Lost faith

smacl · 12-09-2019 8:55pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

And if I can be so bold, so do atheists like yourself who often act as if life has objective meaning and value. We are complex creatures.

Absolutely, whatever about commonality in Christians there is very little that atheism says about a person other than a lack of belief in a God or gods. I regard my atheism much as I regard my lack of interest in football, which my football fanatic wife finds rather strange, but there you go. We're certainly complex creatures in a complex universe and I suspect we all struggle with that complexity to varying degrees and prefer simple answers.

FWIW, I'm not convinced life has objective meaning and value in any absolute sense. My take on it is that it has subjective meaning and relative value.

ChrisJ84 · 13-09-2019 9:02am

smacl wrote: »

Absolutely, whatever about commonality in Christians there is very little that atheism says about a person other than a lack of belief in a God or gods. I regard my atheism much as I regard my lack of interest in football, which my football fanatic wife finds rather strange, but there you go. We're certainly complex creatures in a complex universe and I suspect we all struggle with that complexity to varying degrees and prefer simple answers.

Yep, I would say that atheism is no more a religion than monotheism. But just like monotheists tend towards certain faiths (Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.), so do atheists. Materialism is a common one in the West; there mightn't be temples or physical idols but it certainly has religious qualities about it. An urge to worship something does seem to be hardwired into us.

smacl wrote: »

FWIW, I'm not convinced life has objective meaning and value in any absolute sense. My take on it is that it has subjective meaning and relative value.

This is interesting, and brings me back to something we touched on earlier. In the moral arena, do you think there are any objective absolutes? Using either society or the individual as the final arbiter seems problematic, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 9:53am

smacl wrote: »

No preference, belief. Whether or not you believe in God is a subjective belief, as any belief is something held by you personally. I don't believe in God, which also a subjective belief. You might believe that God has objectively spoken in scripture, but your belief does not make this a fact in any objective sense, any more than a Muslim claiming that Allah has objectively spoken.

That's fair enough. We similarly need to acknowledge that you are in no better a position to categorically state who is or is not a Christian than anyone else, least of all that person who considers themselves a Christian who you do not.

Someone can categorically state who is an isn't a Christian. In the event that God exists, makes himself known to a person and as a consequence, the person knows what is and isn't a Christian, the person can indeed be categoric.

smacl · 13-09-2019 10:07am

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Yep, I would say that atheism is no more a religion than monotheism. But just like monotheists tend towards certain faiths (Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc.), so do atheists. Materialism is a common one in the West; there mightn't be temples or physical idols but it certainly has religious qualities about it. An urge to worship something does seem to be hardwired into us.

With respect, I think whatever hope you have about generalising what it means to be a Christian you have none whatsoever with respect to atheism. For example, that I'm an atheist simply means that I don't believe in a god or gods, no more no less. My attitude towards religion is influenced more by my secularist leanings and personally held philosophy. There are other atheists on here that I tend to have opposing views on on most topics and theists who I'm in broad agreement with on most topics.

This is interesting, and brings me back to something we touched on earlier. In the moral arena, do you think there are any objective absolutes? Using either society or the individual as the final arbiter seems problematic, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it.

I think you ignore context at your peril, which is what an absolute morality seeks to do. For example, we were talking about murder earlier, "thou shalt not kill" and all that, but would you use lethal force to protect a loved one if it was the only option available? Do you agree with the notion of just war under any circumstances? Where do you stand on execution? Is execution for a crime such as apostasy or heresy actually a murder, and if so, how do you define murder? Can we judge people's behaviour in the past based on today's standards and can we judge people's behaviour?

More simply perhaps, can you state any specific objective moral absolute that holds true for every context without exception?

smacl · 13-09-2019 10:15am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Someone can categorically state who is an isn't a Christian. In the event that God exists, makes himself known to a person and as a consequence, the person knows what is and isn't a Christian, the person can indeed be categoric.

Rubbish. Until that God, who the person believes exists is actually shown to exist and to have spoken to the person in question, this is no more than subjective opinion. You might think you know that God exists and you might think that God has imbued you with special knowledge but you might also be deluded. You're basically saying that you're right and everyone else with a contrary opinion is wrong but what separates their opinion from your opinion?

uck51js9zml2yt · 13-09-2019 10:33am

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish. Until that God, who the person believes exists is actually shown to exist and to have spoken to the person in question, this is no more than subjective opinion. You might think you know that God exists and you might think that God has imbued you with special knowledge but you might also be deluded. You're basically saying that you're right and everyone else with a contrary opinion is wrong but what separates their opinion from your opinion?

You're just looking at it from the view of proving He exists.
For Christians the proof is the experience they have of Him and the change He brings about in their lives.

Until you experience that change you've no idea what we're really on about, though its evident if you look at the person and how they behave.

That makes it possible to say someone isn't a Christian just because they say so. If I don't see the evidence then it's no true.
The Bible goes into detail of what we should be and should expect to see.

If I don't see it even at a very rudimentary level then the words don't matter.

theological · 13-09-2019 10:41am

smacl wrote: »

No preference, belief. Whether or not you believe in God is a subjective belief, as any belief is something held by you personally. I don't believe in God, which also a subjective belief. You might believe that God has objectively spoken in scripture, but your belief does not make this a fact in any objective sense, any more than a Muslim claiming that Allah has objectively spoken.

More assumptions I don't agree with you on.

All positions are equally valid. I don't think this is true. Truth isn't dependent on my thoughts or anyone else's (subjectivity), but on what is true from the world around us (objectivity). If God indeed has spoken then what He says about Himself fall into the objective category.

smacl wrote: »

That's fair enough. We similarly need to acknowledge that you are in no better a position to categorically state who is or is not a Christian than anyone else, least of all that person who considers themselves a Christian who you do not.

More of the same. Not all positions are equally valid. A few minutes ago you dismissed new earth creationism because you think it doesn't line up with scientific reality. I'd be inclined to agree.

The same holds for this issue. Some arguments are closer to the truth than others and we can reason about what God has said in Scripture to work that out.

We don't agree with your assumptions.

Fourier · 13-09-2019 10:45am

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Are there any non-material things that you would say are objectively true?

I don't want to interupt the polite and interesting exchange between yourself and smacl, but just a quick note.

You made a point earlier about knowledge depending on whether our minds can understand things correctly and so on. This is essentially the question of whether the world is identical to or very similar to a mental picture we are capable of having.

Science has in the past worked very well with reductionism. Especially physics. This is where we picture a world made of fundamental components that influence each other in a way that be expressed mathematically. Everything then arises from these components and their laws of behaviour.

Ultimately though it has turned out that this is not the case as quantum theory has shown us. Not only is the above reductionist picture not true, but it seems the world does not conform to any picture we are capable of having.

All we can do is "bet" on the likelyhood of how the world responds when we interact with a piece of it, but we have no picture of what the world is actually like. It's not really made of particles for example. The responses given when you choose to look at the world in different ways don't mesh either. Sort of like taking a photo of a garden, but if it looked completely different with different flowers and trees depending on whether you choose foreground or background focus. You choose a subjective point of view.

So since betting/probability reflects how likely you think different responses are given what you know and since you choose the point of view to look at things from, it means our ultimate theory of the world is very much a subjective one.

Which I think ties in nicely with a point I've seen smacl make before about the complexity of the world and the human urge for a picture that is both simple and objective, as well as your own that science ultimately depends on subjective human elements.

ChrisJ84 · 13-09-2019 10:57am

smacl wrote: »

With respect, I think whatever hope you have about generalising what it means to be a Christian you have none whatsoever with respect to atheism. For example, that I'm an atheist simply means that I don't believe in a god or gods, no more no less. My attitude towards religion is influenced more by my secularist leanings and personally held philosophy. There are other atheists on here that I tend to have opposing views on on most topics and theists who I'm in broad agreement with on most topics.

I'm not really trying to generalise, but neither do I think that we're nothing more than unique snowflakes who can craft our own version of reality. Some things you believe might be consistent with your atheism, and others might not. I think the latter in particular can make for an interesting conversation.

I stand by my contention that everyone is a worshiper of something, even if they don't think of it in that way.

smacl wrote: »

I think you ignore context at your peril, which is what an absolute morality seeks to do. For example, we were talking about murder earlier, "thou shalt not kill" and all that, but would you use lethal force to protect a loved one if it was the only option available? Do you agree with the notion of just war under any circumstances? Where do you stand on execution?

Self defence, judicial execution and war all lie outside the common definition of murder so aren't relevant here. I think murder can be safely defined as the unlawful or immoral killing of another human being - that's not really disputed, is it? The exact opposite of murder would be the biblical call to love our neighbour as ourselves.

The difficulty in classifying an individual act as murder or not is a completely separate problem from whether murder is absolutely and objectively wrong.

smacl wrote: »

Is execution for a crime such as apostasy or heresy actually a murder, and if so, how do you define murder? Can we judge people's behaviour in the past based on today's standards and can we judge people's behaviour?

More simply perhaps, can you state any specific objective moral absolute that holds true for every context without exception?

Execution for something like apostasy requires a bit more nuance; assuming it is state sanctioned then strictly speaking it isn't murder. But it is a fundamental misuse of the power of the state, because apostasy shouldn't be a crime, nevermind a capital one.

It might be a helpful example though, as it's something that different societies today disagree on. I believe that societies that execute apostates should stop doing it, regardless of whether they think it is the right thing to do or not. That is consistent with my religious beliefs and worldview. I'm assuming that you agree that they should stop, but I'm genuinely curious to know the basis on which you do so.

ChrisJ84 · 13-09-2019 11:28am

Fourier wrote: »

I don't want to interupt the polite and interesting exchange between yourself and smacl, but just a quick note.

You made a point earlier about knowledge depending on whether our minds can understand things correctly and so on. This is essentially the question of whether the world is identical to or very similar to a mental picture we are capable of having.

Science has in the past worked very well with reductionism. Especially physics. This is where we picture a world made of fundamental components that influence each other in a way that be expressed mathematically. Everything then arises from these components and their laws of behaviour.

Ultimately though it has turned out that this is not the case as quantum theory has shown us. Not only is the above reductionist picture not true, but it seems the world does not conform to any picture we are capable of having.

All we can do is "bet" on the likelyhood of how the world responds when we interact with a piece of it, but we have no picture of what the world is actually like. It's not really made of particles for example. The responses given when you choose to look at the world in different ways don't mesh either. Sort of like taking a photo of a garden, but if it looked completely different with different flowers and trees depending on whether you choose foreground or background focus. You choose a subjective point of view.

So since betting/probability reflects how likely you think different responses are given what you know and since you choose the point of view to look at things from, it means our ultimate theory of the world is very much a subjective one.

Which I think ties in nicely with a point I've seen smacl make before about the complexity of the world and the human urge for a picture that is both simple and objective, as well as your own that science ultimately depends on subjective human elements.

I think that's really helpful. There is a common but (I believe) mistaken idea that science explains (or someday will explain) everything. One problem with that is that, strictly speaking, science provides descriptions and doesn't actually explain anything.

A second problem is that, as you say, when science probes deeper into the nature of reality the models and concepts it uses to explain them become more non-intuitive and more difficult to demonstrate or prove experimentally. I think it's fair to say that science rarely, if ever, traces our experiences and observations back to a priori concepts that need no further explanation.

Of course, none of that provides proof for the existence of God. But at least it should put the brakes on some of the science vs religion stuff we hear so much about.

On that basis, I think that the question of whether reality is ultimately objective or subjective is back to being a philosophical / theological one. It's also important to bear in mind that our individual understanding will always be subjective, incomplete and open to correction. The question is whether that is all there is, or an objective reality that lies behind it. I believe that there is, and that Christianity is not only consistent with that fact but reveals it to us in a unique way in the person of Jesus.

Clearly we're not going to solve all the world's problems on this thread, but it's fun to riff on these things anyway

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 11:35am

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish. Until that God, who the person believes exists is actually shown to exist and to have spoken to the person in question, this is no more than subjective opinion.

It's no more than a subjective opinion to a third party. So far so fair enough.

However:

a) God either exists or he doesn't. If he does then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks or believes on the matter. His existence doesn't rely on that anymore than the existence of a yet undiscovered planet relies out what is thought or believed about it's existence

b) If God exists he can communicate with a person

c) If he does communicate with a person, the person will know he exists. Their knowledge is objective since it is reliant on what God is able to do, not on what the person is able to do. This renders their knowledge objective - even if not a single other person in the world is privy to what they are privy to.

The only "out" I can see for you is that you suppose God is not capable of revealing his existence to a person. Good luck with that.

You might think you know that God exists and you might think that God has imbued you with special knowledge but you might also be deluded. You're basically saying that you're right and everyone else with a contrary opinion is wrong but what separates their opinion from your opinion?

I'm not making any comment on anyone else - but certainly it wouldn't be as black and white as you make out.

Point underlined here: you are placing the onus on what I can do (which is subject to individual ability to err and misconstrue) whereas the above places the onus on what God can do.

You need to deal with that problem

smacl · 13-09-2019 12:14pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's no more than a subjective opinion to a third party. So far so fair enough.

However:

a) God either exists or he doesn't. If he does then it doesn't matter what anyone thinks or believes on the matter. His existence doesn't rely on that anymore than the existence of a yet undiscovered planet relies out what is thought or believed about it's existence

b) If God exists he can communicate with a person

c) If he does communicate with a person, the person will know he exists. Their knowledge is objective since it is reliant on what God is able to do, not on what the person is able to do. This renders their knowledge objective - even if not a single other person in the world is privy to what they are privy to.

The only "out" I can see for you is that you suppose God is not capable of revealing his existence to a person. Good luck with that.

Substitute Allah, Ganesha above and it still holds true. Similarly a Muslim or Hindu might make your exact claim. Now whether God appears to a Christian, Allah to a Muslim or Ganesha to a Hindu seems to primarily relate to where a person is born. Why do you think that is, why does your God not reveal himself to people in India, or the Middle East, particularly as his son apparently lived in the Middle East?

Similarly, even if God did exist on what basis do you differentiate delusion from divine inspiration? That God could choose to speak to you is not an implication that he would choose to speak to you. From my understanding, he didn't actually choose to communicate with that many people even in biblical times.

I'm not making any comment on anyone else - but certainly it wouldn't be as black and white as you make out.

Point underlined here: you are placing the onus on what I can do (which is subject to individual ability to err and misconstrue) whereas the above places the onus on what God can do.

You need to deal with that problem

And you are second guessing what God would do were he to exist. You holy argument seems wholly holey.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-09-2019 2:12pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

c) If he does communicate with a person, the person will know he exists. Their knowledge is objective since it is reliant on what God is able to do, not on what the person is able to do. This renders their knowledge objective - even if not a single other person in the world is privy to what they are privy to.

No. One person's claim to have experienced something is not objective.

Nearly any time there is a plane crash, someone will be on the TV saying they saw the plane going down in flames. This is their firmly held truth of what they experienced. Then the investigation invariably shows that there was no fire before impact.

There are strong caveats placed in courts of law on uncorroborated "eyewitness" evidence.

Are we to cast that aside once religion enters the picture? Must we take every "vision" or "near death" or "out of body" experience as fact simply because the person claims their god did it?

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 2:43pm

smacl wrote: »

Substitute Allah, Ganesha above and it still holds true. Similarly a Muslim or Hindu might make your exact claim. Now whether God appears to a Christian, Allah to a Muslim or Ganesha to a Hindu seems to primarily relate to where a person is born. Why do you think that is, why does your God not reveal himself to people in India, or the Middle East, particularly as his son apparently lived in the Middle East?

[In addressing this, I'll leave aside the issue of whether or not Allah, Ganesha relate to God/ are through-a-glass-darkly versions of God (assuming for a moment that God is the top of the heap). And will suppose for the sake of argument that it's either God OR Allah OR Ganesha OR no God at all]

The question posed an IF. If Allan THEN not God and the point I made isn't relevant. The point was IF God is a true statement. In that event, the rest follows and you need to deal with that.

Could you go back and rework in light of that

I'll leave aside your localisation theory on the basis that it has nothing to do with the problem I posed you

Similarly, even if God did exist on what basis do you differentiate delusion from divine inspiration? That God could choose to speak to you is not an implication that he would choose to speak to you. From my understanding, he didn't actually choose to communicate with that many people even in biblical times.

Again, this sidesteps the issue. The question centres on what God is able to do. Unless of course, you suppose that God, whilst able to create all and design the very mechanisms whereby we build up our sense of reality, is unable to demonstrate himself to us.

The problem was posed with IF's. IF God exists. IF God choses to reveal himself. IF those if's are satisfied then the person knows he exists. And all this talk of subjectives falls away.

[Does it occur to you that reliance on what are only subjectively existing other persons to bolster your own subjective observations, thus rendinger them objective realities is subjectives the whole way down? By simply piling subjectives on top of each other you achieve objective. Problematic that.]

And you are second guessing what God would do were he to exist. You holy argument seems wholly holey.

IF/THEN. It's not that hard.

smacl · 13-09-2019 4:18pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I'm not really trying to generalise, but neither do I think that we're nothing more than unique snowflakes who can craft our own version of reality. Some things you believe might be consistent with your atheism, and others might not. I think the latter in particular can make for an interesting conversation.

I stand by my contention that everyone is a worshiper of something, even if they don't think of it in that way.

Hmm, not so sure about worship insofar as there is any single thing or notion that receives a disproportionately large amount of unquestioning devotion. Personally, I can't think of anything in my life for example that would correspond to your worship.

Self defence, judicial execution and war all lie outside the common definition of murder so aren't relevant here. I think murder can be safely defined as the unlawful or immoral killing of another human being - that's not really disputed, is it? The exact opposite of murder would be the biblical call to love our neighbour as ourselves.

The difficulty in classifying an individual act as murder or not is a completely separate problem from whether murder is absolutely and objectively wrong.

Execution for something like apostasy requires a bit more nuance; assuming it is state sanctioned then strictly speaking it isn't murder. But it is a fundamental misuse of the power of the state, because apostasy shouldn't be a crime, nevermind a capital one.

It might be a helpful example though, as it's something that different societies today disagree on. I believe that societies that execute apostates should stop doing it, regardless of whether they think it is the right thing to do or not. That is consistent with my religious beliefs and worldview. I'm assuming that you agree that they should stop, but I'm genuinely curious to know the basis on which you do so.

The thing is that the biblical absolute in this instance, as I understand it, is "Thou shalt not kill". Once you allow any qualifiers or nuance, you have shifted from an absolute position to a contextual one. If we can't come to an acceptable universal definition of murder, irrespective of contextual factors such as society, we're not in a position to make a universal judgement on it. A 'just' war for example depends very much on notion of justice held by those using the weapons. One person's terrorists might be another's freedom fighters.

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 4:31pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No. One person's claim to have experienced something is not objective.

Nearly any time there is a plane crash, someone will be on the TV saying they saw the plane going down in flames. This is their firmly held truth of what they experienced. Then the investigation invariably shows that there was no fire before impact.

There are strong caveats placed in courts of law on uncorroborated "eyewitness" evidence.

Are we to cast that aside once religion enters the picture? Must we take every "vision" or "near death" or "out of body" experience as fact simply because the person claims their god did it?

You need to go back and read what's written and argue against it. Grabbing a dictionary or a philosophy tract isn't sufficient.

smacl · 13-09-2019 4:43pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

IF/THEN. It's not that hard.

Right so.

IF your god exists AND IF your god is the only god AND IF your god has decided to talk to specifically rather than Christians who take a different view of things AND IF you're not just imagining all this THEN your argument is valid ELSE you're wrong

Let me know IF I've missed anything there and how you get past all of those rather big IFs.

ChrisJ84 · 13-09-2019 4:54pm

smacl wrote: »

Hmm, not so sure about worship insofar as there is any single thing or notion that receives a disproportionately large amount of unquestioning devotion. Personally, I can't think of anything in my life for example that would correspond to your worship.

Happy for us to agree to disagree on this one, I wouldn't expect you to see things in this way.

smacl wrote: »

The thing is that the biblical absolute in this instance, as I understand it, is "Thou shalt not kill". Once you allow any qualifiers or nuance, you have shifted from an absolute position to a contextual one. If we can't come to an acceptable universal definition of murder, irrespective of contextual factors such as society, we're not in a position to make a universal judgement on it. A 'just' war for example depends very much on notion of justice held by those using the weapons. One person's terrorists might be another's freedom fighters.

Not quite. The commandment clearly indicates that murder is forbidden, not all killing in any context whatsoever. I already defined murder as the unlawful and immoral killing of another human being. This is codified in the legal system of pretty much every society - so I think we have a good enough definition to work with.

From the perspective of the Christianity, murder is absolutely, universally, objectively, for all times and all places morally wrong.

Do you agree with that? And how would you critique and individual or society who disagreed?

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 5:01pm

smacl wrote: »

Right so.

IF your god exists AND IF your god is the only god AND IF your god has decided to talk to (you) specifically rather than Christians who take a different view of things AND IF you're not just imagining all this THEN your argument is valid ELSE you're wrong

Let me know IF I've missed anything there and how you get past all of those rather big IFs.

Other than suggest that God's definition of a Christian is the only one that counts (and so his talking to this "Christian" and not that "Christian" is understandable), you've done well enough for our purposes.

Two things to point out in order to progress:

1. I've inserted a "you" where you appear to have left it out. The AND element is superfluous in that case. Per definition, if the previous IF's are true then I couldn't be imagining it.

2.There is nothing for me to 'get past' if the IF's are true. It is as it is because of something done unto me. Period. There is nothing big about it: I don't have to satisfy you in order for me to know God exists - although I accept satisfying you so that you know I know would be a big thing. Nor is God's existence or his communicating a big thing (in terms of being likely, probable etc.) It is big in terms of the significance of God existing as opposed to his not existing. But that big-ness has nothing much to do with the issue we are dealing with.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-09-2019 5:03pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You need to go back and read what's written and argue against it. Grabbing a dictionary or a philosophy tract isn't sufficient.

Condescending meaningless waffle. I'll leave you to it.

one world order · 13-09-2019 5:14pm

You need more faith to be an atheist than any other religion given that God's creation is all around us. As the world is controlled by luciferian worshippers at the very top, it's no surprise they have been targeting Christianity and moving us to an atheist society through the mass produced mainstream media, film and music industries.

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 5:19pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Condescending meaningless waffle. I'll leave you to it.

Logic is capable of condescension? I think you've made a wise decision in opting to leave well alone.

smacl · 13-09-2019 5:26pm

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Not quite. The commandment clearly indicates that murder is forbidden, not all killing in any context whatsoever. I already defined murder as the unlawful and immoral killing of another human being. This is codified in the legal system of pretty much every society - so I think we have a good enough definition to work with.

From the perspective of the Christianity, murder is absolutely, universally, objectively, for all times and all places morally wrong.

Do you agree with that? And how would you critique and individual or society who disagreed?

If we define murder as unlawful killing it becomes dependent on who's laws we're bound by. For example, some pro-life types have declared abortion to be a form of murder, others consider assisted suicide a form of murder. I personally don't consider those to be valid definitions of murder but that is not to say they couldn't be enacted as such in law. The converse is more commonly true where I'd consider lawful forms of killing to be murderous. I don't know if you followed the Asia Bibi case for example, who was sentenced to death for blasphemy (and thankfully released some years later) but had she been executed would you consider it murder? Would you consider someone involved in assisted suicide guilty of murder? Again, I think what at face value seems like a universally acceptable moral standard has exceptions and we need to account for context.

smacl · 13-09-2019 5:31pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is nothing for me to 'get past' if the IF's are true.

IF TRUE is a tautology though, either the IF is superfluous of you have to explain why the outcome is reasonable.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-09-2019 5:34pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Logic is capable of condescension? I think you've made a wise decision in opting to leave well alone.

No, your post. "You need to go back and read what is written." And there you are, doing it again.

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 5:49pm

smacl wrote: »

IF TRUE is a tautology though, either the IF is superfluous of you have to explain why the outcome is reasonable.

tautology: the saying of the same thing twice over in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style.

I'm not saying the same thing twice. The IF condition can either be true or false. If the IF is true x follows. If the IF is false y follows.

There is nothing I have to explain by way of reasonability. I can know God exists (all that need be is the IF be true).

Since it is possible for the IF to be true, it is also possible for me to comment on who is and isn't a Christian. Remember from whence we came:

smacl wrote:

Until that God, who the person believes exists is actually shown to exist and to have spoken to the person in question, this is no more than subjective opinion.

Since it is possible for me to know God exists, it is possible for me to have an objective opinion, without showing God exists.

smacl · 13-09-2019 6:28pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since it is possible for me to know God exists, it is possible for me to have an objective opinion, without showing God exists.

It isn't possible for you to know god exists in any objective sense, you believe god exists but that is subjective. You can't therefore have an objective opinion on the matter because an objective opinion is an opinion based solely on fact.

Also IF TRUE is a tautology in logic, from Wikipedia

In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation.

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 8:15pm

smacl wrote: »

It isn't possible for you to know god exists in any objective sense, you believe god exists but that is subjective. You can't therefore have an objective opinion on the matter because an objective opinion is an opinion based solely on fact.

There's a touch of running to the hills up there. A hint of desperation by means of reiteration. Let's stick to the logic shall we?

Also IF TRUE is a tautology in logic, from Wikipedia

IF TRUE THEN X, IF FALSE THEN Y is a tautology? God help programmable logic controllers which run the world.

I think you need to do a bit more work than you've done. Try again.
.

smacl · 13-09-2019 8:55pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's a touch of running to the hills up there. A hint of desperation by means of reiteration. Let's stick to the logic shall we?

IF TRUE THEN X, IF FALSE THEN Y is a tautology? God help programmable logic controllers which run the world.

I think you need to do a bit more work than you've done. Try again.
.

if you reckon IF TRUE is the same as IF TRUE THEN X, IF FALSE THEN Y then I'd recommend you steer well clear of both logic and PLCs

antiskeptic · 13-09-2019 8:59pm

smacl wrote: »

if you reckon IF TRUE is the same as IF TRUE THEN X, IF FALSE THEN Y then I'd recommend you steer well clear of both logic and PLCs

IF TRUE (whatever the hell that means) is your construction. I'm in the IF TRUE THEN territory.

IF God exists THEN x,y,z follows.

Clearly the plc has to ask whether the IF condition is satisfied or not.

Is it "TRUE" ...the plc considers to isself before deciding which output lever to pull. Not IF TRUE.

Lost faith

Comments