Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

The Refutation of the ontological arguement.

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 11:18:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The fundamental problem here is the human predicament.:(I am not speaking post modernly.)
The fact that everything we think and say is within a human frame work. We may claim we may declare all kinds of divinities but we can jump of are humanistic understanding.
Remember, you could never escape your mind. Even when we speak of the natural world, we do so from in our mind, all our information is pre-process through the mind. A bunch of senses, laying about need to be organized so they can be coherent.
But that means so are all of our ideas. That is why we could never we prove god from or own definitions, they will always be constructs of our ideas. Even if such an argument worked we would only be proving our ideas of a god that exist. No matter what we do, we could never have a prior conception of god, it will always be an idea in our mind which we label as god. A contradiction is the limit or human capacity to know. That is the only indicator of false hood.
Proof: everybody claims to have theory of the truth, but as theory could never be the truth, for the truth is absolute and the absolute alone is the truth.(Hegal) we don't have a say in the truth, it is the truth that determines us. We cannot determine it, nore can we get rid of it. No matter how much we declare there is no truth, we refute ourselves every attempt we make. For we depend on it even to declared it not true. And similarly what I declare must be true for it to be false. As you see, not matter how hard we try we will always be refuted by the truth for we always just end up with falsehood.
But there is one thing about truth we know absolutely. And that is the truth=truth
For let that be THE LAW OF TRUTH. That it is the necessary condition of truth is that it must be itself.
And a contradiction is that very violation thus it is not true, false. For to say it is not. Is really a short form for the idea" that it IS the case, that it IS NOT the case. Let A be the case which is said to be true. If it is not the case(contradiction) then it must be false. Then (A&~A) That is all we got as humans.
Who in their argument for god has been able to demonstrate leaving the human mind. What does it mean to be you if there is no mind to know something?

"come now, I will tell you--- and bring away my story safely when you have heard it--- the only ways of inquiry are to think: the one, that it is and that it is not possible for it not to be, the path of Truth, the other, that it is not and the necessary for it not to be, this I point out to you to be a path completely unlearnable, for neither may you know that which is not, nor may you declare it." Parmenides of Elea 500 BCE
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 4:20:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yay , Nah? or just say hey !
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 4:44:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I would say ya or nay or hey but, I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say.

I do have a question: is English your second language? I hope you are not insulted by the question; it certainly was not meant as such. It's just that this would explain my difficulty in understanding what you're trying to say.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 4:55:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 4:44:08 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
I would say ya or nay or hey but, I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say.

I do have a question: is English your second language? I hope you are not insulted by the question; it certainly was not meant as such. It's just that this would explain my difficulty in understanding what you're trying to say.

No I, do have a problem missing letter, sometime missing a word. I read it myself because I know what I am saying I still tend to miss it. But it good critism to let me know how interpretable it is(I am multi-lingual though). I tend to miss critical links that fill in the gap from the audience. But let me know.. it is here to critic. so I can see if there are any things I missed. you could say its like a science experiment. which I refine my idea over time.. I think this one is mint though.. I may write a clearer version.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 5:06:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So let me get it straight: you are saying that the human experience starts and ends between one's ears, right?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 5:19:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I am writing a more refined version now. give me a sec
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2012 5:56:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The refute of the ontological argument. V 1.1

The fundamental problem of the the ontological argument is the human predicament.

The fact that everything we think and say is within a human framework. We may claim we may declare all kinds of divinities but we can jump of are humanistic understanding.

Remember, you could never escape your mind. Even when we speak of the natural world, we do so from within our minds, all are information is pre-processed through the mind. We do not see a lot, such as magnetism, radiation from our cell phones and other wireless networks.
A bunch of senses simply lying about are useless if the information is not organized into one coherent mind. To form experiences and complex ideas, they must be unified.

Because we could never get out of our own minds, we just forget and take it for granted that we are seeing exactly what is in front of us.

Thus when we define god, we are just synthesizing, our mental conceptions that we already have. So any definitions that we construct a priori (Before experiencing something) will always be made up of the ideas within are minds!! Other ideas may come from experiences.

For example it would be virtually impossible for a child to construct in their imagination a unicorn, for they must at least seen a horse, wings and horn. For a horse and all its fine curvature, is way too complex in relation to apriority principles alone. Here are some self-evident principles of mind. (don't get over whelmed its just to get an example for what I am talking about. . )

Laws(true=true)
Relations(logic and associations)
Quantity(magnitude)
Action (mathematical quantifiers)
Sensations: (hierarchal category)
Emotions (motivation and satisfaction)
Space (locational):
Visual conceptualizations:
Sound conceptualizations:
Smell conceptualizations:
Taste conceptualization:
Tactical conceptualization:


Even if such an argument worked we would only be proving our ideas of a god that exist. No matter what we do, we could never have a prior conception of god, it will always be an idea in our mind which we label as god. A contradiction is the limit or human capacity to know. That is the only indicator of false hood.

Proof: Everybody claims to have theory of the truth, but as theory could never be the truth, for the truth is absolute and the absolute alone is the truth. Hegel we don't have a say in the truth, it is the truth that determines us. We cannot determine it, nor can we get rid of it. No matter how much we declare there is no truth, we refute ourselves every attempt we make. For we depend on it even to declare. And similarly what I declare must be true for it to be false. As you see, not matter how hard we try we will always be refuted by the truth, into contradiction.

"come now, I will tell you--- and bring away my story safely when you have heard it--- the only ways of inquiry are to think: the one, that it is and that it is not possible for it not to be, the path of Truth, the other, that it is not and the necessary for it not to be, this I point out to you to be a path completely unlearnable, for neither may you know that which is not, nor may you declare it." Parmenides of Elea 500 BCE

But there is one thing about truth we know absolutely. And that is the truth=truth
For let his be a LAW OF TRUTH. That it is the necessary condition of truth is that it must be itself.

And a contradiction is that very violation, thus it is not true, which of course is false. For to say it is not. Is really a short form for the idea" that it IS the case, that it IS NOT the case.

Let A be the case which is said to be true. If it is not the case (contradiction) then it must be false. Thus (A&~A) is always false. In the very same way A-A=0 for this is always true in the summation of opposites.

That is we could never know nothing because it's not there, all we are saying really is a contradiction when we try.

Who in their argument for god has been able to demonstrate leaving the human mind? What does it mean to be you if there is no mind to know something?

"It always remains a scandal of philosophy and universal human reason that the existence of things outside us ... should have to be assumed merely on faith, and that if it occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be unable to answer him with a satisfactory proof."[3]" Immanuel Kant

We can work around it. For let physical world be that atmosphere from which I perceive my sense information.

The Fool: it's a hard game because the more complex I explain it, the harder it is for my audience to understand it. And people not practiced in philosophical argument don't apply principle of charity.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 4:18:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/8/2012 5:56:16 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Remember, you could never escape your mind. Even when we speak of the natural world, we do so from within our minds, all are information is pre-processed through the mind. We do not see a lot, such as magnetism, radiation from our cell phones and other wireless networks.
So you ARE saying that the Universe starts & ends between one's ears. In other words, the Universe is within your head/mind. The problem with this position is: you can ONLY make claims to yourself and no one else!

Because we could never get out of our own minds, we just forget and take it for granted that we are seeing exactly what is in front of us.
But according to my understanding of your position, you CANNOT make claims to what's outside YOUR mind, yet here you are doing so. Also, realize that from your argument's position, you are omniscient; we are ALL omniscient!

Thus when we define god, we are just synthesizing, our mental conceptions that we already have. So any definitions that we construct a priori (Before experiencing something) will always be made up of the ideas within are minds!! Other ideas may come from experiences.
Huh? ALL ideas originate from experiences.

Even if such an argument worked we would only be proving our ideas of a god that exist.
Yeah just like:
Our ideas of Laws(true=true)
Our ideas of Relations(logic and associations)
Our ideas of Quantity(magnitude)
Our ideas of Action (mathematical quantifiers)
Our ideas of Sensations: (hierarchal category)
Our ideas of Emotions (motivation and satisfaction)
Our ideas of Space (locational):
Our ideas of Visual conceptualizations:
Our ideas of Sound conceptualizations:
Our ideas of Smell conceptualizations:
Our ideas of Taste conceptualization:
Our ideas of Tactical conceptualization:


No matter what we do, we could never have a prior conception of god, it will always be an idea in our mind which we label as god.
This would be true of all things, not just a god.

A contradiction is the limit or human capacity to know. That is the only indicator of false hood.
Our idea of a contradiction. The only problem is that ideas of a contradiction can then vary from person to person and because each persons universe starts and ends within their minds, there can be no external relations.

Proof: Everybody claims to have theory of the truth, but as theory could never be the truth, for the truth is absolute and the absolute alone is the truth.
Only problem is, within my understanding of your frame work, you cannot speak about ANY truth outside of your mind. Ergo, the truth IS the truth in your mind and there can be no other.

Hegel we don't have a say in the truth, it is the truth that determines us. We cannot determine it, nor can we get rid of it. No matter how much we declare there is no truth, we refute ourselves every attempt we make. For we depend on it even to declare. And similarly what I declare must be true for it to be false. As you see, not matter how hard we try we will always be refuted by the truth, into contradiction.
This is incompatible with what I understand your position to be.

But there is one thing about truth we know absolutely. And that is the truth=truth
Our idea of truth = our idea of truth. But you cannot speak to someone else's idea of truth.

"It always remains a scandal of philosophy and universal human reason that the existence of things outside us ... should have to be assumed merely on faith, and that if it occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be unable to answer him with a satisfactory proof."[3]" Immanuel Kant
If all things outside us are to be taken on faith (and I do agree on that point), and all things within our mind are PREDICATED on the outside, then ALL reason is predicated on faith!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 4:54:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/10/2012 4:18:10 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/8/2012 5:56:16 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Remember, you could never escape your mind. Even when we speak of the natural world, we do so from within our minds, all are information is pre-processed through the mind. We do not see a lot, such as magnetism, radiation from our cell phones and other wireless networks.
So you ARE saying that the Universe starts & ends between one's ears. In other words, the Universe is within your head/mind. The problem with this position is: you can ONLY make claims to yourself and no one else!

Because we could never get out of our own minds, we just forget and take it for granted that we are seeing exactly what is in front of us.
But according to my understanding of your position, you CANNOT make claims to what's outside YOUR mind, yet here you are doing so. Also, realize that from your argument's position, you are omniscient; we are ALL omniscient!

Thus when we define god, we are just synthesizing, our mental conceptions that we already have. So any definitions that we construct a priori (Before experiencing something) will always be made up of the ideas within are minds!! Other ideas may come from experiences.
Huh? ALL ideas originate from experiences.

Even if such an argument worked we would only be proving our ideas of a god that exist.
Yeah just like:
Our ideas of Laws(true=true)
Our ideas of Relations(logic and associations)
Our ideas of Quantity(magnitude)
Our ideas of Action (mathematical quantifiers)
Our ideas of Sensations: (hierarchal category)
Our ideas of Emotions (motivation and satisfaction)
Our ideas of Space (locational):
Our ideas of Visual conceptualizations:
Our ideas of Sound conceptualizations:
Our ideas of Smell conceptualizations:
Our ideas of Taste conceptualization:
Our ideas of Tactical conceptualization:


No matter what we do, we could never have a prior conception of god, it will always be an idea in our mind which we label as god.
This would be true of all things, not just a god.

A contradiction is the limit or human capacity to know. That is the only indicator of false hood.
Our idea of a contradiction. The only problem is that ideas of a contradiction can then vary from person to person and because each persons universe starts and ends within their minds, there can be no external relations.

Proof: Everybody claims to have theory of the truth, but as theory could never be the truth, for the truth is absolute and the absolute alone is the truth.
Only problem is, within my understanding of your frame work, you cannot speak about ANY truth outside of your mind. Ergo, the truth IS the truth in your mind and there can be no other.

Hegel we don't have a say in the truth, it is the truth that determines us. We cannot determine it, nor can we get rid of it. No matter how much we declare there is no truth, we refute ourselves every attempt we make. For we depend on it even to declare. And similarly what I declare must be true for it to be false. As you see, not matter how hard we try we will always be refuted by the truth, into contradiction.
This is incompatible with what I understand your position to be.

But there is one thing about truth we know absolutely. And that is the truth=truth
Our idea of truth = our idea of truth. But you cannot speak to someone else's idea of truth.

"It always remains a scandal of philosophy and universal human reason that the existence of things outside us ... should have to be assumed merely on faith, and that if it occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be unable to answer him with a satisfactory proof."[3]" Immanuel Kant
If all things outside us are to be taken on faith (and I do agree on that point), and all things within our mind are PREDICATED on the outside, then ALL reason is predicated on faith!

I would not use the word faith, but I would use the word base judgements. All our our judgements and ideas are based on predicates. This is a hand predicates understanding of a hand. However, we cannot just know that it is not a hand. We have to have, not just an agreement on base language (or semantics), but an agreement of base judgement.

What does this do? This eliminates the idea of there being a perfect truth. The objective truth becomes idealistic: there is no way of achieving it. We are trapped by our own existence: we cannot perceive ourselves from being everywhere, so an objective truth cannot exist.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2012 6:28:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: I am saying we experience the world THROUGH the human mind. Not all information is from the mind. But it is processed in mind. How do we tell that things come externally.. The complexity of new information:

"THROUGH:
For example it would be virtually impossible for a child to construct in their imagination a unicorn, for they must at least seen a horse, wings and horn. For a horse and all its fine curvature, is way too complex in relation to apriority principles alone. Here are some self-evident principles of mind."

The Fool: that is we abstract patterns of information that must come externally.

And we share this external atmosphere, from which we communicate.. For let us call these atmosphere the (natural or physical atmosphere) but remember don't think of it as purely different substances. and you will see everything corroborate fine.

It's not as mystical as we thought. I can see your ideas through your language.
"Because we could never get out of our own minds, over time it just became assumed and we just forget and took it for granted!!

The Fool: Reverse.. reverse.. reverse.. your universe! And relieve you mind from its phyiscal curse!!

I will add more I have to go somewhere.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2012 5:33:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
: At 2/10/2012 4:54:40 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I would not use the word faith, but I would use the word base judgements.
This is just semantics.

All our our judgements and ideas are based on predicates.
Here you contradict: you say "judgements" are based on "predicates." What I refer to as "faith" is the bottom level: it is an irreducible "predicate."

This is a hand predicates understanding of a hand. However, we cannot just know that it is not a hand. We have to have, not just an agreement on base language (or semantics), but an agreement of base judgement.
I would say base "predicates" or "faith" not judgement.

What does this do? This eliminates the idea of there being a perfect truth. The objective truth becomes idealistic: there is no way of achieving it. We are trapped by our own existence: we cannot perceive ourselves from being everywhere, so an objective truth cannot exist.
This is true; it is a matter of how close we come to an objective truth that counts (i.e. precision.)

****************************************
: At 2/10/2012 6:28:21 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: I am saying we experience the world THROUGH the human mind. Not all information is from the mind. But it is processed in mind. How do we tell that things come externally...
But that information is meaningless until it gets PROCESSED by the mind. Once processed by the mind it is no longer external.

The complexity of new information:
"THROUGH:
For example it would be virtually impossible for a child to construct in their imagination a unicorn, for they must at least seen a horse, wings and horn.
Yes they must learned to INTERPRET what they see as a horse, wings, and a horn. Ergo, an experience within the mind.

For a horse and all its fine curvature, is way too complex in relation to apriority principles alone. Here are some self-evident principles of mind."

The Fool: that is we abstract patterns of information that must come externally.
But these externalities are NOT accessible; ONLY the INTERPRETATION of these externalities are accessible.

And we share this external atmosphere, from which we communicate.. For let us call these atmosphere the (natural or physical atmosphere) but remember don't think of it as purely different substances. and you will see everything corroborate fine.
Cannot understand; poorly phrased.

It's not as mystical as we thought. I can see your ideas through your language.
"Because we could never get out of our own minds, over time it just became assumed and we just forget and took it for granted!!
Cannot understand; poorly phrased.

The Fool: Reverse.. reverse.. reverse.. your universe! And relieve you mind from its phyiscal curse!!
I will add more I have to go somewhere.
I hope you can clarify.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2012 5:55:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/13/2012 5:33:55 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
: At 2/10/2012 4:54:40 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I would not use the word faith, but I would use the word base judgements.
This is just semantics.
I'd strongly disagree. If you use the word "faith", you mean you take it because you hold value in X. I have faith in John because he is reliable. I have faith in God because he helped me in time of need. This is heteronomous. Base values are autonomous: I want to uphold justice because justice is something worth upholding. They have no justification.
Do you see the difference?
All our our judgements and ideas are based on predicates.
Here you contradict: you say "judgements" are based on "predicates." What I refer to as "faith" is the bottom level: it is an irreducible "predicate."

OK, then you're using faith the same way I use base judgements. Also, include the term "base", it's an important attatchment that a scholar of Keirkegaard will point out. Do you understand what I mean by a difference between faith and base judgement or base value though?

This is a hand predicates understanding of a hand. However, we cannot just know that it is not a hand. We have to have, not just an agreement on base language (or semantics), but an agreement of base judgement.
I would say base "predicates" or "faith" not judgement.

a predicate can rely on something else. We should stop abortion predicates that abortions happens. Abortions happening predicates the technology and understanding of an abortion. etc.

What does this do? This eliminates the idea of there being a perfect truth. The objective truth becomes idealistic: there is no way of achieving it. We are trapped by our own existence: we cannot perceive ourselves from being everywhere, so an objective truth cannot exist.
This is true; it is a matter of how close we come to an objective truth that counts (i.e. precision.)

This is where we'd disagree on a base value. You'd be idealistically ontological, I'd be nihilistically ontological.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2012 6:04:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, it is good etiquette to post the syllogism / argument you are responding to word-for-word. This is not too much of a problem for things such as the ontological argument (though it still is one), but when you do other arguments (cosmological, for example) this becomes incredibly awkward, as you assume that others know the exact argument you are referring to.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2012 6:19:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/13/2012 5:55:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I'd strongly disagree. If you use the word "faith", you mean you take it because you hold value in X. I have faith in John because he is reliable. I have faith in God because he helped me in time of need. This is heteronomous. Base values are autonomous: I want to uphold justice because justice is something worth upholding. They have no justification.
I also disagree. One has faith in God because God is real, He exists. Whether He does something for me or not is irrelevant. No justification needed.

Do you see the difference?
No. "I want to uphold justice because justice is something worth upholding." Why is it worth upholding (i.e. justification)? I would say if it needs no justification it is because you have FAITH in it...ie you believe in it without justification.

OK, then you're using faith the same way I use base judgements. Also, include the term "base", it's an important attatchment that a scholar of Keirkegaard will point out. Do you understand what I mean by a difference between faith and base judgement or base value though?
No because as you pointed out, I am using it the same way. But to go along, I see a difference between what you might call judgement vs base judgement. I just don't like the terminology because if it is a base it requires no judgement. I prefer to use base or faith, but whatever.

a predicate can rely on something else. We should stop abortion predicates that abortions happens. Abortions happening predicates the technology and understanding of an abortion. etc.
Yes and bases (what I was referring to as faith) has no predicates.

This is where we'd disagree on a base value. You'd be idealistically ontological, I'd be nihilistically ontological.
How so?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2012 6:46:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/13/2012 6:19:27 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/13/2012 5:55:01 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I'd strongly disagree. If you use the word "faith", you mean you take it because you hold value in X. I have faith in John because he is reliable. I have faith in God because he helped me in time of need. This is heteronomous. Base values are autonomous: I want to uphold justice because justice is something worth upholding. They have no justification.
I also disagree. One has faith in God because God is real, He exists. Whether He does something for me or not is irrelevant. No justification needed.
One has faith in God because he is real. God is real because I have faith. That's a base circular judgement. Not rational, not bad/wrong, in fact, necessary. This was the position of Kierkegaard, actually.
Do you see the difference?
No. "I want to uphold justice because justice is something worth upholding." Why is it worth upholding (i.e. justification)? I would say if it needs no justification it is because you have FAITH in it...ie you believe in it without justification.
My next paragraph explained that.
OK, then you're using faith the same way I use base judgements. Also, include the term "base", it's an important attatchment that a scholar of Keirkegaard will point out. Do you understand what I mean by a difference between faith and base judgement or base value though?
No because as you pointed out, I am using it the same way. But to go along, I see a difference between what you might call judgement vs base judgement. I just don't like the terminology because if it is a base it requires no judgement. I prefer to use base or faith, but whatever.
Base Judgement is the technical term: contest it with Kierkegaard, not me.

Faith also means things like I have faith in John, because John is reliable, or John is a good man, or I have kidnapped his son and threatened him with death. That's not a base judgement to me; that's a rational reason.
a predicate can rely on something else. We should stop abortion predicates that abortions happens. Abortions happening predicates the technology and understanding of an abortion. etc.
Yes and bases (what I was referring to as faith) has no predicates.
We've started to talk past each other here.
This is where we'd disagree on a base value. You'd be epistemologically idealist, I'd be nihilistically epistemological. (changed terms, wrong terminology)
How so?
I don't believe in an objective truth per se. Rather, an ontologically realist world to the extent that there are things, but epistemologically idealist bordering nihilist on the grounds that our realities are completely detatched from the realities of the world on first sight, and abstract truths of morality, philosophy and aesthetics do not exist, unless they pertain to the existence of something.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 9:30:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/13/2012 6:46:52 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
One has faith in God because he is real. God is real because I have faith. That's a base circular judgement. Not rational, not bad/wrong, in fact, necessary. This was the position of Kierkegaard, actually.
I see.
Base Judgement is the technical term: contest it with Kierkegaard, not me.
OK. I understand.

Faith also means things like I have faith in John, because John is reliable, or John is a good man, or I have kidnapped his son and threatened him with death. That's not a base judgement to me; that's a rational reason.
I see, so in the interests of not getting caught up in semantics I should accept Kierkegaard's definitions.

I don't believe in an objective truth per se. Rather, an ontologically realist world to the extent that there are things,
Meaning that you accept the existence of things outside of the mind?

...but epistemologically idealist bordering nihilist on the grounds that our realities are completely detatched from the realities of the world on first sight,
As opposed to what, a second look?

...and abstract truths of morality, philosophy and aesthetics do not exist, unless they pertain to the existence of something.
Not sure what you mean by this. I have always viewed "abstractions" as pertaining to the existence of something (i.e. predicated on the physical.) As the word says: it's an abstraction of something.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 11:38:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 9:30:43 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 2/13/2012 6:46:52 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
One has faith in God because he is real. God is real because I have faith. That's a base circular judgement. Not rational, not bad/wrong, in fact, necessary. This was the position of Kierkegaard, actually.
I see.
Base Judgement is the technical term: contest it with Kierkegaard, not me.
OK. I understand.

Faith also means things like I have faith in John, because John is reliable, or John is a good man, or I have kidnapped his son and threatened him with death. That's not a base judgement to me; that's a rational reason.
I see, so in the interests of not getting caught up in semantics I should accept Kierkegaard's definitions.

I don't believe in an objective truth per se. Rather, an ontologically realist world to the extent that there are things,
Meaning that you accept the existence of things outside of the mind?

...but epistemologically idealist bordering nihilist on the grounds that our realities are completely detatched from the realities of the world on first sight,
As opposed to what, a second look?
As opposed to epistemological realism - we can access objective truths.
...and abstract truths of morality, philosophy and aesthetics do not exist, unless they pertain to the existence of something.
Not sure what you mean by this. I have always viewed "abstractions" as pertaining to the existence of something (i.e. predicated on the physical.) As the word says: it's an abstraction of something.

I mean abstract as in no ties to the physical: for example, justice does not hold attatchment to the physical. I am using the word "abstract" loosely though.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 12:50:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree. However, before we even begin to discuss the Onto-illogical, the problem is we need to define a "maximally great being." You cannot define a being into existence. This is the fallacy of quivocation
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 2:15:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 12:50:16 PM, Microsuck wrote:
I agree. However, before we even begin to discuss the ontological, the problem is we need to define "maximally great." You cannot define a being into existence. This is the fallacy of equivocation.

No, the fallacy of equivocation is when you say omnipotent means maximally great, and then use the constraint of the phrase "maximally great" to prove your case. The fallacy stops renaming of words, not the stopping of the entire arguient imo.

But yes, I'd agree it is using semantics to change the characters of something.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...