Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

The Value of the Subjective Claim

bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:33:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, this thread is born out of some relatively offhand comments by YYW about faith and God.

I'll summarise my understanding--with the hopefully obvious intention NOT to strawman in any way, so please correct me.

YYW has said that the claim "God exists" is a normative, rather than a positive claim. That is (according to his definition--I have some issues which are a rabbithole beyond the intended scope here with that) that the claim "God exists" cannot be falsified, and cannot be proven. That it is, therefore, a normative claim, one without a necessary "truth value", and that it has value.
l
I am a bit confused by this, to be honest. Personally, I hold to an understanding of what I'm going to call "classical" normative claims--claims regarding truly subjective things, such as "Blue is better than yellow".

I further feel as though a "normative" claim is really one whose truth value is wholly dependent on certain, non-objectively-true premises.

Now, that's a definitional concern, so bear with me, since I want to defer to YYW's general expertise--so please bear with my (presumptively) non-standard definition, that I'm separating with the use of "classical".

A claim of a thing's existence, to me, is wholly different than "Red is better than Silver" or what-have-you. Existence is based on a commonly-understood and accepted premise, that of "reality".

So.

YYW has seemed to defend the notion of defending God, or at least defending faith in God as a valid thing, despite an utter lack of evidence, and despite a total unfalsifiability. That's distinct from many apologists--this isn't a discussion about whether there is evidence for God. For the purposes here, we're accepting as a given that there isn't (granted, that's my general position, but that's not the point here).

The point here is, that I do not understand the value of having a belief in something for which one has no evidence, and that is an utterly unfalsfiable claim.

To be clear, there are some unfalsifiable premises that can be justified, I think; certain principles of logic spring to mind, and I read once about Crystalline forms, though the details escape me at the moment--but they have to be justified. Which brings me to questioning the justification for THIS belief.

And so I'd like YYW, if he's willing, to explicate his position a bit (and correct me if I've erred in my rambling and likely poor summation).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:42:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:40:39 PM, YYW wrote:
I'm post-Ambien at this point, so I'll handle this tomorrow.

Lol, I dunno--Ambien might make your responses funnier, if perhaps less sensical.

I kid, of course. Sleep well!
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:43:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:42:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:40:39 PM, YYW wrote:
I'm post-Ambien at this point, so I'll handle this tomorrow.

Lol, I dunno--Ambien might make your responses funnier, if perhaps less sensical.

I kid, of course. Sleep well!

I didn't say I was going to bed... I'm just saying that I can't english very well after taking le pill.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:44:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:43:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:42:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:40:39 PM, YYW wrote:
I'm post-Ambien at this point, so I'll handle this tomorrow.

Lol, I dunno--Ambien might make your responses funnier, if perhaps less sensical.

I kid, of course. Sleep well!

I didn't say I was going to bed... I'm just saying that I can't english very well after taking le pill.

Well, I can be half-a-box-of-wine down and still manage to (mostly) type coherently...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:46:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:44:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:43:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:42:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:40:39 PM, YYW wrote:
I'm post-Ambien at this point, so I'll handle this tomorrow.

Lol, I dunno--Ambien might make your responses funnier, if perhaps less sensical.

I kid, of course. Sleep well!

I didn't say I was going to bed... I'm just saying that I can't english very well after taking le pill.

Well, I can be half-a-box-of-wine down and still manage to (mostly) type coherently...

I can type fine when drunk... but Ambien distorts my perception, and has a few other interesting side effects lol
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:49:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:46:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:44:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:43:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:42:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:40:39 PM, YYW wrote:
I'm post-Ambien at this point, so I'll handle this tomorrow.

Lol, I dunno--Ambien might make your responses funnier, if perhaps less sensical.

I kid, of course. Sleep well!

I didn't say I was going to bed... I'm just saying that I can't english very well after taking le pill.

Well, I can be half-a-box-of-wine down and still manage to (mostly) type coherently...

I can type fine when drunk... but Ambien distorts my perception, and has a few other interesting side effects lol

Well, so long as you aren't gambling away your rent money or having unsafe sex...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:51:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:46:09 PM, YYW wrote:
I can type fine when drunk... but Ambien distorts my perception, and has a few other interesting side effects lol

i will say that one of the saddest things to me about my job is that I learn so much about drugs, but also have a much higher risk from being willing to experiment with them, and so abstain. I shouldn't have to settle for textbooks and patient descriptions, dammit!
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 10:52:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/12/2013 10:49:57 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:46:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:44:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:43:11 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:42:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/12/2013 10:40:39 PM, YYW wrote:
I'm post-Ambien at this point, so I'll handle this tomorrow.

Lol, I dunno--Ambien might make your responses funnier, if perhaps less sensical.

I kid, of course. Sleep well!

I didn't say I was going to bed... I'm just saying that I can't english very well after taking le pill.

Well, I can be half-a-box-of-wine down and still manage to (mostly) type coherently...

I can type fine when drunk... but Ambien distorts my perception, and has a few other interesting side effects lol

Well, so long as you aren't gambling away your rent money or having unsafe sex...

I only gamble when drunk, and I've never had unprotected sex.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 8:05:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Holy crap, I remember the post that got this debate started months ago. Nice to see it's still going on, but I'm surprised that it hasn't been settled yet with both parties agreeing to disagree.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2013 9:53:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 8:05:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Holy crap, I remember the post that got this debate started months ago. Nice to see it's still going on, but I'm surprised that it hasn't been settled yet with both parties agreeing to disagree.

I'd love it if you found that thread and posted a link here.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2013 10:18:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That is (according to his definition--I have some issues which are a rabbithole beyond the intended scope here with that) that the claim "God exists" cannot be falsified, and cannot be proven. That it is, therefore, a normative claim, one without a necessary "truth value", and that it has value.

non-sequitur.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2013 5:55:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 9:53:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:05:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Holy crap, I remember the post that got this debate started months ago. Nice to see it's still going on, but I'm surprised that it hasn't been settled yet with both parties agreeing to disagree.

I'd love it if you found that thread and posted a link here.

http://www.debate.org...

Here you go :D
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 1:02:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/14/2013 10:18:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
That is (according to his definition--I have some issues which are a rabbithole beyond the intended scope here with that) that the claim "God exists" cannot be falsified, and cannot be proven. That it is, therefore, a normative claim, one without a necessary "truth value", and that it has value.

non-sequitur.

Which part? It was an attempt to summarize his position...the "therefore" is separate from the "and that it has value", though perhaps it wasn't my best syntax.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 1:03:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/13/2013 9:53:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:05:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Holy crap, I remember the post that got this debate started months ago. Nice to see it's still going on, but I'm surprised that it hasn't been settled yet with both parties agreeing to disagree.

I'd love it if you found that thread and posted a link here.

Ahhh, back when I had been on the site like what, a month?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 1:03:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/16/2013 5:55:22 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:53:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:05:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Holy crap, I remember the post that got this debate started months ago. Nice to see it's still going on, but I'm surprised that it hasn't been settled yet with both parties agreeing to disagree.

I'd love it if you found that thread and posted a link here.

http://www.debate.org...

Here you go :D

A wild Necrothread has spawned!
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 1:04:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 1:03:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:53:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:05:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Holy crap, I remember the post that got this debate started months ago. Nice to see it's still going on, but I'm surprised that it hasn't been settled yet with both parties agreeing to disagree.

I'd love it if you found that thread and posted a link here.

Ahhh, back when I had been on the site like what, a month?

Has it really been that long?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 1:12:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 1:04:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/18/2013 1:03:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:53:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:05:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Holy crap, I remember the post that got this debate started months ago. Nice to see it's still going on, but I'm surprised that it hasn't been settled yet with both parties agreeing to disagree.

I'd love it if you found that thread and posted a link here.

Ahhh, back when I had been on the site like what, a month?

Has it really been that long?

Yup. I've been here almost a year! Apparently I joined in December...I guess I was wrong; I thought it was the end of November.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 1:13:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 1:12:24 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/18/2013 1:04:34 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/18/2013 1:03:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/13/2013 9:53:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/13/2013 8:05:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Holy crap, I remember the post that got this debate started months ago. Nice to see it's still going on, but I'm surprised that it hasn't been settled yet with both parties agreeing to disagree.

I'd love it if you found that thread and posted a link here.

Ahhh, back when I had been on the site like what, a month?

Has it really been that long?

Yup. I've been here almost a year! Apparently I joined in December...I guess I was wrong; I thought it was the end of November.

haha, cheers
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 1:20:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 1:02:27 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 10:18:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
That is (according to his definition--I have some issues which are a rabbithole beyond the intended scope here with that) that the claim "God exists" cannot be falsified, and cannot be proven. That it is, therefore, a normative claim, one without a necessary "truth value", and that it has value.

non-sequitur.

Which part? It was an attempt to summarize his position...the "therefore" is separate from the "and that it has value", though perhaps it wasn't my best syntax.

Ok, well, to begin with the claim that God is not falsifiable is dubious, but I'll leave that alone. The clear fault lies in the move from this to "it is therefore a normative claim" - it just doesn't follow and it shows a misunderstanding. A normative claim is one that involves "oughts." "God exists" or "God does not exist" is a descriptive claim and a proposition (i.e. a claim that is either true or false) it is not normative.

If something isn't descriptive it doesn't automatically follow that it's normative. I don't know where he's getting that, there are plenty of statements that aren't descriptive or normative. Boo!
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 1:24:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 1:20:05 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 11/18/2013 1:02:27 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 10:18:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
That is (according to his definition--I have some issues which are a rabbithole beyond the intended scope here with that) that the claim "God exists" cannot be falsified, and cannot be proven. That it is, therefore, a normative claim, one without a necessary "truth value", and that it has value.

non-sequitur.

Which part? It was an attempt to summarize his position...the "therefore" is separate from the "and that it has value", though perhaps it wasn't my best syntax.

Ok, well, to begin with the claim that God is not falsifiable is dubious, but I'll leave that alone. The clear fault lies in the move from this to "it is therefore a normative claim" - it just doesn't follow and it shows a misunderstanding. A normative claim is one that involves "oughts." "God exists" or "God does not exist" is a descriptive claim and a proposition (i.e. a claim that is either true or false) it is not normative.

If something isn't descriptive it doesn't automatically follow that it's normative. I don't know where he's getting that, there are plenty of statements that aren't descriptive or normative. Boo!

I don't feel like going through this again at this time. So, for now, what blade said isn't entirely in error but it's not what I said either. That established, Biebz... I thought our relationship was in permanent disrepair.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 1:26:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 1:24:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/18/2013 1:20:05 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 11/18/2013 1:02:27 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 10:18:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
That is (according to his definition--I have some issues which are a rabbithole beyond the intended scope here with that) that the claim "God exists" cannot be falsified, and cannot be proven. That it is, therefore, a normative claim, one without a necessary "truth value", and that it has value.

non-sequitur.

Which part? It was an attempt to summarize his position...the "therefore" is separate from the "and that it has value", though perhaps it wasn't my best syntax.

Ok, well, to begin with the claim that God is not falsifiable is dubious, but I'll leave that alone. The clear fault lies in the move from this to "it is therefore a normative claim" - it just doesn't follow and it shows a misunderstanding. A normative claim is one that involves "oughts." "God exists" or "God does not exist" is a descriptive claim and a proposition (i.e. a claim that is either true or false) it is not normative.

If something isn't descriptive it doesn't automatically follow that it's normative. I don't know where he's getting that, there are plenty of statements that aren't descriptive or normative. Boo!

I don't feel like going through this again at this time. So, for now, what blade said isn't entirely in error but it's not what I said either. That established, Biebz... I thought our relationship was in permanent disrepair.

Haha, no I was just kidding with you.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2013 1:29:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/18/2013 1:26:02 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 11/18/2013 1:24:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/18/2013 1:20:05 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 11/18/2013 1:02:27 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 11/14/2013 10:18:53 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
That is (according to his definition--I have some issues which are a rabbithole beyond the intended scope here with that) that the claim "God exists" cannot be falsified, and cannot be proven. That it is, therefore, a normative claim, one without a necessary "truth value", and that it has value.

non-sequitur.

Which part? It was an attempt to summarize his position...the "therefore" is separate from the "and that it has value", though perhaps it wasn't my best syntax.

Ok, well, to begin with the claim that God is not falsifiable is dubious, but I'll leave that alone. The clear fault lies in the move from this to "it is therefore a normative claim" - it just doesn't follow and it shows a misunderstanding. A normative claim is one that involves "oughts." "God exists" or "God does not exist" is a descriptive claim and a proposition (i.e. a claim that is either true or false) it is not normative.

If something isn't descriptive it doesn't automatically follow that it's normative. I don't know where he's getting that, there are plenty of statements that aren't descriptive or normative. Boo!

I don't feel like going through this again at this time. So, for now, what blade said isn't entirely in error but it's not what I said either. That established, Biebz... I thought our relationship was in permanent disrepair.

Haha, no I was just kidding with you.

Obviously... and now I can't continue the joke by saying something like...

I HATE YOU FOREVER, JB!

I also can't do something like this...

*throws water bottle at your head*

...see all the forum fun you just lost me?

lol