The Solipsist's God

[David Floyd]

LR, I think you missed my post, second from the top on this page

[mactbone]

Don't worry DF, all the Christians missed my post

[devilmunchkin]

mac: lr is a christian hater. lol. perhaps that's being strong...but seriously..he can go on and on and one and one about this stuff.

as for mr. realist and the rest of you: how can you even keep track of what is being said. this whole thread is filled with jargon to the point where my eyes cross. perhaps, before you continue ripping each others throats out, you should get a clear set of base definitions to work from and then...have at it.

[mactbone]

You must've missed my point, it was based on Socrate's work, where he is brought before the jury and does not understand how anyone could purposely do evil, it just doesn't fit in with his concepts.

[devilmunchkin]

mac..gotcha.....
i will have to unravel the brains of LR to figure out of this assertion is true. gimme time!

[Logical Realist]

Axiomic relativism

Ramo: (on self-refuting subjectivism):

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.

That is a sort of relativism in which all belief is assumption. Again this faces the problem of all such systems in that it is impossible to prove and as such a matter of faith. If proven it is self-refuting and as such is absurd. You say its all assumption...that's nice now prove THAT without making "assumptions". Such a viewpoint leads to nothing but confusion and is brought on by a confusion of two things.

1) All beliefs and standards begin at a certain starting points.

2) All these starting points are equally true assumption.

People who assume such a foundational relatavist viewpoint think that by proving claim 1; they've proven claim 2. When in reality there is a big difference. Just because all beliefs are begin with certain axioms(starting points) it does not follow that all axioms are equally true and arbitrary assumptions.

Thus while I admit point 1, I reject point 2 as self-refuting and unporvable. To admit point 2 one would have to say that the Law of Noncontradiction is an "assumption" and hence that 2+2 can = 14, in which case the very idea of point 2 itself becomes that of mere opinion. To be more explicit, if point 2 were ever proven or accepted: its opposite (that all starting points(axioms) are nt equal) can be accepted at the same trime. That to me is aburd and hence to be rejected by any logical system and is hence an unproven matter of faith.

Rogan Josh:

I agree that this would be an assumption. But I never said this point of view was true, so I make no assumption. I am only saying that it may be true, and you cannot disprove it.

See above for the disprove. I have shown how your viewpoint is contradictory. That is disproof.

Now you say that my argument does not apply because you aren't saying that your viewpoint is necessarily true, however you don't have to say it. For I am saying that your viewpoint cannot be true and is automatically to be considered false(and disproven) in logic.

This is because the subjectivist options are this:

Either subjectivism is true, in which case there is no truth or falsehood. In which case both objectivism and subjectivism are true at the same time(cause if there is no right or wrong, objectivism cannot be wrong). This is contradictory. And hence false in logic.

or

Subjectivism is false. In which case we should just ditch it.

Such a disproof is known as reducing your argument to absurdity. It means that one disproves your claim by assuming its true and seeing if applied constistently it leads to absurdities(contradictions and such.) If it does lead to absurdity(as subjectivism clearly does) then it is disproven. Since to be illogical is what it means to be disproven. Such a method is among the oldest and most valid ways of disproving a given claim and has been around as long as logic itself.

To say that a given claim has not been disproven after that claim has been reduced to absurd, is to discard the very standards of proof altogether. You are at that point asking me to "disprove" your claim while expecting me to abandon ALL standards of proof. Of curse such a task is impossible. That's like saying "show me without having me actually use my eyes" or actually see the thing. Now does that mean your statement was not "disproven"...no. It means that you will not accept the disproof. Just like I don't have to accept that I'm actually seeing what I'm seeing.

How do you know that rocks and bricks exist? Maybe they are mere artifacts of your brain?

Before you said "everything is subjective" now you're saying everything "might be" subjective.

I "know" rocks and bricks exist because I can see them. Now you ask "how do I know they exist objectively"? I know this because objectivism is more logical then subjectivism and logic is a way of "knowing". Also because rocks and bricks do not behave in ways that one would expect them to if they were imagined. I cannot for example lift them up with my mind as I could an imaginary object. They're behavious also tends to be uniform, and predictable, while dream or imaginary objects tend to behave in very arbitrary non-causal ways.

In any sense I was not saying that I knew they existed objectively. I didn't know the existence of bricks and rocks ws under debate. You seem to assume they exist, and under such an assumption: I was asking if they were subjective? Obviously the answer is no.

I don't understand your reasoning here. How can me having a point of view contradict the idea that everyone has a different view of reality?

I'll explain. You are not saying that people just have different views of reality but that these different viewpoints ARE reality. That's what subjectivism is. And in subjectivism all point of views are true.

Now what if my point of view is that subjectivism is false and that objectivism is true?

According to the subjectivist viewpoint my antisubjectivist claim would be just as true as the subjectivist one...that situation would be contradictory, asburd and hence disproven. If disproven it is wrong.

Hence the subjectivist viewpoint IF true(in which case its opposite is true) leads to contradictions. It is then wrong. Notice I say IF true, meaning even if claimed to be true or not.

The only alternative to "if it being true" is "If it is false" such a position contains no contradictions and is hence more logical. There must be some absolute,objective, rules . That is necessary. NOw whether or not a given specific object, is objective or subjective is determined by more specific emprirical standards. Whether or not what we see is part of the "objective world" or made up is questionable and only probable. That there is an objective world is logically absolute, that the given one we see is objective is questionable and contextual. In either case subjectivism cannot be true. In that case standards must be set up empirically(by observation and ostensible definitions).

Quantum Quackery? Quantum mechanics has been around for nearly a cerntuary and is perfectly well understood.

I am not questioning the truth of Quantum Mechanics but your interpretation and extension of it to all areas of philosophy.

The point here is that in the quantum theory the quantity which you are measuring often has no value until you measure it, and someone else measuring exactly the same thing in exactly the same way as you could get a completely different answer purely because the wavefunction collapses differently and he picks out a different eigenvalue. Therefore quantum mechnics is subjective in the sense that no single quantum event is reproducable. In experiment, only large statistical distributions are measured, which can be predicted

This whole thing of which you speak has many explanations offered to explain why this happens, none of them definitive and very few subjectivist. There are recognized limits to Quantum Mechanics, like the fact that no Quantum observations have been superluminal(faster then light) and hence are limited by physical laws.

Like I said though there is no definitive theory for why Quantum Mechanical observations like light wave collapses, happen as they do. There are both subjectivist and materialist explanations offered but no one seems to be proven yet. Thus the whole subjectivist position remains a topic in philosophy that must stand on its own merits. Not one's borrowed by Quantum Mechanics.

No. Are you claiming that just because more than one person believes that the Canadian ice-skaters deserved gold it became an objective fact?

People believing this does not make it measurable. Notice though that I'm not saying that the inability to measure an object makes it subjective, only that the ability for many people to measure its affects does.

Your reality being specific only to you gives you no more power over it than you would have over an objective reality.

I believe it does. You going to say my belief is wrong?

No - I am saying that if the existence of an object is dependent on the observer then its reality is subjective (which is just a definition). This is true in quantum mechanics - the values which are being measured do not exist before the measurment is made. The state vector of the object is in a superposition of different state vectors which have different values for the observable. When the measurement is made, one of these state vectors is chosen (at random - though with fixed probabilities) and the object is no longer a superposition. of states (for the observable in question). The reality of the measurement is forced by the observer.

That is flawed reasoning in that you assume that since we only know the object exists when we see it, that our lack of knowledge equal a lack of existence. Hence if a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat and we don't know how he did it...must be the rabbit just "appeared" out of nowhere. Or that the rabbit only exists when we see it. The whole Schrodinger;'s Cat analofy comes up. (The whole analogy was a satire of Quantum Mechanical conclusions by the way). The values are not "known" until the measurement is made, they may exist but are not known. There is a difference between knwoing the value of something and an object having a value. Or the object's value changing with observation and the object not having a value. Obviously these object's are not superliminal so are limited in some way. To discard this is to discard logic and go by faith. In which case your theory is very,very weak especially when other more logical theories are available.

Not that your Quantum Mechancal theory was the first abuse of science. Every new branch of science or anamoly(unexplained event) is usually used to support some form of subjectivism or supernaturalism. This is nothing more then the argument from ignorance given a face lift. You are saying that since there is no objective explanation readily available...it must be subjective.

I will end by quoting Victor J. Stenger(professor of physics and astronomy) at the University of Hawaii on this abuse:

Quantum mechanics, the centerpiece of modern physics, is misinterpreted as implying that the human mind controls reality and that the universe is one connected whole that cannot be understood by the usual reduction to parts.

However, no compelling argument or evidence requires that quantum mechanics plays a central role in human consciousness or provides instantaneous, holistic connections across the universe. Modern physics, including quantum mechanics, remains completely materialistic and reductionistic while being consistent with all scientific observations.

The apparent holistic, nonlocal behavior of quantum phenomena, as exemplified by a particle's appearing to be in two places at once, can be understood without discarding the commonsense notion of particles following definite paths in space and time or requiring that signals travel faster than the speed of light.

No superluminal motion or signalling has ever been observed, in agreement with the limit set by the theory of relativity. Furthermore, interpretations of quantum effects need not so uproot classical physics, or common sense, as to render them inoperable on all scales-especially the macroscopic scale on which humans function. Newtonian physics, which successfully describes virtually all macroscopic phenomena, follows smoothly as the many-particle limit of quantum mechanics. And common sense continues to apply on the human scale.

[Logical Realist]

BTW DF

DF, I didn't missed your points. Your points were in fact the last one's I criticized. Though I didn't make that clear as I should have. My apologized and the error has been corrected.

[Logical Realist]

On the Christians

EcoWiz:

Is that really the question? I though the question was that Christian morality is based on the existence of a more powerfull entity which, whether right or wrong, simply imposes her rules by force. I'm trying to demonstrate that the reasoning you present as Christian is not the Christian reasoning.

Here you totally evaded the issue. I'm asking if morality is defined by "correcr behavior" what then is correct behavior?

Look, when the religious belief is that God is All Knowing, therefore certainly much more knowledgable than all human Sages put togheter, things end up seeming pretty much arbitrary.
However, a Omniscient God does not invent anything: invention entail discouvery and discouvery requires that a priori you don't have the knowledge - but then, you wouldn't be omniscient, would you?

Here you're confusing many things:

You seem to at one moment posit that morality is something that exists without God or uncreated by God. And that God in his Omnsicience discovered this morality where manind could not. Such a theory deserves its own criticism and is not what I'm talking about in my post.

What I'm talking about is the Christian view that the universe without God loses morality...is naturally amoral. In this view God is just pushing his arbitrary dictums on humanity by means of using his strength.

In this view "morals" are just what God makes up. That's what I'm criticizing.

Now you say "Christianity doesn't say this" but then what about the test of Abraham? All the immoral things that later on became moral? About how the universe without God HAS no morals...not ignorant of morals...has no morals. That God is where all morals come from. Expressed ultimately, that without God, its all relativism. Now I ask...how does this change with God? The only significant difference over manknd here, that would make his "opinion" better then ours in this matter is his power.

See if it was just a matter of God being smarter, then morality would not just become opinion without God. There would still be right and wrong, we'd just be too stupid to figure out what right and wrong is. But that's not what is said. Christians say that without God "there is no morality". Meaning that morality is based on God's power. Heaven and hell. That what keeps mankind moral is "fear of hell" sounds like power is running it to me. And also in Christianity Gods word=morality by definition. Again that sounds like power is running it, as if that's true;if God says to rape, then rape becomes moral. If it was intellect then God's word wouldn't always be moral, in which case the atrocities in the Bible can be questioned.

As far as I see what you seem to be saying then, in a way, is that iots not the power of God that makes his rules moral. But God's intellect, in which case morality is determined by who is smartest. Still sounds like a dictatorship to me.

Your statement that all secular societies "borrowed" their morality from religion is unproven. Greek society also did not change because it died out, so your comparison to the Catholic Church is kind of unfair. Also even though it had slaves, it still had morals, some immorality on its part does not negate morality as a whole.

Also as for the Catholic's immoral behavior changing. I find it odd how the Chruch dedicated to preserving Christianity and studying the Bible would misinterpret the scripture for almost a thousand years.

As for the Mosiac law commanding that one stone a child, here it is:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son.... bring him unto the elders of his city.... And all the men of the city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you..."

[Ramo]

That is a sort of relativism in which all belief is assumption.

Bingo.

[quote]Again this faces the problem of all such systems in that it is impossible to prove and as such a matter of faith.

If proven it is self-refuting and as such is absurd.

The assertion is a logical structure, and as such, relies implicitly on the rules of logic.

A system is not logically false unless it's self-contradicting. Any such system is perfectly logically valid.

I could say that what your life is in fact a simulation, and that nothing you interact with exists outside of a computer. That's as perfectly valid as the assertion that you are a real human being, and the objects that you interact with are real.

You say its all assumption...that's nice now prove THAT without making "assumptions".

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

Such a viewpoint leads to nothing but confusion and is brought on by a confusion of two things.

Why am I getting the feeling that you're making this much more complex than it needs to be?

1) All beliefs and standards begin at a certain starting points.

Yep, that's what I'm saying.

2) All these starting points are equally true assumption.

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

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

Evidence?

[quote]When in reality there is a big difference. Just because all beliefs are begin with certain axioms(starting points) it does not follow that all axioms are equally true and arbitrary assumptions.

To admit point 2 one would have to say that the Law of Noncontradiction is an "assumption"

And it is.

and hence that 2+2 can = 14, in which case the very idea of point 2 itself becomes that of mere opinion.

These characters aren't inherently meaningful, and algebraic statements aren't inherently true or false. They gain truth only with assumptions (for example, how is the addition of real numbers defined?).

To be more explicit, if point 2 were ever proven or accepted: its opposite (that all starting points(axioms) are nt equal) can be accepted at the same trime.

Why?

Before you said "everything is subjective" now you're saying everything "might be" subjective.

RJ is saying that they "might be" another interpretations. In other words, that the interpretations are subjective.

(The whole analogy was a satire of Quantum Mechanical conclusions by the way)

Just the Probabilistic interpretation (Schrodinger, like Einstein, being among the proponants of the Deterministic interpretation, which died out half a century ago).

The values are not "known" until the measurement is made, they may exist but are not known.

The values don't exist until you collapse the wave function. That's why the values may be different, depending on the observer.

To discard this is to discard logic and go by faith. In which case your theory is very,very weak especially when other more logical theories are available.

To stick with classical logic theories despite experimentation to the contrary is to go by faith.

I will end by quoting Victor J. Stenger(professor of physics and astronomy)

It might be prudent to point out that RJ is also a professor of physics.

[Logical Realist]

Ramo....

Your post totally skips over what my point was.

I'll try to explain it better, on 2, if all assumptions are equal, then my assumption, "that all assumptions are not equal" would have to be equal to that.

Me:quote:
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>
You say its all assumption...that's nice now prove THAT without making "assumptions".
<http://apolyton.net/b.gif>


Ramo:

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

Yes I asked you to prove that assumptions are the rules of logic. Your comment there in no way proved that.

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

Well then are you saying that asumptions are not equal?This shouldn't be too hard to figure out but I'll help you.

By "equally true" the person who said 2 is saying "all assumptions are equal" there is a big gap between claim 1 and claim 2.

Evidence?

If it's all assumption then there is no evidence. You say all belief is unwarranted assumption, then ask for evidence as a standard.

And it is.

-(On me saying that the law of noncontradiction is posited as an assumption in the subjectivist viewpoint

And it isn't. According to you my claim is equal to yours.

These characters aren't inherently meaningful, and algebraic statements aren't inherently true or false. They gain truth only with assumptions (for example, how is the addition of real numbers defined?).

Ostensibly. And yes they have inherit meaning as symbols that represent quantities.

Then again though, the above statement was just an assumptions anyways, as is that statement, as is the statement that the prior statement was an assumption in your system according to you.

Just the Probabilistic interpretation (Schrodinger, like Einstein, being among the proponants of the Deterministic interpretation, which died out half a century ago).

The deterministic interpretation has always been the more logical of the two. Then again he above is just your assumption...perhaps there is no Quantum Mehcanics. Your just assuming there is...and that it proves something. If its all assumption then its ALL assumption.

To stick with classical logic theories despite experimentation to the contrary is to go by faith.

Actually that is to go by reason. To ditch logic in order to embrace a given interpretation is to go by faith.

The values don't exist until you collapse the wave function.

Question begging. How do you know they don't exist? Maybe they do without you knowing.

It might be prudent to point out that RJ is also a professor of physics.

Like I said phycisists disagree on the issue as many physicists are as succeptible to idealogical irrationalism as the rest of us. The fact that a physicists disagrees with RJ maybe shows that Quantum Mechanics is not as definitevely pro-subjectivist as he would have us believe.

[loinburger]

I've seen this before!

A thread containing many huge posts, many of which deal with an opponent's quoted posts on a point-by-point basis... Ramo and Urban Ranger... arguments as to the subjectivity or objectivity of logical frameworks...

I knew I'd seen this before somewhere. Glad that LR is taking up the mantle, even if he has brought an anti-Christian taint to the argument...

All we need now is MORON to make the thread complete. Wiglaf might make an acceptable substitute, though.

[connorkimbro]

The answer is, it doesn't; not really. In reality it just puts one being's opinion higher than another, something that the Christian said was already impossible.

Not necessarily. Most intelligent christians would argue the following: That God does not arbitrarily decide what is a sin, and what is not a sin, but that a thing is a sin because it is contrary to his nature, IE, even God himself could not be any other way. For example, because God is honest, lying is a sin. Given that, they'd still have to show that each and every sin is based on God's nature, and NOT arbitrary . . . my only contribution is that it is not NECESSARILY arbitrary or based on the "opinion" of a higher being.


Reading the rest of your post, this pretty much answers the rest of it as well.

My apologies if I repeat what's been said, I only have read the initial post so far.

[loinburger]

Here's a can of worms...

I don't recall seeing this answered elsewhere on the thread, and if it has then I apologize in advance:

How do we know that God is Good? Even if we grant that there is a God, and that He is omniscient (and therefore has perfect knowledge what is Good and what is Evil), how do we know for certain that He is going to tell us the truth?

This is especially important if it is assumed that God created both Good and Evil; if it is assumed otherwise, then it must also be explained how God can be omnipotent despite the fact that Evil was brought into the universe without his consent by an independent entity or force. This is a different can of worms altogether, though; my primary concern is with the first question.

[connorkimbro]

Re: Here's a can of worms...

Originally posted by loinburger
I don't recall seeing this answered elsewhere on the thread, and if it has then I apologize in advance:

How do we know that God is Good? Even if we grant that there is a God, and that He is omniscient (and therefore has perfect knowledge what is Good and what is Evil), how do we know for certain that He is going to tell us the truth?

This is especially important if it is assumed that God created both Good and Evil; if it is assumed otherwise, then it must also be explained how God can be omnipotent despite the fact that Evil was brought into the universe without his consent by an independent entity or force. This is a different can of worms altogether, though; my primary concern is with the first question.

Very interesting questions, both of them. Let me point out that I'm an Atheist, just to clear up any confusion, and now let me posit an answer.

1) By correctly percieving the nature of what we presume God has created, we can correctly know his nature. We see that nature is non-contradictory. Therefore we know that the God that created nature is non-contradictory. We see that existance exists. We know therefore that creation, not destruction is God's nature. Given these two, God can only be creative in nature not destructive.

From whence comes evil then? Not from God, but rather from corruption of what God has made by an independant will. God, having granted free will to entities other than himself, allowed evil to come about, without sanctioning it and without contradicting his nature. However, this evil DOES contradict his nature, and thus cannot be allowed to continute to exist. Thus God "destroying" evil isn't acting against his nature, but rather keeping himself, and his creation, non-contradictory in nature.


Granted, there are some leaps, and some assumptions there, but that's a rather streamlined version of a possible answer. . .

[loinburger]

Originally posted by connorkimbro
By correctly percieving the nature of what we presume God has created, we can correctly know his nature.

Assuming that we can correctly and fully perceive the nature of what we presume God has created, this still fails to determine God's intent. Perhaps God created the universe out of His infinite Goodness, perhaps He created it as a parlor trick (in other words, for ****s and giggles), or maybe He gains sustenance by eating the souls of worshippers after they die. Without knowing God's intent, it is not possible to determine His ethical alignment solely from His actions.