The Solipsist's God

[Ramo]

The first thing that comes to mind is why I should even bother writing a proper criticism on someone who puts up the statement "Yay, more philsophical jacking off!" as his or her title. Such immaturaty speaks of a person who does not take the issue seriously

I don't know if you've noticed, but this is an online forum, not a formal debate hall. Every sentence in my posts is not necessarily serious. That particular comment was meant to be amusing. You might've heard of the concept.

and puts in as much thought accordingly.

Look, I don't know what's lodged up your ass, nor do I particularly care. But if you treat a person with disrespect, don't expect anything more than reciprocal behavior.

But since he or she has not been too immature I will continue on

Interesting definition you have there; ad hominens, absurd non-sequiturs and strawmen are "mature," while a joke is "immature."

Ramo I have asked you several times to prove just that. All you seem to be doing is restating your opinion.

I already did (in my second post). Again, any internally consistent system is logically valid. To be more explicit, any set of consistent assumptions makes a perfectly valid interpretation. Because there are many (in fact, infinite) such sets, there is no single objective interepretation.

Really? You seemed pretty sure that everything was all of it is based on "baseless assumptions" and stated that:

How does that prove that I attach truth values to baseless assumptions?

That sounds like a pretty strong relativist stance to me. In that you are in effect saying all knowledge is meaningless.

What? How am I "in effect" saying that? You're reading something that isn't there from my posts.

I also showed how number 2 cannnot be true because it is self-contradictory.

I didn't assert "number 2."

[qutoe]To which you said "that's just an assumption"...sounds like you are saying all assumptions are equal to me.[/quote]

Where?

That's kind of a backwards thing to ask since there can be no proof without logic. It's kind of like asking to establish numbers by means of algebra. Numbers come before algebra: logic comes before proof.

That's not what I said. I asked for proof assuming a logical framework. I didn't ask to prove it without logic.

In other words, logic has no basis in reality but helps to establish Quantum Mechanics.

That's a completely absurd interpretation of what I wrote!

Logic has no more basis in reality than a tensor. These concepts are nothing more than tools to model reality. If these concepts inadaquetely model reality, they should be changed; not reality itself (see the MWI).

This was Ramo's response to my statement concerning whether something can exist without him knowing of its existence.

I misread your statement (which is why the answer makes no sense). I thought you were asking for me to back up my assertion.

Regarding the question that you asked, of course something can exist without me knowing about it. But I'd prefer to have hard evidence of this thing's existence before subscribing to its existence.

How can something that is (at least for now) only a matter of interpretation have "scientific credibility"? I can see why philosophical credibility would apply, but IMO the many worlds theory has much more philosophical credibility than the Copenhagen interpretation (for one thing it doesn't have the problem of what "measurement" means exactly).

AFAIK, inventing an unnecessary physical concept to make a theory coincide with your pre-conceptions smacks of an extremely unscientific attitude.

[Ecowiz Returns]

LR, although our discussion was interesting, I think you never tried to analyse the Christian arguments on the Superiority of the Morality entailed in God's Will against the religion's basic assumptions about God.
I'll repeat those that, in my opinion are the crucial ones, because you seem to have forgotten them:
1- God exists and is Eternal
2- God Created all
3- God is Omniscient
4- God Loves Us All

Taking those four Christian, but also Muslim and Jewish (though I never understood if, in a Jewish framework God is said to love the Hebrew People more than all the others ),let me try to disconstruct the bases of your arguments.

Originally posted by Logical Realist
See then if its a tautology here, it seems to me that it it is still "what God commands" with God's commands based on very little other then arbitrary decisions.

You can say that Christian Moral Rules are, alegedly, "what God commands". But you can also say "what God proposes" or "what God knows is best for His creation". Your argument is clearly based on Omnipotence: obey God's Will or else...
The two notions, that are current Christian doctrine are based of God's Love (making His Will a proposal and not an order) and His Omnisicience (justifying the claim that He knows best).

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Maybe discover was the wrong word. What I meant was more like....know of. I'm saying that if its not arbitrary and based on God's knowledge(though by no means created by it) this means that morality is something that exists outside of God. Such a viewpoint is not what I'm criticizing and is by no means the mainstream Christian one though.

I don't know if what you claim to be mainstream Christian though is indeed The mainstream Christian thought. The Priests I talk with sure share and discuss these thoughts with me, and they are Catholic Preasts.
And, what surelly is not mainstream christian thought is that something, anything at all, exists outside God. And, surelly it is mainstream Christian doctrine that God, through his Creation has drawn Morality much the same way as the Laws of Phisics.

Originally posted by Logical Realist
See that's what I'm criticizing, it seems on that basis God is just making his road map out of nothing. Just inventing it. If not...on what basis is He making it? What makes God's invented road map better then another person?

Two answers: Assumtion number 2 - God Created All (surelly out of nothing else but Himself - by assuming that God is Eternal, Christian doctrine presumes "nothingness" never existed); assumption number 3 - He is Omnsicient.
To Christians, All Creation was the only thing God "invented". But, for us, that seems to be enough .

Originally posted by Logical Realist
You state that it's his supperiority on intellect...I think Christians really believe its power. In the former case you are saying that who's smartest is who gets to make true or false...right or wrong.

I don't need to say that. With all our discussions you should have already understood that the point is not Smarts but Knowledge.
Do you really try to understand all I'm writing?

Originally posted by Logical Realist
I hear about it all the time. How without Christianity everyone will become an "immoral animal", without fear of hell everyone will just do whatever "sins" they want. In his book "Losing faith in Faith" Dan Barker describes a preacher who talks about how he(the preacher) would become an immoral animal without God, killing and raping people(he said this in front of his wife and kids).

What you hear all the time, is not sure to be mainstream doctrine.

Originally posted by Logical Realist
To quote the Bible:

See, quoting the Bible is not enough.
Paul was talking about himself. He was assuming his own faults.
Paul particularly felt that without God's guidance he would be against His Will. If we look at Paul's life and conversion it's easy to understand why he feels this way.

Originally posted by Logical Realist
This still doesn't answer whether morality is determined by God, or whether God knows of some external morality and basis His orders on that.

Look, to a Christian All is determined by God. Even our sins are determined by the Free Will He granted us. We tend to think that only order is of divine nature, but what makes us assume that? Allowing some desequilibria may well be part of a Divine Creation.

Originally posted by Logical Realist
In fact I don't know of any passage in the New Testament that says that Old Testament Laws are outdated or no longer apply.

Then you should really read the Gospels. They are full of such indications. Not that the Law is outdated but that some of the rullings are.

Originally posted by Logical Realist
And if there is a New Testament passage that clearly makes the Old Testament outdated...I wonder...why are Christian's still trying to post the Ten Commandments in publics schools?

For someone that claims to be Logical use have really, not a too elaborate use of Logic. Is it all Black and White to you?

When I see, from your posts that you really understood something that I have writen here, than I'll return to you. By now, I offered you much and I have to understand also when to give up.

[Dr.Oogkloot]

AFAIK, inventing an unnecessary physical concept to make a theory coincide with your pre-conceptions smacks of an extremely unscientific attitude.

This criticism is true of both the Copenhagen interpretation and Bohm's interpretation, but not the Many Worlds interpretation, which is also deterministic.

The Copenhagen interpretation invents the unnecessary collapsing mechanism and Bohm's interpretation invents an unnecessary quantum potential. The Many Worlds interpretation needs no new mechanisms: the evolution of the wave function according to the Schrödinger equation is enough.

You could say the collapse mechanism was invented to coincide with preconceptions that only the world we observe is real, except they didn't have anything better when it was invented.

[mactbone]

Alright, Christians claim God is Omniscient, meaning He knows everything. If He knows everything, that means He knows EVERYTHING, as in everyhing that was and everything that will be. Christians also claim that God gave humans free will. Free will causes us to sin, etc. Well, how do we have free will, if God knows everything? If God knows everything, that would include the future, and if a being ever knew the future, that would mean that the future cannot be altered. If the future cannot be altered, then there is no free will. We will do things, that have been pre-ordained. So, one of those beliefs is wrong. Either God is not Omniscient, or humans have no free will.

[Logical Realist]

The nature of relativists

Ramo:

I don't know if you've noticed, but this is an online forum, not a formal debate hall.

Well Ramo, formal or not we should try to handle a serious issue in a serious manner. You can behave in as immature a manner as you wish...but then don't expect others to take you seriously. Besides...was your statement really that funny or creative?('')

But if you treat a person with disrespect, don't expect anything more than reciprocal behavior.

Screw you.

Interesting definition you have there; ad hominens, absurd non-sequiturs and strawmen are "mature," while a joke is "immature."

All this from a guy who believes that the first rule of logic(the principle of identification) is a "baseless assumption"? It seems interesting how, when cornered, a relativist is so willing to use the same logic he stated was "baseless assumption" just a post ago. These concepts like "ad hominens", non sequiturs and strawmen are meaningless if the rules of logic are meaningless.

Also if you think I did any of the above...show me where.

I already did (in my second post). Again, any internally consistent system is logically valid.

Again though, in your system that is "baseless assumption". For one can say on the basis of a different "assumption" that inconsistent views are logical while consistent views are illogical.

To be more explicit, any set of consistent assumptions makes a perfectly valid interpretation.

That's an unwarranted leap. You're saying that if an interpretation is "consistent" it is automatically "pefect" in regards to validity. That's a non sequitur if I ever saw one. Consistency isn't the only standard of evidence though it may be a strong one.

Because there are many (in fact, infinite) such sets, there is no single objective interepretation.

Are there in fact "Infinite" interpretations? How do you know? Isn't that just your interpretation?

You're system IS very inconsistent btw. You state that there is "no single objective interpretation" right after you posited the objective standard of consistency.In your view its "All beliefs are equal but some are more equal then others" .

How does that prove that I attach truth values to baseless assumptions?

You stated tht all beliefs were ultimately based on "baseless assumptions" and that such assumptions were meaningless. In which case you are advocating that your view(which would also be derived from baseless assumptions) is true.

What? How am I "in effect" saying that?

I'll go over that real explicitly, so that even you can understand it>WINK<:

1) You state that all knowledge is based on "basless assumption"
2) You state that these "assumptions" are all meaningless.
3) Hence you are saying all knowledge is meaningless.

You're reading something that isn't there from my posts.

For a relativist you sure do seem to make a lot of absolute statements. ('')

I didn't assert "number 2."

I showed how number 2 was self-contradictory.

You stated that all knowledge was equal, in that ALL assumptions are baseless. Number 2 was meant to refer to a relativist stance in general friend, meaning it applies when the opponent obviously shows himself to hold to strong relativist positions.

That's not what I said. I asked for proof assuming a logical framework. I didn't ask to prove it without logic.

Like I said, logic presupposes proof. Hence you are asking me to basically show you the workings of your eye. Or establish numbers via algebra. The request is backwards.

Also though, wouldn't an attempt to prove logic while assuming logic be rather... pointless? You are asking me to prove that a set of given standards work via thos given standards.

But to try and come close to your ridiculous request, if we go by what your saying with regards to logic then reducing the only alternative to absurdity establishes logic, the opposite of logic "illogic" is absurd, as it allows contradictions. Therefore since it's only alternative is absurd logic is established.

But like I said the request was ridiculous. The very act of assuming what is to be proven is question begging.

The argument, in summary would thus be:

Premise: Logical standards are valid.

Premise: If logical standards are valid they must be valid.

Conclusion:Hence Logical standards are valid.

See what I mean?

I'd like YOU to prove instead that these standards are assumed without assuming those standards.

Logic has no more basis in reality than a tensor. These concepts are nothing more than tools to model reality. If these concepts inadaquetely model reality, they should be changed; not reality itself

So these tools are somehow "unreal"? And though they have "no basis in reality" one is to use them to establish what model accurately models reality?

I don't see how logic establishes the Quantum Mechanical model if it has no basis in reality. Or how one is to find out what model is the best representative of reality if all of knowledge is baseless.

Regarding the question that you asked, of course something can exist without me knowing about it. But I'd prefer to have hard evidence of this thing's existence before subscribing to its existence.

Agreed, but you must also remember that the concept of evidence is dependent on the concept of an objective reality.

inventing an unnecessary physical concept to make a theory coincide with your pre-conceptions smacks of an extremely unscientific attitude.

Pre-conceptions have been with science since its very begginings. Observations are never made in a vacuum but are interpreted on the basis of one's world view. The empriricists would spend countless hours speaking of "tabula rasa"; but an empty slate is not a vacuum; as it does contains one thing: the slate itself. Observations made without any content in which to store and interpret them cannot be made at all(for what can a vacuum really see?). All of it presupposes neurological machinery and 'a priori' viewpoints. Science is not immune to this, nor should it be. Like Darwin said "all knowledge to be useful must be for or against a given point of view." Science advancees by means of a reciprocal relationship of concepts and empirical evidence, observations are placed within the context of a worldview and worldviews can change when observations warrant. If it was all purely empirical, then like Lyell said, we may as well stop "theorizing" about rocks and count grains of dirt.


The main difference between me and the subjectivist is this:

I believe that some conceptul foundations and standards are self-evident and necessary for reasoning. And that this makes them better, and more realistic then other standards.

Whereas the subjectivist maintains that all standards and conceptual foundations are equal in their truth-value and their applicability to reality.

My position allows for objectivity,self-correction and rationality. The subjectivist's leads to a swamp of preference made into dogma. The subjectivist's position is one of pure conveniance(for what could be more conveniant then to be able to make any claim you want regarding: any subject, say it is equal to that of those most knowledgeable on the subject and do so without having to prove it?) My position allows one to actually admit when one is wrong and know when one is right.

[Logical Realist]

God's arbitrary standards

Ecowiz: You state that God invented all, well then He invented morality and the universe. God used his omnipotence to do so, hence His right to make things moral or immoral stems not from His knowledge of morality but from the notion that He invented morality out of thin air via His omnipotence.God could then likewise make rape and murder moral whenever He basically wants to. Basically then it's all based on His omnipotence.

as for mainstream Christians: this is their POV. That should be obvious to anyone willing to observe them.


Also where in the Bible does God get rid of the Law condemning kids to be stoned?

It seems that you are making your standards very arbitrary and unspecified(in regards to Old Testament laws being over-ruled by New Testament dictums) in order to pick and choose what Old Testament Laws are outdated at will.

[Ramo]

Well Ramo, formal or not we should try to handle a serious issue in a serious manner. You can behave in as immature a manner as you wish...but then don't expect others to take you seriously.

Whatever. I'd rather not participate in this idiotic pissing contest.

Besides...was your statement really that funny or creative?('')

We have these objectivist-type debates way too often (you're not a Randian, are you? ). Some may find it reasonably amusing...

Screw you.

No thanks.

It seems interesting how, when cornered, a relativist is so willing to use the same logic he stated was "baseless assumption" just a post ago. These concepts like "ad hominens", non sequiturs and strawmen are meaningless if the rules of logic are meaningless.

Where did I say that the rules of logic are meaningless? They model certain concepts well, but aren't inherently valid by themselves.

Also if you think I did any of the above...show me where.

I was wrong. Actually, what you were doing is asserting that I've written various things that I have not, most likely because you're not actually reading my posts.

Again though, in your system that is "baseless assumption". For one can say on the basis of a different "assumption" that inconsistent views are logical while consistent views are illogical.

Absolutely. Remember that whole subjectivism concept that we're arguing over? Remember that I explicitly wrote that I was assuming the basis of logic (noncontradiction)?

That's an unwarranted leap.

Why? That's what I was assuming.

You're saying that if an interpretation is "consistent" it is automatically "pefect" in regards to validity.

That's also the quintessential assumption that logic is essentially based on.

That's a non sequitur if I ever saw one. Consistency isn't the only standard of evidence though it may be a strong one.

Consistency is the only standard of validity. Look it up in any logic text book.

Are there in fact "Infinite" interpretations? How do you know? Isn't that just your interpretation?

For the simple reason that there are infinite possible assumptions to make. For example, assuming there's a God, how many possible names could He have? It's perfectly plausible that his name is Joe. Now assuming that there are k names he can take on, where k belongs to the set of all positive integers, and the kth name has k characters, there is obviously a k+1'th name, if you just concatenate an "a" onto the kth name. This doesn't contradict the assertion that there's a God, so that's perfectly logically vlaid. And because the set of all positive integers, by definition is infinite, you have an inductive proof that there are infinite possible assumptions you can make.

You're system IS very inconsistent btw. You state that there is "no single objective interpretation" right after you posited the objective standard of consistency.

It's not an objective standard. It's simply the one most mathematicians use, and it's an, IMO, intuitive standard, so it's the one I use. I stated that it was an assumption at the very beginning, and kept repeating it every once in a while in this thread. I assumed that you were paying attention to my posts (though, with all of these things you attributed to me in this thread that I've never asserted, I see that I was incorrect in my assumption).

You stated tht all beliefs were ultimately based on "baseless assumptions" and that such assumptions were meaningless. In which case you are advocating that your view(which would also be derived from baseless assumptions) is true.

It is indeed a baseless assumption. It's just as baseless as the definition of the vector product; it's a useful assumption, but it's not objectively true. I've never asserted otherwise.

2) You state that these "assumptions" are all meaningless.

Where?

For a relativist you sure do seem to make a lot of absolute statements. ('')

Like I siad, there's a long list of assumptions that I make in every statement (for example, I'm not delusional). It's just not practical to list every single assumption in every single assertion that I make. assumed that you would realize that a relativist is never making absolute assertions, but I assumed incorrectly.

You stated that all knowledge was equal, in that ALL assumptions are baseless.

How? Once again, I don't know what probability means in the case of baseless assertions.

The argument, in summary would thus be:

Premise: Logical standards are valid.

Premise: If logical standards are valid they must be valid.

Conclusion:Hence Logical standards are valid.

That isn't the argument.

You asserted "People who assume such a foundational relatavist viewpoint think that by proving claim 1; they've proven claim 2."

I asked for proof (assuming logic ). Again, you're evidently not reading my posts.

So these tools are somehow "unreal"? And though they have "no basis in reality" one is to use them to establish what model accurately models reality?

Yep. I've yet to see a wild tensor running around.

I don't see how logic establishes the Quantum Mechanical model if it has no basis in reality.

Logic is a mental construct. It helps the human mind work things out.

Or how one is to find out what model is the best representative of reality if all of knowledge is baseless.

I'm getting really tired of these assertions that you're attributing to me that I've never written.

but you must also remember that the concept of evidence is dependent on the concept of an objective reality.

Nope. One merely assumes that our senses work fine, and so forth.

Pre-conceptions have been with science since its very begginings.

Yep, for example, Newtonian concepts of absolute position and time. That's why science keeps changing.

Observations are never made in a vacuum but are interpreted on the basis of one's world view.

Which makes achievements such as QT and General Relativity all the more impressive. Once again, the idea is to drop philosophical concepts when they contradict reality, not to make reality unnecessarily complex.

I believe that some conceptul foundations and standards are self-evident and necessary for reasoning. And that this makes them better, and more realistic then other standards.

I'd say that these standards are not "necessary" for reasoning, but certain concepts model certain aspects of reality more simply than others.

and conceptual foundations are equal in their truth-value and their applicability to reality.

For the last time, I've never asserted that.

The subjectivist's position is one of pure conveniance(for what could be more conveniant then to be able to make any claim you want regarding: any subject, say it is equal to that of those most knowledgeable on the subject and do so without having to prove it?)

*cough* Ad hominen! *cough*

On the contrary, the objectivist's position is the one of convenience; everything is black or white in your worldview.

My position allows one to actually admit when one is wrong and know when one is right.

Your position is also extraodinarily arrogant.

[Ecowiz Returns]

Enough is enough!!!

You, my friend are the living example of how using logic on unsificient information leads to the wrong conclusions!

What is a serious problem with you, though, is that you aply logical reasoning on unsuficient information not because it was not presented to you but because you choose not to use all the information given. That is intelectual dishonesty!!!

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Ecowiz: You state that God invented all, well then He invented morality and the universe. God used his omnipotence to do so, hence His right to make things moral or immoral stems not from His knowledge of morality but from the notion that He invented morality out of thin air via His omnipotence.God could then likewise make rape and murder moral whenever He basically wants to. Basically then it's all based on His omnipotence.

Like the lowest kind of Sofism here is you conclusion build.
Working with the assumptions of Christianity (I will not repeat them, although you, so pedanticly, have chosen to disregard them, but I direct you to every single post I've written in this thread)...
True: God created (invented, if you want) all, because is Omnipotent.
False: God keeps inventing things.
You kept disregarding the assumption that God is Omniscient.
Omniscience implies:
- He knows all.
- He is never wrong.
- Everything he "invented" followed His purpose, from the moment of Creation.

Therefore, Morals is not being invented on a day by day basis, it derives from the one and only creative action of God. He Knew, when creating All, how things were to fit togheter and how they wouldn't. He has chosen to grant us the oportunity to act in order of making things not to fit togheter - that much we, Christians, believe. But the good practices were always known by Him, because, He created them with Full Knowledge of what He was doing!!!

The question you never considered is not the fact that God Created all, even Morals, but How he created them!!! And Christians believe He created All out of Love!!! Therefore, be sure to know that God did never proposed rape, theft, murder, even the little white lie as a good thing. Not according Christian belief, that is.

According to your uninformed, partial and partizan view of the "Christian God" I surelly don't know!!!

Originally posted by Logical Realist
as for mainstream Christians: this is their POV. That should be obvious to anyone willing to observe them.

Agreed, and you're fighting windmils here!!!
No longer does the Christian Church has power over popular decision. However, is a majority of individuals believe in the Christian Faith, and therefore in the Christian Doctrine, it becomes a matter of individual choice, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Also where in the Bible does God get rid of the Law condemning kids to be stoned?

It seems that you are making your standards very arbitrary and unspecified(in regards to Old Testament laws being over-ruled by New Testament dictums) in order to pick and choose what Old Testament Laws are outdated at will.

I'm a Christian, not a Jew. And you are criticizing the Christian belief, not the Jew one.
For a Christian, the Old Testament is read as validating that Jesus was the Messiah and that the Law and the Prophets are confirmed and given full meaning with Jesus' words and actions.
Not once you cited the Gospels, so I sugest you read them.
If you are so knowledgable about the mosaic law, please confront it with the folloing events:
- Jesus preaches on Saturday, outside the Sinagoge;
- Jesus' disciples take grains of weat, on a Saturday, to eat;
- Jesus expels the sellers from the Temple;
- Jesus asks to have the children among Him;
- Jesus eats and drinks with those deemed impure (like tax colectors);
- Jesus disaproves the killing of an alegedly adulterous woman;
- Jesus accepts to be washed by the hands of a alegedly impure woman (believed to be a prostitute).
Read also the opinion of Christ about the purity of food and investigate why christians eat pork (it is considered impure by the Mosaic Law).
Please, read all that, but read also the comments Jesus has about the Law, namelly how was established the now known Golden Rule.
Finally try and picture this, if you will: imagine that Jesus was indeed God; now imagine that Jesus was to be killed by men, much weaker than Him (He would be Omnipotent); now try to figure out why did He let it happen!!! Please do this under the assumption that He, in fact was God and not under of your assumption that there is no such thing as a God!!!
After that little exercize, please try to explain why Christians believe that God is Good and so is His Creation!

All this time that you criticized Christian doctrine, that you called mainstream so that you could try to place my reasoning as out of that category (it failed, by the way), you never used the Christian framework; not even the four simple assumptions I proposed to you.
A god that is Omnipotentent, but not Omniscient and does not love us all, simply is not the God christians believe in.

Therefore, all this time you have been criticizing a non existing thing. Surelly you were not criticizing the Christian belief, because, as far as you have shown in this thread, you simply do not know what you are talking about!!!

This goes to you new founded thread also!
Please, stick with what you know, try to investigate and then share your thoughts with us.
Ignorance is such a presumptuous thing!
Particularly when it gives someone the idea he knows better than so many others.

[mactbone]

Those are some interesting points you bring up. Some of them directly relate to what St. Augustine grappled with.

If God is omnipotent, and God is omnibenevolent, then why is there evil at all? Since God is all together good, and God is all powerful, he would not only wish to not have evil, he would have the power (omnipotentcy) to get rid of it.

BTW, what do you think about God killing thousands of people at various times and handing out the commandment "Thou shallt not kill"?

[Logical Realist]

Ramo the forgetful

Now Ramo this is starting to bug me. I can take your criticims...that's fine. I try to be open minded. But when you deny sayng something you just said....that's where I draw the line. That means Ramo that your very sneaky and don't take this convo seriously.

Here is what you say when I point to how you state that the rules of logic are meaningless.

Where did I say that the rules of logic are meaningless? They model certain concepts well, but aren't inherently valid by themselves.

Really? Well you said that:

Didn't I just say that the assumptions are the rules of logic?

Hence logic is a baseless assumption. Next you say:

Why should truth values be attached to baseless assumptions? They're meaningless.

This makes me wonder if you know "what you even believe yourself. This isn't the first time you've done this Ramo. If you want anyone to take you seriously at least pay attention to what you say. Because its not my job to look up and find your statements for you.

Also you don't seem to get it: I am not saying your assumptions are not true, I am saying they cannot be true. Whether or not you decide they are true then is irrelevant.

As for Ramo's proof, for subjectivism(I was unaware that he made an attempt to prove subjectivism at all since his proof was so. weak)

Again, any internally consistent system is logically valid. To be more explicit, any set of consistent assumptions makes a perfectly valid interpretation. Because there are many (in fact, infinite) such sets, there is no single objective interepretation.

No here I got to thinking he must mean "true" when he says validity. Because if Ramo knew basic logic he would know that validity alone isn't enough to establish a given conclusion. That takes 2 things 1) Validity and 2) True premises. True premises are important for this reason:

I can make this argument using Ramo's logic: All Marxists are evil
Preston is a Marxist
Therefore Preston is evil.

Valid yes. But since the premises are not known to be true its very weak.

In logic, a good argument or conclusion is established by 1) Validity and 2)True premises. If any argument is missing any one of those two elements it is called weak. If it contains both it is either strong or sound.

Ramo says he has 1(which he doesn't because if the viewpoints were infinite and all equal, then a viewpoint opposite to Ramo's would have to be true,creating a contradiction and destroying Ramo's cherished validity). A

But even with 1, without 2 all those viewpoints are worthless.

Hence, there could be "infinite" viewpoints but all of them could simply be wrong. I don't see how the fact that there are "possible viewpoints" establishes or proves in any way that reality is subjective.

Ramo basic logic tells you reality means nothing in a vacuum. Ramo's argument must be more then just valid, it must be strong or sound.

We have these objectivist-type debates way too often (you're not a Randian, are you? ). Some may find it reasonably amusing...

No I'm not an Randian. Thanx for asking >WINK<. I have read a lot of Rand's stuff and agree with some of her ideas though. You'd do well not to label all objectivists as Randians though; as more then one person has made a fool of himself on the atheist network for doing so. Rand may be somewhat odd btw, but at least her beliefs seem to be better then yours.

Where did I say that the rules of logic are meaningless? They model certain concepts well, but aren't inherently valid by themselves.

I think I see what you're saying a little more clearly now. Though its still not making very much sense. You seem to believe that unless there are premises that validly lead up to a given point that the statement is meaningless. or lacks a truth-value. Such a view bespeaks an ignorance of critical thinking. Validity only applies to arguments which are built on true premises. A premise can be true without being valid, btw,(non-validity and being invalid ar two different things). Certain things though can be said to be true without argument,things like basic facts and such. Remember that a sound or strong argument consists of two main elements 1) Validity and 2) True premises. Meaning some things don't necesserally require validity to be true(these thing being original premises). Things can be true without being conclusions...either sound or strong.

Absolutely. Remember that whole subjectivism concept that we're arguing over? Remember that I explicitly wrote that I was assuming the basis of logic (noncontradiction)?

OK, you still don't get why that's relativism. You state all these assumptions are baseless and meaningless. This implies that one assumptions is just as good as another(for they are ALL baseless remember?). If they are all baseless it doesn't matter whether you decide to accept a baseless assumption or not, in your system they are all still baseless. Meaning that one is still just as good as another. You're preffering a certain assumption does nothing to change the asburdity of your viewpoint.

Consistency is the only standard of validity. Look it up in any logic text book.

I am aware of that.

You posted this on your first criticism though:

Nope, that would actually also be a subjective statement. It operates under certain unspoken assumptions, namely that the structure of our logical system is valid.

To me it appeared as if by "valid" you meant true. As the very attempt to apply the standard of vallidity to the logical structure that sets it up seems kind of backwards. Also see my criticism of your "proof" for subjectivity above for more on why I was confused.

As for that textbook, if you actually read my posts you would see that these textbooks label the whole subjectivist position as fallacious.

How Ramo knows there are infinite interpretations:

For the simple reason that there are infinite possible assumptions to make.

His proof in the form of an analogy:

For example, assuming there's a God, how many possible names could He have? It's perfectly plausible that his name is Joe. Now assuming that there are k names he can take on, where k belongs to the set of all positive integers, and the kth name has k characters, there is obviously a k+1'th name, if you just concatenate an "a" onto the kth name. This doesn't contradict the assertion that there's a God, so that's perfectly logically vlaid. And because the set of all positive integers, by definition is infinite, you have an inductive proof that there are infinite possible assumptions you can make.

Problems with it:

1) Assuming there is a God. Remember for an argument to be strong or sound its premises have to be true.

2) What do names have to do with interpretations? That's quite a leap to go from the assumed God's names to all interpretations.

3) Again Ramo assumes that since his argument is "valid" it is strong. That's only half of it friend. The other half is having true premises. Without that your argument may be valid...but weak.

It's not an objective standard.

If its not an objective standard then it can prove nothing. Look at what the textbook I quoted had to say about objective and subjective claims.

It's simply the one most mathematicians use, and it's an, IMO, intuitive standard, so it's the one I use. I stated that it was an assumption at the very beginning, and kept repeating it every once in a while in this thread.

You stated that it was a baseless subjectivist assumption, in which case it cannot be a standard of truth.

It is indeed a baseless assumption. It's just as baseless as the definition of the vector product; it's a useful assumption, but it's not objectively true. I've never asserted otherwise.

First off define useful. Secondly, by saying all asumptions are baseless you are saying they are equal. How can one baseless assumption be better then another?

Like I siad, there's a long list of assumptions that I make in every statement (for example, I'm not delusional). It's just not practical to list every single assumption in every single assertion that I make. assumed that you would realize that a relativist is never making absolute assertions, but I assumed incorrectly.

Well that makes me wonder now how you came to the conlcusion that an assumption was incorrect. As if they are all baseless it seems like they could pretty much stand alone. Also I know relativists aren't supposed to be making absolute statements. I was pointing out that yours sound that way though...that you were in effect contradicting yourself. Also aren't you just assuming then that relativists don't make absolute assumptions? What if someone else assumes that they do?

How? Once again, I don't know what probability means in the case of baseless assertions.

Isn't probability itself then also a "baseless" assumption in your view? If so aren't you just by using probability evaluating baseless assumptions by means of other baseless assumptions?

That isn't the argument.

You asserted "People who assume such a foundational relatavist viewpoint think that by proving claim 1; they've proven claim 2."

I asked for proof (assuming logic ). Again, you're evidently not reading my posts.

Well Ramo maybe if you weren't ambiguous I would.

Here was the original question:
Me:

If it's all assumption then there is no evidence. You say all belief is unwarranted assumption, then ask for evidence as a standard.
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>

Ramo:

Ok then, assuming a logical framework, prove that assertion.

Now what's he asking about? The first sentence or second? Or about the rules of logic that I'm talking about and is the theme of my post?

I believed the third and responded with:

That's kind of a backwards thing to ask since there can be no proof without logic. It's kind of like asking to establish numbers by means of algebra. Numbers come before algebra: logic comes before proof.

I would make this short by saying logic is self-evident, because without logic all statements lead to absurdity and communication becomes impossible. (For if a thing could be what it is not: One could never say nor know that, as then knowledge of something could be knowledge of its opposite). In effect to deny logic, one must use logic, and that's absurd.

To which Ramo responded that I misread his question? NO. He asnwers with:

That's not what I said. I asked for proof assuming a logical framework. I didn't ask to prove it without logic.

Well now it seems he misread as well. Anyways Ramo, I've always showed why relativist/subjectivist(interchangeable terms) positions are contradictory numerous times. And will not state it again for your amusement. I was puzzled by your original question because it was ambiguous and because I had already fulfilled your request. The fact that you didn't realize that with my paragraph long answer tells me it is you, not I, that am not reading these posts.

Yep. I've yet to see a wild tensor running around.

So to be "real" and object has to be seen? I've never seen my brain, so according to Ramo's theories, my brain is "unreal", as is any concept like science,physics, and zoology. All concepts go into some sort of netherworld. That's not subjectivism Ramo...that's dualism. Are you saying that ideas are not real? Or that these ideas and methods(Like science) don't describe reality just cause I can't see a science running around?

Logic is a mental construct. It helps the human mind work things out.

If logic is a construct it is not a very good standard Ramo. In your view at least, in which case it cannot be used to establish Quantum Mechanics. Also define "work things out". Also prove that logic is a construct.

One merely assumes that our senses work fine, and so forth.

If there is no objective reality what are the senses working on? Are you saying all evidence is derived from sense experience btw? Evidence is more then that.

Senses cannot interpret nothingness and they are hardly working if one is making stuff up. If there is no objective reality Ramo, then sense experience is no better a standard then imagination. Ramo, if everything is subjective and everybodies right, then the idea that there can be something called "evidence" which gets us closer to the truth is meaningless.

Which makes achievements such as QT and General Relativity all the more impressive. Once again, the idea is to drop philosophical concepts when they contradict reality, not to make reality unnecessarily complex.

In the subjectivist view reality is whatever one wants it to be. I'm getting annoyed by your inability to grasp that obvious statement. If it's subjective, whatever I percieve or think it to be, then my concepts never have to change. The very concept of reality loses meaning in the subjectivist viewpoint.

I'd say that these standards are not "necessary" for reasoning, but certain concepts model certain aspects of reality more simply than others.

You can say that, but in the subjectivist viewpoint that would just be your opinion.

(In reference to truth-values being equal under subjectivism)

For the last time, I've never asserted that.

Ramo, you don't have to. That's what subjectivism entails. If you don't believe me, then you obviously haven't a clue as to what subjectivism is. Please read my posts, there you will find out what a subjectve claim is by means of the textbook I quoted. Subjectivism is basically saying all claims,truths etc are subjective.

*cough* Ad hominen! *cough*

Actually its only an ad hominen if I say that disproves subjectivism.

On the contrary, the objectivist's position is the one of convenience; everything is black or white in your worldview.

How is that conveniant? I have to admit when I'm wrong and actually admit that being correct is more then a matter of just inventing things. I actually have to work to acquire knowledge.

Also, Ramo, what makes you think everything becomes a matter of black and white in the objectivist viewpoint? I think some things are black and white, but some things are grey too. I try to avoid reducing everything to the simplistic black/white only, or all is grey mentality.

Your position is also extraodinarily arrogant.

That in no way refutes what I was saying.

[Logical Realist]

Ecowiz

All the following example on the NT show that Jesus is above the Law. Not people in general. The Golden Rule and such are just add ons.

You state that God's morality comes from his Love and Omniscience.

OK, but again God just made morality that way. It's still ultimately based on his omnipotence, had God simply chosen to base morality on hate...that would have been just as easy for him.

Also look here: You're asking me to judge your morality as good, when God is the only standard of good. In your system God automatically equals good. In that way I would not be able to judge God as anything but good by definition. That's rigging the game.

It's still God just made things up out of nothing. An omnibenevolent or omniscient being who makes things up; is still just making things up.

[Logical Realist]

Jesus says

Jesus in mathew talks of Old Testament Law here:

5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

[Ecowiz Returns]

Re: Jesus says

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Jesus in mathew talks of Old Testament Law here:
5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

What a very nice quote qe have here!!!

So Jesus came and fullfilled the Law and the Prophets, thus accomplishing the condition He presented in 5:18.

Now, about those "least commandments": I suppose you've read
Mathew 5:1-12. Also you should read the part in the Gospel when Jesus is asked what is the most important commandment. You may look for His answer and figure out how does He propose to keep those "least commandments". Hopefully, there you can also realize what are those "least commanments" Jesus is talking about. Or do you want us to believe that all Christian message is in this small part of the Gospel?

[Ecowiz Returns]

Re: Ecowiz

Originally posted by Logical Realist
All the following example on the NT show that Jesus is above the Law. Not people in general. The Golden Rule and such are just add ons.

Wrong!!!
And the quote you posted after this little post just disproves you!
The Golden rule cannot be an add on for two reasons:
1- The context in which it is presented: Jesus presents it, along with the First Commanment, as a synthesis of the Law and the Prophets.
2- It would simply be in contradiction with some of the rulings, if they were to be accepted as something other than dated precepts. Those rullings are, in my opinion, the first bureaucratic experience known to humankind!

Originally posted by Logical Realist
You state that God's morality comes from his Love and Omniscience.

OK, but again God just made morality that way. It's still ultimately based on his omnipotence, had God simply chosen to base morality on hate...that would have been just as easy for him.

Is it OK? Really?
Finally!!!
And you're right. It would be just as easy for a Omnipotent God to make it allright to hate, wouldn't it?
But then, would He be a Loving God?
I think not.

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Also look here: You're asking me to judge your morality as good, when God is the only standard of good. In your system God automatically equals good. In that way I would not be able to judge God as anything but good by definition. That's rigging the game.

It's still God just made things up out of nothing. An omnibenevolent or omniscient being who makes things up; is still just making things up.

Now we agree!
The main point and problem is to believe all four assumptions are true. All the rest derive from them. But believing in that, with no such thing as a strong physical evidence isn't called Logic, it is called Faith. Christians have it, so it is easy, for us to believe all that follows. You, on the other hand don't have it, so it is much more difficult, I assume.
The only thing I offer you to ponder is "What if it was true, and such a God existed?". "Wouldn't it be great?"

Now returning to your first point.
It is not Christian doctrine that an a-Christian moral is structurally a-moral or imoral. Otherwize, we wouldn't have Ecumenism or gatherings of religious leaders sponsored by the Pope, would we?

However oficial Catholic doctrine still points to a certain superiority over other religions. This much is, AFAIC, a point open to (internal) debate.

There is also, among those that assume some kind of trascendent existence the feeling that a strictly materialistic morallity will be insuficient. To be honest, in this particular point a assume myselt the same difficulty I suppose you have when dealing wiht a Christian framework. I have some dificulty in imagining what would be the pilars of a strictly materialistic morallity.

Can you help me on that?

[Ecowiz Returns]

Originally posted by MacTBone
Those are some interesting points you bring up. Some of them directly relate to what St. Augustine grappled with.

If God is omnipotent, and God is omnibenevolent, then why is there evil at all? Since God is all together good, and God is all powerful, he would not only wish to not have evil, he would have the power (omnipotentcy) to get rid of it.

The usual response to your question, which actually satisfies me is that, because God loves Humans, He granted us the gift of being able to choose our actions. For some reason (some say, in order to help us understand what is good and what is not), that right of choice entitle us to do evil. The point here is not that He couldn't avoid evil, is that he allowed His loved limited Sons and Daughters to have free will. Evil doings would, then, be bound to happen. As so many times we see happening, evil is many times performed out of twisted (therefore limited) perceptions of what is good and what is wrong.

Originally posted by MacTBone
BTW, what do you think about God killing thousands of people at various times and handing out the commandment "Thou shallt not kill"?

Christians believe we are, All, Sons and Daughters of God, through Christ. So we tend to disregard much of the claims that Israel's victories were God's workings. We accept that kind of interpretation of the facts from the Hebrews because they thought they were The Chosen People. Because those that wrote the Old Testament were Jews, it is accepted by Christians that they would describe their victories as the workings of God. We, nowadays Christians do not agree that War can be one of God's workings but, in the best of the hypothesis, an aftermath of some evildoings performed by some of us. Some centuries ago, however, there was something about a Holy War, of sorts but, this is but one of the many mistakes the Catholic Church has having the oportunity of ponder.
That much comes to say that, for Christian doctrine (as far as my Paroch's preacher this last Sunday goes, at least) it was not God that killed the people, those thousands times you mention.