For TheBorg,
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2016, 11:33 PM (This post was last modified: 31-08-2016 11:51 PM by true scotsman.)
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 09:35 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(31-08-2016 11:32 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  ... But surely some other theists have read it. So we need to allow more time. Surely if theist can make this distinction on the basis of theism's own premises, they would not withhold this information. If this question were asked obout my philosophy, I'd be eager to answer. It's just that there aren't many theists on here, I'm sure.

I read your OP but I didn’t understand a word of it. If you want me to address your OP, you'll have to dumb it down a lot more than you already tried to do. Confused

This is a problem. This is your worldview's most fundamental premise and you don't understand it. The words metaphysical subjectivism might sound confusing but the issue is very simple. the view that the universe was created by an act of consciousness, is maintained by an act of consciousness and can be altered by an act of consciousness assumes metaphysical subjectivism. That theism does this is undeniable. The distinction between the real and the imaginary only obtains on the basis of metaphysical objectivism, the view that things exist independent of anyone's conscious actions such as wishing, wanting, liking, praying, believing, hoping, etc. I don't know that I can dumb it down any more than this. Your worldview takes a position on this issue that is incompatible with the basis for the distinction between the real and the imaginary. So the question is, given theism's inherent subjectivism how does a theist make that distinction, a distinction which is foundational to truth, logic, knowledge and reason while staying consistent with theism's fundamental premise.

You claim that it is not your position that wanting, wishing, desiring or hoping for something will make it true. This contradicts theism's base. Do you accept what your worldview holds or do you deny it? Can you be consistent with theism's foundation?

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-08-2016, 11:40 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 10:49 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Unwordsalad that question, please.

Sure. Does "wishing make things so" or does wishing not make things so? Is consciousness the faculty that perceives that which exists or the faculty that creates that which exists. Theism holds that existence conforms to consciousness. It takes the subjective view of reality. But the distinction between the real and the imaginary is only compatible with the view that "wishing doesn't make it so". So the question is, can a theist make this distinction while remaining consistent with what theism affirms at its foundation, subjectivism.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 12:45 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 09:35 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(31-08-2016 11:32 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  As long as you are willing to grant the possibility that a God exists, even though there is no alternative but the imagination if one tries to comprehend their God. We can't see it or perceive it in any way. We can't deduce it from any rationally informed premises. We can't infer it without trading in stolen concepts. What's left?

Correct. According to my religion, we cannot comprehend G-d. We can kind of sort of fathom aspects of G-d, but we’re really just a bunch of meat sacks whose opinions on the subject won’t matter in the long run anyway.

Think what you want.

Meat sack? Is that all we are on your view. Why bother even responding then. Are you saying that the distinction between what's real and what isn't doesn't matter? This is the only way I can understand what you've written here. If this is not your contention, please correct me.


(31-08-2016 02:58 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I'm certain that the claims of theism are false. I don't have to go so far, nor would I attempt, to prove that a god does not exist. If gods do not exist, there's no need to prove this. This would be asking me to step outside of existence to find evidence of a god's non existence. If something doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist.

Likewise, I don’t have to prove that G-d exists. Whether G-d does or does not exist, the deed is already done. Our believing it won’t change it.

This is true. You don't have to prove it so long as you do not affirm that those who do not believe as you do are irrational or foolish. But you see Aliza, many theists say that their beliefs are objectively true. They say that without their god, there would be no objective morality. They say that those who don't believe are irrational. When they say these things they must go outside of their worldview and borrow, or rather steal, concepts from an atheistic philosophy. On their own worldview's premises objectivity, truth, reason, logic, knowledge...these are all stolen concepts.

"Our believing it won't change it". Correct. That is because existence has metaphysical primacy, a view which theism denies.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 01:00 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 09:56 PM)Fireball Wrote:  I think I smell a dirty, wrinkled, stinky shriveled sock...

Yep. The syntax and grammar are similar.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 11:08 AM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2016 11:21 AM by Aliza.)
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 11:33 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(31-08-2016 09:35 PM)Aliza Wrote:  I read your OP but I didn’t understand a word of it. If you want me to address your OP, you'll have to dumb it down a lot more than you already tried to do. Confused
This is a problem. This is your worldview's most fundamental premise and you don't understand it. The words metaphysical subjectivism might sound confusing but the issue is very simple. the view that the universe was created by an act of consciousness, is maintained by an act of consciousness and can be altered by an act of consciousness assumes metaphysical subjectivism. That theism does this is undeniable. The distinction between the real and the imaginary only obtains on the basis of metaphysical objectivism, the view that things exist independent of anyone's conscious actions such as wishing, wanting, liking, praying, believing, hoping, etc. I don't know that I can dumb it down any more than this. Your worldview takes a position on this issue that is incompatible with the basis for the distinction between the real and the imaginary. So the question is, given theism's inherent subjectivism how does a theist make that distinction, a distinction which is foundational to truth, logic, knowledge and reason while staying consistent with theism's fundamental premise.

I didn’t understand it because I have no background in philosophy, but I think I get it now that you’ve explained it a little more. Yes, I believe the universe was created and is sustained by an act of consciousness.

(31-08-2016 11:33 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  You claim that it is not your position that wanting, wishing, desiring or hoping for something will make it true. This contradicts theism's base. Do you accept what your worldview holds or do you deny it? Can you be consistent with theism's foundation?

Yes, that’s my position. Wanting, wishing or hoping that G-d exists will not make it so any more than wishing will make a rock turn into a human. I don’t think this contradicts anything… It just seems like common sense to me. Just because I think that a consciousness did create the universe doesn’t mean that I think that consciousness transferred any power to me to wish and hope things into existence.

(31-08-2016 11:33 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  The distinction between the real and the imaginary only obtains on the basis of metaphysical objectivism, the view that things exist independent of anyone's conscious actions such as wishing, wanting, liking, praying, believing, hoping, etc.

I think we all agree that there are things we can experience with our five senses. We’d all agree that these things are real. Air is real, the trees in my backyard are real… I’d even go so far as to say that emotions are real because we all experience them even if we don’t experience the same ones or at the same times. The concept of hope is real. People do feel it. It’s the same for wanting, wishing, liking and praying. The act of praying and the emotional response it can give a person is real, but whether or not there’s a consciousness on the other end of the line to actually listen remains unknown to all of us.

(31-08-2016 11:33 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Your worldview takes a position on this issue that is incompatible with the basis for the distinction between the real and the imaginary.

But when I look at your worldview, I see the same being applied to you. We each have our own opinion on the realness (or lack thereof) of a G-d, and we’ve both based our conclusions on conjecture, not on facts that can be agreed upon by all of us. It is possible that you are imagining that there is no god even if one does exist. Neither of us is basing our conclusion on evidence.

(31-08-2016 11:33 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  So the question is, given theism's inherent subjectivism how does a theist make that distinction, a distinction which is foundational to truth, logic, knowledge and reason while staying consistent with theism's fundamental premise.

I don’t understand what truth and logic have to do with this. We don’t know the truth. Neither of us knows it and both of us are capable of arriving at our personal conclusions about the existence of G-d through a logical process. Whether we agree with the other's conclusions or not, the process used to arrive at them is logical.

Quote:This is true. You don't have to prove it so long as you do not affirm that those who do not believe as you do are irrational or foolish. But you see Aliza, many theists say that their beliefs are objectively true. They say that without their god, there would be no objective morality. They say that those who don't believe are irrational. When they say these things they must go outside of their worldview and borrow, or rather steal, concepts from an atheistic philosophy. On their own worldview's premises objectivity, truth, reason, logic, knowledge...these are all stolen concepts.

"Our believing it won't change it". Correct. That is because existence has metaphysical primacy, a view which theism denies.

You’re still using some big words in this passage, but the operative word that I’m zeroing in on is “many” theists (not all). If these theists say this, then you should do what I do and respectfully disagree. Now, if these theists are telling you that you must also believe this way, then… Well, that’s another matter entirely.

I do not do these things, and I’m unaware of my religion as a whole doing these things either. Yet, we are theists and we do believe that G-d created the universe. How exactly are we going outside of our worldview?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
01-09-2016, 11:43 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(01-09-2016 01:00 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(31-08-2016 09:56 PM)Fireball Wrote:  I think I smell a dirty, wrinkled, stinky shriveled sock...

Yep. The syntax and grammar are similar.

I too detect the odours of bullshit and cheesy smegma but am unable to place their point of origin, pray do enlighten me dear sirs, Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 11:56 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 11:40 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(31-08-2016 10:49 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Unwordsalad that question, please.

Sure. Does "wishing make things so" or does wishing not make things so? Is consciousness the faculty that perceives that which exists or the faculty that creates that which exists. Theism holds that existence conforms to consciousness. It takes the subjective view of reality. But the distinction between the real and the imaginary is only compatible with the view that "wishing doesn't make it so". So the question is, can a theist make this distinction while remaining consistent with what theism affirms at its foundation, subjectivism.

How do we know that our "consciousness" is the only kind there is? We can't wish or hope things into existence, but it's conceivable (to me at least) that there could be some higher type of consciousness that does have this power. I don't believe there is such a consciousness (hence my atheism), but I also don't believe that it's possible to be certain of this. A mole or a bat doesn't know what it is or means to "see", but that doesn't mean sight is impossible. The late philosopher Richard Taylor claimed that certainty regarding any metaphysical statement was a sure sign that you don't really understand that statement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 02:04 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
Thank you for all of your replies everyone. I'm in the middle of a very busy day and I just wanted to check in and say that I will respond to everyone later tonight. Business is booming and so I'm unable to spend much time today but wanted to let you know that I haven't left you hanging.

Robert

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
01-09-2016, 04:26 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 11:40 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(31-08-2016 10:49 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Unwordsalad that question, please.

Sure. Does "wishing make things so" or does wishing not make things so? Is consciousness the faculty that perceives that which exists or the faculty that creates that which exists. Theism holds that existence conforms to consciousness. It takes the subjective view of reality. But the distinction between the real and the imaginary is only compatible with the view that "wishing doesn't make it so". So the question is, can a theist make this distinction while remaining consistent with what theism affirms at its foundation, subjectivism.

Of course it's subjective. Theism requires faith. Faith cannot be proved empirically, so in that regard, a belief in a metaphysical is completely irrational.

If theism was objective, everyone would be a theist just like everyone believes in mammals. Theism wouldn't even be a concept just like doubting the existence of mammals isn't one.

No god can be proved empirically. It's impossible; therefore, the belief has to be subjective and rooted in irrational faith - something the Bible clearly states.

If a Christian says otherwise (not speaking for other religions), they haven't read their manual.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kingschosen's post
01-09-2016, 06:49 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(31-08-2016 10:52 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello! Big Grin

(31-08-2016 02:31 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  There was a time when the Caveman couldn't see or perceive the existence of the planet we now call Jupiter. What happened to be left was the fact that indeed it does exist.

*Nods* This is true/correct. Yes


(31-08-2016 02:31 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  An atheist who certainly is certain that a God could not exist commits the same error in thinking that a Christian makes about non-existence of evolution.

No, that statement is not correct. The two examples now given are not the same.

The cave-folk and their lack of skills knowledge is almost the opposite of a current person and the information available to them about evolution.

(31-08-2016 02:31 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  They both are overestimating their ability to perceive.

Um, I don't think they are and in a way it's not actually about 'perception'. Consider Though I may be wrong there.

(31-08-2016 02:31 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  There is merit in forming theories and laws based on scientific observations. There is danger in the belief that our observations are all encompassing, precluding the possibility of all other things because we can not observe it at this time.

Um, again, I don't actually think ow the method you're talking about is working/does work. Consider

Again, better educated people will come along and point out the differences better. Thumbsup


(31-08-2016 02:31 PM)Mr. Nobody Wrote:  To me it seems that only the Agnostic could hold the view of the primacy of existence. Being that for the Certain Atheist existence only extends to what we know to be true. Existence is determinant on knowledge, not an independently and inherent truth, whether we can perceive it or not.

No, again, I do not think this is a correct statement. If some one makes an actual claim about something... Then others can try and test the claim. Think about the claim in comparison to other things they know or have details about and see how this (Possibly) new claim fits in.

The current claims for any deity fail when compared to what we know of the reality around us.

However there is also the Theist point of view that the deity is some how 'Outside' our reality. This is great/wonderful...

Now, having moved their deity some 13 odd billion light years away and into the past, they have to adjust their claims as to the how said deity does anything current with IN this reality.

Much cheers to you. Thumbsup

Why aren’t you working Angry








Tongue

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Full Circle's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: