Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2016, 02:57 PM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 03:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(23-09-2016 02:46 AM)morondog Wrote:  That'd make their God too easy to disprove. And you can't test the limits of something which you don't know how to even tell if it's there.

My God is made of potato chips. He acts via the crunch sound when you eat them. His boundaries are producing delicious flavours.

Now favor is supernatural? Shocking

IS NOTHING NOT SACRED!? Angry
It's about the primacy of flavour. I've known some chilli chocolate that can move heaven and earth. A curry that can clear out your system. And a Chicken and leek stew with wine, thyme, cream and bacon that is to die for. If there was no flavour in the universe then what would be the point of living?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2016, 02:58 PM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 02:40 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(23-09-2016 02:23 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I would add that even those who do think deeply about philosophy tend to disagree with each other. And in this case, I disagree with True Scotsman. I have gone into some detail on this in another thread, but we continue to disagree. I don't wish to re-open that discussion (and it was going nowhere anyway), but I did want to point out that things are not necessarily as neat and simple as he says they are. "If you think philosophy is easy, you're not doing it." (I forget who said this, but I fully agree with it.)

I never said it was easy. But it is not all that difficult either. Heck I understand it and I'm not some genius. It just takes effort and thinking.

In my opinion, you have oversimplified it and convinced yourself that is simpler than it really is. It is also telling that what you claim to be "the most fundamental issue in philosophy" is rarely ever mentioned by any philosopher who is not an objectivist. I have two fairly comprehensive philosophical dictionaries, and none of the phrases or concepts of which you are so fond is to be found anywhere in either of them. If these ideas are so compelling, why have they only occurred to one philosopher (Ayn Rand) in the history of philosophy, and why has she been unable to get any other philosopher to take them seriously?

I have done fairly extensive reading in the philosophy of religion, and examined many different arguments (from both theists and atheists) for and against the existence of God. "The primacy of existence" has not been discussed or even mentioned by any of them. I have never heard of that phrase from anyone except you. How are all these great minds missing it if it's so fundamental?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2016, 03:09 PM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 02:58 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  "The primacy of existence" has not been discussed or even mentioned by any of them. I have never heard of that phrase from anyone except you. How are all these great minds missing it if it's so fundamental?

Come to think of it, neither have I. "Primacy of consciousness" either. But I knew what they meant anyway. Weird. Primacy of existence = materialism, primacy of consciousness = idealism (or maybe biocentrism). At least that's my read.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2016, 03:12 PM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 06:13 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Its the most fundamental issue in philosophy. In the relationship between a conscious subject and its objects which has primacy.
Well, I don't understand it.

(23-09-2016 06:13 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Do the objects of consciousness exist independently of consciousness
They seem to exist independant of my own consciousness and I can't see that other people are able to move things or pop things into existence via their thoughts.

But then again I only know about living creatures (the product of material existence and evolution on Earth). My knowledge of consciousness is very limited.

(23-09-2016 06:13 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  When we look at the world we find, without exception, that consciousness does not have primacy.
Yes, with regards to the only consciousness that we know of. That isn't to say:
1. There are other types of consciousness that we don't know of.
2. That the mechanism of action for a god is via consciousness only.

(23-09-2016 06:13 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  We also know that consciousness is consciousness of something as opposed to nothing.
I guess this is in a way the Information issue.
If there was nothing, there there is no data, without data there is no information, without information there is no knowledge. So how can a god be all knowing without there being any existence.

Also there is the problem of time.
How can a god make a thought or a decision, how can a god choose to create existence before time exists?

Also there is the problem of observation.
How can an unobservable god observe things without impacting them, without collapsing the function waves. If it observes then it must be observable.

Also the problem of faith.
Why would you need faith? How is that a virtue? A person that will believe without seeing, well they will believe in anything, which is what we call gullible. Teachers in science don't award points for faith, they reward efforts to find evidence. I am not egotistical such that I will get angry if a person half way around the world don't believe in my existence.

There are so many issues, to the nonsensical idea of gods, and yet, we can't discount because no-one has provided a sufficient definition. Once they bring it, then and only then can we evaluate. Until then we can ignore their nonsensical incomplete ramblings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
23-09-2016, 03:20 PM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 03:09 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-09-2016 02:58 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  "The primacy of existence" has not been discussed or even mentioned by any of them. I have never heard of that phrase from anyone except you. How are all these great minds missing it if it's so fundamental?

Come to think of it, neither have I. "Primacy of consciousness" either. But I knew what they meant anyway. Weird. Primacy of existence = materialism, primacy of consciousness = idealism (or maybe biocentrism). At least that's my read.

Right, materialism and idealism are old ideas that have been discussed at length -- without, to my knowledge, any consensus being formed. But this "primacy" stuff -- and the conviction that the "primacy of existence" is obvious "truth" -- comes straight from Ayn Rand, and I don't know of any philosopher who takes her seriously. I think of her as a third-rate hack novelist who dabbled in philosophy. I would hesitate to offer that opinion except that it seems to be shared by most serious philosophers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2016, 03:40 PM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2016 03:59 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 03:20 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(23-09-2016 03:09 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Come to think of it, neither have I. "Primacy of consciousness" either. But I knew what they meant anyway. Weird. Primacy of existence = materialism, primacy of consciousness = idealism (or maybe biocentrism). At least that's my read.

Right, materialism and idealism are old ideas that have been discussed at length -- without, to my knowledge, any consensus being formed.

I think the consensus is materialism. But it can't reject the arguments for idealism anymore than idealism can reject the arguments for materialism. I think the consensus is mainly because idealism is counterintuitive and more difficult for our monkey brains to grok.

(23-09-2016 03:20 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  But this "primacy" stuff -- and the conviction that the "primacy of existence" is obvious "truth" -- comes straight from Ayn Rand, ...

Yeah. I looked the origins up. Never studied Rand before but Objectivism seems to be merely an assertion that materialism is true using standard arguments. I wouldn't call it a philosophy.

(23-09-2016 03:20 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  ... and I don't know of any philosopher who takes her seriously.

I took a minor in philosophy and she never came up. And by never came up I mean there was nothing about her anywhere in the uni philosophy curriculum.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
23-09-2016, 04:19 PM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
I mean, I first learned about her from vidijya game articles and read up from there.

And I also was had a minor in philosophy... well I didn't graduate but took bushels of courses. Though I did notice her big following seeing a reader poll from 2000 had her books in the top ten of their voted best 20th century books... dialectics by Hubbard was up high too amusingly. Though when I've read some of her philosophy texts, not the novels, it seemed too assumption making opposed to doing the typical proofing or attempting earning of a claim work in a philosophy text.

But regards to potential god/deity/prime mover type forces I've not been fond of only accepting others concepts to merely be about a consciousness or consciousness creator. It may as well stoll be ideas people have of energy or pantheistic ideas that would make no relevance or difference if it existed or not.

But I don't equate understanding no relevance to definitive knowledge about the subject.

Why must I be Ladd? via da Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2016, 06:56 AM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 02:58 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(23-09-2016 02:40 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  I never said it was easy. But it is not all that difficult either. Heck I understand it and I'm not some genius. It just takes effort and thinking.

In my opinion, you have oversimplified it and convinced yourself that is simpler than it really is. It is also telling that what you claim to be "the most fundamental issue in philosophy" is rarely ever mentioned by any philosopher who is not an objectivist. I have two fairly comprehensive philosophical dictionaries, and none of the phrases or concepts of which you are so fond is to be found anywhere in either of them. If these ideas are so compelling, why have they only occurred to one philosopher (Ayn Rand) in the history of philosophy, and why has she been unable to get any other philosopher to take them seriously?

I have done fairly extensive reading in the philosophy of religion, and examined many different arguments (from both theists and atheists) for and against the existence of God. "The primacy of existence" has not been discussed or even mentioned by any of them. I have never heard of that phrase from anyone except you. How are all these great minds missing it if it's so fundamental?

I couldn't make it any more simple than it is if I tried. And yes I am convinced that it is true. Do you realize that existence and consciousness are the two most fundamental concepts. Maybe most other philosophers Don't mention it because they are all committed to a subjective view of reality. Post modern philosophers deny the existence of an objective reality so why would they recognize the primacy of existence. And it is not true that no other philosophers take it seriously. A growing number are taking it seriously. David Kelly, Peter Schwartz, Ankar Ghate, Harry Binswanger, Andrew Berstein and Leonard Piekoff take it seriously and they are all credentialed, serious philosophers.

"I have done fairly extensive reading in the philosophy of religion, and examined many different arguments (from both theists and atheists) for and against the existence of God. "The primacy of existence" has not been discussed or even mentioned by any of them."

That's fine but irrelevant. My argument nowhere hinges on what some unnamed philosophers mention or discuss. So my argument stands unrefuted.

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
24-09-2016, 06:59 AM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 02:45 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(23-09-2016 02:38 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It's really sad that these ideas seem to be abstruse. They are really very simple to grasp. If you want abstruse read Kant. I realize that the average person doesn't want to think deeply but this is the thinking atheist and I have come to think of most here as a cut above the average guy. Quite a cut above.

Hehehe. Lemme polish my halo Tongue Well, I read it and I thought I understood it and I even found it convincing. But I'm not someone who needs to be convinced of this. If you're debating a theist they're gonna come with a lot of baggage, chief among which is the idea that you are of the devil and are seeking actively to bamboozle them. Anything which starts with the words "Given theism's commitment to metaphysical subjectivism (the primacy of consciousness)" is definitely doomed.

Also, I had to read a lot before I even got what the heck you were talking about. That's why the debate tends to be rather more concrete. The Bible says X, we observe Y, X and Y are mutually exclusive. And *still* the real twits manage to find ways to convince themselves that they're right in the face of all contradictory evidence.

Well my experience has been that theist don't debate very long when confronted by this issue. They rarely go more than a couple of exchanges before they give up. And it is obvious from the evasiveness they exhibit that they do understand the issue and do see it as a legitimate threat. Just look at TheBorg's performance for an example.

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
24-09-2016, 07:01 AM
RE: Seeking Help re: "Logic" and (Strong) Atheism
(23-09-2016 03:09 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-09-2016 02:58 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  "The primacy of existence" has not been discussed or even mentioned by any of them. I have never heard of that phrase from anyone except you. How are all these great minds missing it if it's so fundamental?

Come to think of it, neither have I. "Primacy of consciousness" either. But I knew what they meant anyway. Weird. Primacy of existence = materialism, primacy of consciousness = idealism (or maybe biocentrism). At least that's my read.

No, the primacy of existence does not equate to materialism.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: