external reality.

That's complete self-centered nihilism. Or in maths terms, you've divided yourself by zero and declared that you possess infinite knowledge.

/overandout

But remember, it's the atheists who are really the arrogant ones who put themselves over god, (and not the person who says that what they decide is true is true and that they can do what they like and still get into heaven) :pac:.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Please don't lie about what I did.
I both took your term and showed how it doesn't stop my term still applying and took your term and showed how you were still wrong even if we only used it. You deleting large swathes of my post to pretend I didn't does not change what I wrote and what is visible for everyone to see.

I did precisely what I was suggesting you do. I started at the top and worked my way down until a snag was hit.

A line or two into the relevant section of your post and a problem is encountered: you introduce a term of yours and and conclude that God saves arbitrarily. The term is: Choice.

It had been specifically stated that choice isn't involved in my theology and moreover, how it is not involved.


That choice-based theology is yours (because the term introduced is yours). Your theology might well hold together and rightfully show "arbitrary". I didn't follow it down to see if that was the case though - the purpose isn't for me to examine your theology, but for you to examine mine).




Here is what you said. Why are you talking about choice when choice specifically doesn't feature in what I say??

Mark wrote:

If we do not actively choose to reject god, if it is not a choice that we are even aware of, then god saving us is not based on something we are actively, or even aware of, doing. Therefore it is as a result of gods own choice and as god is completely unbound by any rules (all powerful, omnipresent), it is 100% arbitrary. Calling if "choose to" or "will to" makes no difference here

Sure, I can correct for you as I read, inserting 'will against' and 'no will action' where I think it might be appropriate. But it would be more straightforward if you used the correct terminology. You might resolve things for yourself.

But lets correct using no will act/ will act against. God saving those who don't (fatally) will against his effort to save them, isn't an employing an arbitrary salvation. There is a fixed and very specific criterion he applies, the same criterion for everybody in the audience. A salvation involving a fixed, universally applicable criterion cannot be said to be an arbitrary one. That criterion is this:

Anyone who wills against the truth he exposes them to, won't be saved.

[NB: We all "will against the truth" every day, me included - so it is not as if anyone reading this with even a vague sense of unease, should attempt not to sin with a view to aiding salvation. Attempting not to sin is what every Religion encourages you to do and every Religion is a false god. You can't will for, in any case. I meant in the sense of 'willing against beyond the point of no return'. A point where it taken by God that our answer is our final answer. God will stoop. If he is found it is invariably at the bottom of our barrels, in amongst the sh1t and grime. This, because he has followed us that far down in the attempt to rescue us. There is no reason, that I know of, which says our final answer can't be given before the day we die]




-



As for awareness. We are aware when we suppress the truth. We have a conscience that informs us and we choose to bury what we know we ought and do that which we know we ought not do. We even get the blessing of a guilty conscience to double up, lest we forget the original suppression. And we bury that nudge too.

When we don't suppress the truth and do what the truth presses us to do, our consciences commend us. We are not commended for willing to do what truth would press us to do - there is no willing for in this theology. Rather, we are exposed to the positive and pleasant that comes with not having willed against.

Negative awareness when we suppress and act against the truth we are exposed to. Positive awareness when we don't act.

Good cop, bad cop.



-


If you were considering a wiring diagram I was presenting and you switched polarity of a segment of it and said the circuit didn't do as I was suggesting, then you would be right. Because of the polarity switch by you.

So again, by all means start at the top. Roll down until you find a problem then highlight what you think the problem is. In what I say

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't need to define any of that. Objective, regardless of which definition you want to weasel in, is not the same as subjective.

objective (small o) is whatever the argument behind it concludes it is. I think you are erring in thinking a definition is the source of meaning rather than a word used to identify a meaning sourced elsewhere.

Words in a dictionary use other words in a dictionary to unpack them. The meaning of the words are sourced in philosophies. A fact is something proven true. How something proven true stems from a philosophy of what constitutes proof. The philosophies cannot be proven though. And there is room for other philosophies which will alter the understanding of downstream labels such as 'objective'



I have differentiated between Objective (the external reality) and objective (our most concretely held conclusions about the external reality. Including the conclusion there is an external reality in the first place)

But if objective stems from self, then these objectives can't be said to be certainly Objectives. Or if said, then said only by subjective self.

And so, the word 'objective' becomes defined and understiod in that light. You cannot claim a definition for yourself and say the definition demonstrates the philosophy behind it. The philosophy generates the definition.

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

I think they've decided they are god
:rolleyes:



Maybe thats the idea of this thread, antiskeptic wants people to believe in them as a god. A weak, meaningless, useless god, but a god none the less.

If you can tell me how you defer to others views (e.g. scientific method) without first deciding for yourself that it is best fit for you to do so, then I am all ears.

Remember, if you have the power to grant another authority over you, you also have the power to ungrant. If anothers authority over you rests and relies on your granting them that authority, then you are the actual authority.

Every two bit politician knows that.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

How could my opinions hold supreme authority over, for example, God?? Clearly that is not what I am arguing towards.

Well, it's what you've said - that you are the "supreme authority" when it comes to deciding what's true and false. As Cabaal points out, you've essentially given yourself the power of a god.

A strange position for a religious person to argue himself/herself into, but that's where we find ourselves.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Well, it's what you've said - that you are the "supreme authority" when it comes to deciding what's true and false. As Cabaal points out, you've essentially given yourself the power of a god.

A strange position for a religious person to argue himself/herself into, but that's where we find ourselves.

I've laid out how I avoid your conclusion ..

You skip past that and assemble a montage to your own liking. I'm sure you have your reasons.

Whatever they may be, such an approach cannot but beget a Frankenstein.

smacl

Mod: @Antiskeptic, I've deleted a substandard part of your prose in accordance with the charter. Please have another read of the charter, paying specific attention to soap-boxing and posting standards. Please do not reply to this in thread, remembering we have a feedback thread if you have any issues. Thank you for your attention.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I did precisely what I was suggesting you do. I started at the top and worked my way down until a snag was hit.

The "snag" was addressed further down in my post. Stopping a few sentences in and pretending the rest of my post doesn't exist will get us nowhere.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Here is what you said. Why are you talking about choice when choice specifically doesn't feature in what I say??

Mark Hamill wrote:

If we do not actively choose to reject god, if it is not a choice that we are even aware of, then god saving us is not based on something we are actively, or even aware of, doing. Therefore it is as a result of gods own choice and as god is completely unbound by any rules (all powerful, omnipresent), it is 100% arbitrary. Calling if "choose to" or "will to" makes no difference here

I am specifically talking about a situation were choice does not come into it, I am accepting your criteria and showing how you are still wrong regardless.

antiskeptic wrote: »

A salvation involving a fixed, universally applicable criterion cannot be said to be an arbitrary one.

It is arbitrary if the act of satisfying that criterion is in gods hands alone. If what we do is not our choice then we do not do it willingly. You distinction between "choice" and "will" is meaningless, the same problem arises.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for awareness. We are aware when we suppress the truth. We have a conscience that informs us and we choose to bury what we know we ought and do that which we know we ought not do. We even get the blessing of a guilty conscience to double up, lest we forget the original suppression. And we bury that nudge too.

When we don't suppress the truth and do what the truth presses us to do, our consciences commend us. We are not commended for willing to do what truth would press us to do - there is no willing for in this theology. Rather, we are exposed to the positive and pleasant that comes with not having willed against.

Negative awareness when we suppress and act against the truth we are exposed to. Positive awareness when we don't act.

Good cop, bad cop.

If we are aware of the only two possible outcomes, and if it is only our action or inaction that decides between them then it is by our choice that one specifically happens. So, again, to repeat, ad nauseum, there is no distinction between "will to" and "choose".

And then, if our ability to choose is restricted by god blinding us to the choice, and we can only choose one of the possibilities if god chooses to "open our eyes", then that choice is not a free choice. God chooses for us and, as god = omniscient/omnipowerful etc, that choice is 100% arbitrary.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

objective (small o) is whatever the argument behind it concludes it is. I think you are erring in thinking a definition is the source of meaning rather than a word used to identify a meaning sourced elsewhere.

Words in a dictionary use other words in a dictionary to unpack them. The meaning of the words are sourced in philosophies. A fact is something proven true. How something proven true stems from a philosophy of what constitutes proof. The philosophies cannot be proven though. And there is room for other philosophies which will alter the understanding of downstream labels such as 'objective'



I have differentiated between Objective (the external reality) and objective (our most concretely held conclusions about the external reality. Including the conclusion there is an external reality in the first place)

But if objective stems from self, then these objectives can't be said to be certainly Objectives. Or if said, then said only by subjective self.

And so, the word 'objective' becomes defined and understiod in that light. You cannot claim a definition for yourself and say the definition demonstrates the philosophy behind it. The philosophy generates the definition.

Are you really trying to argue that two antonyms mean the same thing? Do you realise how stupid this line of argument is? Lets take your argument to it's logical conclusion, shall we:

You have reduced yourself to questioning the meaning of words in dictionary, but I notice you haven't redefined "dictionary". Or "word", or "philosophies" or "definition". Or any of the words in the post above, so lets start there. reDefine every single word so that we can have a solid base to continue this discussion on. Well, you have started with "objective", so you don't to redefine that, but you do point out a different definition for big "o" and little "o" "objective", so you should probably do the same for every word in the above post too. And then all the rest of your posts. And probably mine as well (because I'm just using the dictionary to define words, so I obviously don't know what they really mean and need you to tell me what you want them, ahem I mean, know them to mean).

You get started on that and I will meet you back here, say, just after the heat death of the universe and maybe then we can get started with an actual discussion

Midster

there are so many things that make earth special.

The fact the earth was first made inside the Goldilock zone

The fact we had a twin

The fact we collided

That the collision cause earth to spin on a tilt

The broken bits of our twin formed our moon

We were then bombarded with comets giving us water.

And while our surface cooled, the moon being close enough to us at that point it cracked the surface, giving us tectonic plates

The earths tilt gave us seasons

The moon gave us tides

Single cell organisms then formed early underwater vegetation

Then oxygen

Without all of the things happening before, early life on earth would never have formed.

Without the meteorite striking the earth exactly in the right place (a huge natural sulfer deposit buried deep in the earths crust were it hit) the dinosaurs would still be here.

And without that, more complicated life wouldn’t be hear, like us.

All life on earth came from a single point

Every star, planet, and galaxy in existence today also came from a single point.

In quantum science, scientists are also asking the very serious question of is something only ever real because we are here (life) to see it

Does the universe exist for us to see it?

Or are we only here so that the universe can exist?

Was someone watching our tiny solar system from somewhere else and thats why all of the above even happened?

Is the reason our universe is so massive simply because there are so many other complicated life forms also watching the stars on there own planets?

I’m getting a headache

And what this has to do with the god you read about in the bible, I just don’t know

But doesn’t it still keep the door open for some kind of creator?

Not a creator that anyone on earth has ever seen, written about, or spoken to. And definitely not one that boasted creating everything in just seven days.

But one that every being on earth and every complicated life form in the universe has always felt, but failed to describe accurately.

A being that rolls a trillion, million sided dice knowing that the odds are in his favour that life will begin somewhere in what what is now a vast universe.

Maybe one that requires no thanks, praise or churches.

Instead one that only requires life to spread and populate.

I’m done, time for a coffee