Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seer View Post
    How do you decide that the laws of logic are self-evident without first using the laws of reason?
    Umm... "self-evident" means what is says, Seer: evident in and of themselves without recourse to anything else. If I was using the laws of reason, then it would be circular, not self-evident. "A statement cannot be simultaneously true and not true in the same way at the same time" (i.e., the principle or law of non-contradiction) is not a thing that can be disproved or verified without recourse to itself, which would be circular. It is accepted as true by most rational people "prima facie."

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    No Carp, I'm not asking you to accept my argument as having an objective reality, of course you won't you are an atheist. All I'm pointing out is that the theist can account for universal logical absolutes, the atheist can't. And that there is no rational way for the atheist to get to universal logical absolutes.
    Seer - the theist can concoct a wholely satisfying (to them) deductive argument for the existence of logical absolutes - and not actually show a single thing. Anyone can concoct a sound argument to show anything. If they cannot show it to be valid, they haven't done anything but spin a yarn. If your argument accounts for universal absolutes, then so does this:

    P1. The universe operates on predictable, repeatable principles in the physical and logical dimensions that can be discovered and understood.
    P2. The universe is omnipresent.
    C. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.

    Good luck with it!

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    That is a falsehood Carp,
    The term "falsehood" is generally used synonymous with "lie," a false statement made with the intent to deceive. I have to wonder, Seer, if you are even capable of engaging in a philosophical discussion debate without having to resort to ad hominems to bolster your position. It's your choice, of course. I know I am not lying, and your observation does not change that reality. But you might want to consider that it makes your exchanges look weak. If you cannot stay with the argument on its merits, resorting to ad hominems doesn't really make you look that good, IMO.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    this is not a circular argument:

    P1. God thinks and creates rationally, he embodies conceptual logical truths.
    P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe.
    P3. God’s rational nature is immutable.
    C4. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.
    Wow - so you present an entire argument for the existence of logical absolutes - using the very logical absolutes whose defense you are trying to demonstrate - and you don't see the circularity? It's like MM claiming that all meaning except god's eternal/absolute meaning is meaningless and a fiction, all the while using symbolic language as if the words he is using actually mean something. You are both talking in circles and, apparently, cannot see it.

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    See above...
    Above doesn't say anything, Seer. You haven't done anything but go in circles - all the while denying you are going in circles...
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-13-2019, 02:17 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      This is the quintessential MM dismount when you have no place to go: find a reason why Michel's posting is not acceptable and disconnect.
      Right... it couldn't possibly be the fact that the longer you debate any topic, the more contradictory, incoherent, and difficult to parse your arguments become until the only option for any rational person is to simply disengage.

      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      Personally - I think this is the line that got you: "MM - you contradict yourself simply by writing or speaking a language, whose words you accept as 'meaningful.' "
      No, you didn't "get" me with that line because it's nonsense. Words are symbols we use to describe objective reality. If they have meaning, it's only because they relate a concept that exists regardless of whether or not we have a word to describe it. Which is to say that words have no meaning in of themselves, but neither are the meanings arbitrarily assigned -- like your rock example, you remember your dad when you look at it, but it could just as easily be a piece of drift wood, or a can of baked beans. It doesn't matter. The thing itself only has meaning because it relates to something that objectively exists. So when you say, "My life has meaning," you are making an implicit appeal to something objective, but your world view explicitly denies that life has objective meaning, so you find yourself stuck with an irreconcilable contradiction.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Probably because you haven't read Rosenberg.
        I have not. To be honest, the few atheists that I have tried to read I found tedious. The arguments they put forward seemed more "anti-theist" than "atheist." And sometimes they tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        The point wasn't "let's compare lists."
        I wasn't trying to do a comparison. I was simply curious as to how I would answer the same questions, and thought my responses would provide information about how I think concerning these issues. I don't exactly align with other atheists in many respects.

        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        The point was that your claim that, "the atheist goes through each day aware that meaning is what we bring to life" (as though that claim were universal) is bunk. There are plenty of atheists who don't believe that life has meaning, either in the sense the Christians here use when they refer to "meaning" or in your much more limited sense of "I'll make my own meaning."
        And when they do so, Adrift, they use "meaning" in much the way you and MM are using it: "ultimate" or "eternal" meaning. Such a thing doesn't exist. Ultimately, everything that is meaningful today will cease to be meaningful. I doubt you will find a single one of them, however, who will say that the concept of "meaning" doesn't exist. If they did - then I would take issue with them as well, given that they would be expressing that very thought with words they use because they perceive them as having "meaning."

        All people "make their own meaning." Some meanings we agree upon (i.e., language) so we can interact. Some meanings are unique to the individual. Meaning is transient and individualized - and will eventually (as far as we know) end. Such is life.

        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Well, no. The primary reason people cling to the notion of God (certainly people here) is because overwhelming evidence points to God.
        If I actually found that to be true - I would still believe in a god. I don't, so I don't.

        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        But, you know, what's good for the goose is good for the gander,
        And now you get to one of the primary reasons I think carpedm9587 clings to the notion of a meaning: it just makes him feel better about his own life. Otherwise, how unfair would that be! I mean, really.


        I'm not even sure how this even makes sense...

        I don't cling to the notion of "meaning" to "feel better." I recognize that a sentient mind can ascribe meaning. It's an observable fact. It doesn't require my feelings. Human minds create words - and ascribe meaning to them. We don't do that to feel better - we do that so we can functionally communicate. Yes - there are some "meanings" that are linked to our emotions, but that is not why "meaning" exists. "Meaning" exists because we are sentient.

        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        But the fact is, in a Godless world, life has no meaning.
        ...has no absolute/eternal meaning. Never said otherwise.

        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        In the here and now, sometimes there is no justice. Sometimes life is cruel. If inventing meaning to avoid having to face that reality makes him feel better, by all means invent a meaning.
        Umm... no. "Meaning" has nothing necessarily to do with "justice." The atheist recognizes that life is sometimes cruel and unjust, and that's that. I (and I think "we") don't invent meaning to hide that fact. We simply accept it as a fact of the universe.

        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        Just realize that (as Rosenberg puts it) you're merely holding onto a powerful illusion.
        The term "illusion" here is not correctly used, and aligns with MM's use of "fiction." There is no lack of realness to the meaning we ascribe. The word "house" has a meaning that all English speakers suscribe to. The meaning is real. The symbol exists and represents something real. When there are no more English speakers, it will cease to exist and its meaning will go with it.

        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        I prefer to simply face what seems to me to be pretty obvious: sometimes, life isn't fair - but God is great, and the judge of all the earth will do right. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
        Yeah... and that's pretty much what I said: sometimes there is just no justice, and the theist needs to avoid that by creating a god that will "make it all right in the end." The atheist has no such need. We simply accept what is fairly obvious, and get on with our lives working for the best justice we can achieve in the course of our mortal existence.

        Adrift - the entire argument that "meaning is a fiction" or "meaning is an illusion" falls apart the minute you use symbolic language to express that idea. You are defeating your own argument by using words as if they actually, really mean something. If only "absolute/eternal" meaning is "true meaning," if all transient and self-selected meaning is "illusion and fiction," then you should just stop talking - right?
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-13-2019, 02:20 PM.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Right... it couldn't possibly be the fact that the longer you debate any topic, the more contradictory, incoherent, and difficult to parse your arguments become until the only option for any rational person is to simply disengage.
          Ahh.. there's that contradictory and incoherent claim again. Sorry, MM, but it won't stick. Yeah, I've stumbled and been caught on some errors here and there. Generally, I frame a decent argument. The old Trump-trick of "continually claiming a reality until everyone believes it" may be a good marketing gimmick, but it gets you nowhere in an actual debate/discussion. It's just a tactic. I suggest sticking to the arguments.

          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          No, you didn't "get" me with that line because it's nonsense. Words are symbols we use to describe objective reality. If they have meaning, it's only because they relate a concept that exists regardless of whether or not we have a word to describe it. Which is to say that words have no meaning in of themselves, but neither are the meanings arbitrarily assigned -- like your rock example, you remember your dad when you look at it, but it could just as easily be a piece of drift wood, or a can of baked beans. It doesn't matter. The thing itself only has meaning because it relates to something that objectively exists. So when you say, "My life has meaning," you are making an implicit appeal to something objective, but your world view explicitly denies that life has objective meaning, so you find yourself stuck with an irreconcilable contradiction.
          The bolded statement is the key here. Words absolutely have no meaning in and of themselves. Their meaning is arbitrarily and temporarily assigned. But, by your logic, any temporary or transient assignment is a fiction - an illusion. It is not "real." As I predicted at the outset, your argument boils down to "only absolute/eternal meaning is real." This you declare by fiat, yet violate it every day you live - in your use of language, in your appreciation of art, and in many other ways.

          So, I have no problem with the statement, "there is no ultimate, eternal, absolute meaning to life." I also have no problem with the statement "I am choosing to live my life in ways I find meaningful." You see, the things I find meaningful are helping others. You know what? Helping others is an objective reality. Giving food to a hungry man is an objective reality. Helping an elderly person to the doctor is an objective reality. Ascribing meaning to these things is no different than ascribing meaning to the word "rock." My experiences of walks and talks with my father are objective realities. My association of meaning to that rock because of how it links me to that moment is linking a symbol to an objective reality. Yes - it could be a stick or a shell, just as the word for that smallest valued coin we use in the U.S. could be "phrenigle" instead of "penny."

          I know of no instance where "meaning" is not a link between a symbol and some observed/experience/objective reality. To simply declare by fiat that none of these are "meaningful" is not a supportable position. As I noted, you will be using the very symbolic languages that are the quintessential examples of "meaning" in action in attempting to make that argument, defeating your own argument in the process.

          ETA: It strikes me, as I review what I wrote and your arguments before, that it is possible "meaning" is being used in multiple ways here, and they should be more clearly distinguished. I don't think I have achieved that. There is the use of "meaning" in which an objective thing is linked to a symbol. There is the use of "meaning" that is more associated with "value." Then there is the use of meaning that is more linked to "purpose." We should probably separate out those uses.
          Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-13-2019, 02:13 PM.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            Umm... "self-evident" means what is says, Seer: evident in and of themselves without recourse to anything else. If I was using the laws of reason, then it would be circular, not self-evident. "A statement cannot be simultaneously true and not true in the same way at the same time" (i.e., the principle or law of non-contradiction) is not a thing that can be disproved or verified without recourse to itself, which would be circular. It is accepted as true by most rational people "prima facie."
            Carp, laws of logic are conceptual, you need to reason to them. Yes, they seem self-evident but you could not know or accept that without first using reason. If you think otherwise explain how that would happen? And again Carp, I'm not making a case for the laws of logic per se, I'm making a the case that they are universal and absolute.


            Seer - the theist can concoct a wholely satisfying (to them) deductive argument for the existence of logical absolutes - and not actually show a single thing. Anyone can concoct a sound argument to show anything. If they cannot show it to be valid, they haven't done anything but spin a yarn. If your argument accounts for universal absolutes, then so does this:

            P1. The universe operates on predictable, repeatable principles in the physical and logical dimensions that can be discovered and understood.
            P2. The universe is omnipresent.
            C. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.

            Good luck with it!
            Nope, not even close. P1 is arguing from the the particular to the universal. That because our limited experience sees predictability or uniformity (particular) it does not logically follow that these qualities are universal. So premise one is logically incoherent. To C. how do you get conceptual logical absolutes when concepts are mind dependent, where is the universal mind to conceptualize these absolutes universally?

            The term "falsehood" is generally used synonymous with "lie," a false statement made with the intent to deceive. I have to wonder, Seer, if you are even capable of engaging in a philosophical discussion debate without having to resort to ad hominems to bolster your position. It's your choice, of course. I know I am not lying, and your observation does not change that reality. But you might want to consider that it makes your exchanges look weak. If you cannot stay with the argument on its merits, resorting to ad hominems doesn't really make you look that good, IMO.
            Talk about ad hominem! The fact is Carp my argument is not circular, if you think it is please show me exactly where:

            P1. God thinks and creates rationally, he embodies conceptual logical truths.
            P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe.
            P3. God’s rational nature is immutable.
            C4. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.


            Wow - so you present an entire argument for the existence of logical absolutes - using the very logical absolutes whose defense you are trying to demonstrate - and you don't see the circularity? It's like MM claiming that all meaning except god's eternal/absolute meaning is meaningless and a fiction, all the while using symbolic language as if the words he is using actually mean something. You are both talking in circles and, apparently, cannot see it.
            No Carp, I'm using reason and logic to demonstrate that the conceptual laws of logical are in fact universal and absolute. Not that the laws of logic simply exist in our personal experience. That is not a circle.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              The bolded statement is the key here. Words absolutely have no meaning in and of themselves. Their meaning is arbitrarily and temporarily assigned.
              No, the meanings are not arbitrary because they reference objective realty. Did that point really sail over your head?

              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              It strikes me, as I review what I wrote and your arguments before, that it is possible "meaning" is being used in multiple ways here, and they should be more clearly distinguished.
              Perhaps that's the reason I provided a specific and clear definition ("implication of a hidden or special significance") that I've used consistently throughout this discussion.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                No, the meanings are not arbitrary because they reference objective realty. Did that point really sail over your head?
                MM - language assignment is arbitrary, despite your claims otherwise. We could have assigned "phenigal" to be the symbol for the smallest denomination coin in the U.S., and "penny" for the thing on the front of your face you breath through. Likewise, A piece of driftwood could just as easily be a meaningful reminder of my dad as the rock that currently plays that role. The latter was your own example. The evolution of language is not entirely arbitrary, of course. Words have etymologies - but those are basically references to previous words that have been leveraged or combined in some fashion. There is nothing necessary about the assignment of any meaning to any particular word.

                You will have a hard time escaping that reality...

                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                Perhaps that's the reason I provided a specific and clear definition ("implication of a hidden or special significance") that I've used consistently throughout this discussion.
                Yeah - you picked the third of the four offered definitions, which is clearly defined in the context of things like "a meaningful glance/look" and then somehow imbued it with far more import than it merits (i.e., the deep and eternal and absolute meaning attributed by god).

                Your argument is not that well structured, MM. It falls apart rather quickly. And it comes down to the same thing I initially predicted: only absolute/eternal "meaning" is real - and everything else is a fiction/illusion. It's a commonly put forward argument - and it really has no substance whatsoever. It's an assertion. Just tag "real" on the front and there you go. Except if you look at the meanings of "absolute" and "eternal," there is nothing in there about "real." And there is nothing about the definition of "meaning" that requires it to be "absolute" or "eternal" to be real. You are attempting to define your way to a conclusion.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  And when they do so, Adrift, they use "meaning" in much the way you and MM are using it: "ultimate" or "eternal" meaning. Such a thing doesn't exist.
                  Nope. They literally mean it in the sense you mean it. In fact, Alex Rosenberg specifically goes after secular humanists like yourself in his book. He subscribes to what he calls "happy nihilism." You should check it out instead of guessing that every atheist subscribes to the same sense of meaning that you do. The label "atheist" only tells us what people think about the existence of god/s, it doesn't tell us what or how they ascribe meaning to life.

                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  All people "make their own meaning." Some meanings we agree upon (i.e., language) so we can interact. Some meanings are unique to the individual. Meaning is transient and individualized - and will eventually (as far as we know) end. Such is life.
                  Yes, I'm fully aware this is something you believe.


                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  If I actually fond that to be true - I would still believe in a god. I don't, so I don't.
                  Ok? I wasn't talking about what you believe. I was talking about what the Christians here believe.


                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  I'm not even sure how this even makes sense...

                  I don't cling to the notion of "meaning" to "feel better." I recognize that a sentient mind can ascribe meaning. It's an observable fact. It doesn't require my feelings. Human minds create words - and ascribe meaning to them. We don't do that to feel better - we do that so we can functionally communicate. Yes - there are some "meanings" that are linked to our emotions, but that is not why "meaning" exists. "Meaning" exists because we are sentient.

                  ...has no absolute/eternal meaning. Never said otherwise.

                  Umm... no. "Meaning" has nothing necessarily to do with "justice." The atheist recognizes that life is sometimes cruel and unjust, and that's that. I (and I think "we") don't invent meaning to hide that fact. We simply accept it as a fact of the universe.

                  Riiight. Also, I find it curious that you're fine with ascribing motivations to Christians, but balk when tagged back.


                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  The term "illusion" here is not correctly used
                  It was correctly used. The atheist philosopher, Alex Rosenberg, believes that his fellow atheists need to get past this idea of self-made purpose and meaning. "Whatever is in our brain driving our lives from cradle to grave, it is not purposes. But it does produce the powerful illusion of purposes, just like all the other purposeless adaptations in the biological realm."


                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Yeah... and that's pretty much what I said: sometimes there is just no justice, and the theist needs to avoid that by creating a god that will "make it all right in the end."
                  It doesn't follow that because the judge of all the earth will do right, that therefore the theist needs to create him in order to avoid the injustice in the here and now. Rather, it's the other way around. The ontological proof for God's existence posits that a maximally great being is by his very nature good and just. But I've already told you that Christians (and certainly the Christians here) don't create God, and certainly not so that we have some sense of justice. Rather, all the evidence points to God. So you appear to be doing that thing that you do where you merely repeat yourself, and pretend as though you're moving the conversation someplace.

                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  The atheist has no such need. We simply accept what is fairly obvious, and get on with our lives working for the best justice we can achieve in the course of our mortal existence.
                  So you say.

                  Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Adrift - the entire argument that "meaning is a fiction" or "meaning is an illusion" falls apart the minute you use symbolic language to express that idea. You are defeating your own argument by using words as if they actually, really mean something. If only "absolute/eternal" meaning is "true meaning," if all transient and self-selected meaning is "illusion and fiction," then you should just stop talking - right?
                  I think MM has already checked you on this silly notion.
                  Last edited by Adrift; 06-13-2019, 03:16 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Carp, laws of logic are conceptual, you need to reason to them. Yes, they seem self-evident but you could not know or accept that without first using reason. If you think otherwise explain how that would happen? And again Carp, I'm not making a case for the laws of logic per se, I'm making a the case that they are universal and absolute.
                    Then I suggest you take a course on basic logic, Seer. The foundational laws of reason are pretty universally accepted as true prima facie - without proof - on their merits - self-evidently. If you don't believe me, then ask some of the people who's opinion you do respect and whose word you will accept. Max or Chrawnus can tell you. There is no means for verifying or disproving the foundational building blocks of logic - without entering into a circular argument.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Nope, not even close. P1 is arguing from the the particular to the universal. That because our limited experience sees predictability or uniformity (particular) it does not logically follow that these qualities are universal. So premise one is logically incoherent. To C. how do you get conceptual logical absolutes when concepts are mind dependent, where is the universal mind to conceptualize these absolutes universally?
                    Seer - P1 isn't "arguing" anything. It's a premise. I cannot prove it to be true - but then again you cannot prove any of your premises to be true - and that doesn't seem to bother you. And the argument is sound, as your argument is sound. The conclusion is not known to be true because the premises are not known to be true. But that shouldn't bother you - because you put forward exactly the same kind of argument. SO why are you complaining that my premises cannot be shown to be true when your entire argument is based on premises that you cannot show to be true either?

                    Note that if this conversation were reversed - I'd probably accuse you of being a hypocrite. That seems to be de rigueure around here. But I actually DON'T think you're a hypocrite. I think you are making an error of logic.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Talk about ad hominem!
                    Are you aare of what "ad hominem" means, Seer. "That statement is false" is not an ad hominem any more than "that argument is circular." Both are about the statement/argument. "That is a falsehood" not only claims the statement is false, but contains the implication that the person making the statement is intentionally attempting to deceive because the term falsehood also has the meaning "a lie." Therefore it is an ad hominem. If you simply misspoke and meant "that statement is false," then I accept your word for it. No problem. But you do have a pretty long history of "hypocrite" and the like. Perhaps if you laid off the personal attacks and just focused on the discussion, this would not be a problem? Just a thought...

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    The fact is Carp my argument is not circular, if you think it is please show me exactly where:

                    P1. God thinks and creates rationally, he embodies conceptual logical truths.
                    P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe.
                    P3. God’s rational nature is immutable.
                    C4. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.
                    I have explained this several times now. The argument you put forward is a sound one. You cannot show it to be valid because you cannot show the premises to be true, so it is largely worthless. The circularity comes not in the argument itself, but in your attempt to use the laws of reason to prove that the laws of reason exist. A syllogism is rooted in the (presumably) absolute and (presumably) universal principles of logic: non contradiction, identity, and excluded middle. This entire argument, Seer, is useless if these laws of reason don't exist. You have to use them to prove them - which is circular.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    No Carp, I'm using reason and logic to demonstrate that the conceptual laws of logical are in fact universal and absolute. Not that the laws of logic simply exist in our personal experience. That is not a circle.
                    I do not know how to help you Seer. Look at your statement. You are using the very laws whose universality and absoluteness you want to demonstrate to make that argument. The argument falls apart if these laws are NOT absolute and universal. And you don't see the circle? Can someone else here help Seer. I don't think he's going to accept this from me. I'm too suspect in his mind, and it seems pretty evident that he thinks I would sacrifice truth/honesty/reality to my "atheist agenda."
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      Nope. They literally mean it in the sense you mean it. In fact, Alex Rosenberg specifically goes after secular humanists like yourself in his book. He subscribes to what he calls "happy nihilism." You should check it out instead of guessing that every atheist subscribes to the same sense of meaning that you do. The label "atheist" only tells us what people think about the existence of god/s, it doesn't tell us what or how they ascribe meaning to life.
                      I actually don't believe every atheist thinks as I do - for the reasons already cited. Perhaps Rosenburg uses the word differently. I don't know because I have not read him (as noted). I merely noted that those atheists I have read use the term as theists do, "ultimate" or "absolute" meaning. Meaning is what we choose it to be. AM I a candidate for Rosenburg's "happy nihilist?" Could be. I don't need "absolute" or "eternal" meaning to be happy. There is no despair in my life - largely because I HAVE it.

                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      Yes, I'm fully aware this is something you believe.

                      Ok? I wasn't talking about what you believe. I was talking about what the Christians here believe.

                      Riiight. Also, I find it curious that you're fine with ascribing motivations to Christians, but balk when tagged back.
                      So two things come to mind. I have no problem with ascribing motivations at a general level. For example, "I think most atheists are motivated by X" or "I think most theists are motivated by Y." If the general rules fits, it fits. In general, most of the arguments I have heard from the theistic side of the aisle align with what I have said. Many atheists align with what you have said - and frankly I find a lot of atheist arguments wanting. As I said - there is more anti-theist to them than a-theist.

                      When it comes to ascribing motivations to individuals, I also have no problem, at least as a jumping off point. But if I tell someone that their motivation appears to be X, and they tell me otherwise, I will take them at their word - until their words or actions again suggests to me otherwise. Where I have objected, historically, to ascribing motivations around here is the handful f people who ascribe a motivation, and then cling to their own idea despite responses to the contrary. In the past, I spent a great deal of time trying to clarify my motivations, thoughts, and purposes. I eventually came to realize it was a fools errand. People are going to think what they think. So if someone tells me what I am thinking, feeling or what motivates me - and they are wrong - I'll correct them. If they insist they are right - I'll nod and move on. It's a waste of time to do otherwise.

                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      It was correctly used. The atheist philosopher, Alex Rosenberg, believes that his fellow atheists need to get past this idea of self-made purpose and meaning. "Whatever is in our brain driving our lives from cradle to grave, it is not purposes. But it does produce the powerful illusion of purposes, just like all the other purposeless adaptations in the biological realm."
                      Then Rosenberg is wrong.

                      I went to the store to get roofing sealant to fix my leaking sun room roof. The journey had that purpose, and was entirely self-selected. The journey and purpose were real. The goal was achieved (based on the last rainstorm). There was no illusion or fiction involved: real roof - real rain - real water damaging real furniture and real sheetrock. I have a sentient mind. It makes associations, decisions, and derives meaning, purpose, and value. That's what a sentient mind does.

                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      It doesn't follow that because the judge of all the earth will do right, that therefore the theist needs to create him in order to avoid the injustice in the here and now. Rather, it's the other way around. The ontological proof for God's existence posits that a maximally great being is by his very nature good and just.
                      Kind of circular, that. We see "justice" and "goodness" as attractive qualities. We see them as components of anyone who aspires to greatness. So we then define some supreme being who incorporates these human ideals perfectly...and say "it must exist." Not a very compelling argument. Indeed, it is interesting to me to note that there is no attribute of god that is not first present in humanity. I suspect you will argue that it is because god created us in his image. I believe that we have created god(s) in our own image. Humanity has long created gods with the attributes they see all around themselves in nature: gods of storm, light, darkness, and even emotions like love. When we went for a monotheistic model, what more obvious thing to base this god on than ourselves?

                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      But I've already told you that Christians (and certainly the Christians here) don't create God, and certainly not so that we have some sense of justice. Rather, all the evidence points to God. So you appear to be doing that thing that you do where you merely repeat yourself, and pretend as though you're moving the conversation someplace.
                      Adrift - I don't think any single human being says "I will invent god today." I think the notion of gods is one that traces far, far back into human history. It is so long-standing that there is some evidence that our brains have become wired for (predominantly) theistic belief. As for "all the evidence," that is by no means true. Yes, there is evidence for the existence of a god - but the vast majority of that evidence is equivocal and circumstantial at best. Generally, most of it takes the form "we can't explain this - so it must be god. Look at Seer's argument for the existence of reason - and it takes pretty much exactly this form. If "all the evidence" pointed to god, then it would take an irrational person to reject the notion. I am not irrational - and I do not agree with your assessment of the evidence.

                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      So you say.
                      ...and do.

                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      I think MM has already checked you on this silly notion.
                      He has done nothing of the sort, Adrift. I am actually a bit surprised that you are accepting his argument. You usually have a pretty rigorous logic about you, and I have found previous exchanges to be interesting and informative. MM's points are badly flawed, and largely self-defeating.

                      But there is the problem of multiple senses of the term "meaning" be co-mingled. I have not completely sorted that out yet, and figured out how best to articulate it.
                      Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-13-2019, 03:49 PM.
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • OK - so I've been trying to noodle through the various ways that "meaning" is being used in here, and sort them out in my mind. There seems to me to be several different ways it is being used:

                        1) How an objective item is associated with a symbol. That is basically what happens when we assign meaning to words, or associate symbols with experiences, people, or other objects. I suspect none of us would argue that this assignment is largely arbitrary. As MM noted, the rock that reminds me of my father could just as easily have been a piece of driftwood, or anything else that my mind linked to my dad. His fishing gear is symbolic to me of his love of the outdoors, and reminds me of that love every time I look at it or use it. Such "meaning" is clearly temporal and subjective (to the person, or culture, or part of the species that shares that symbolism). I think it would be a hard case to make that it is not "real" or "actual."

                        2) The value that is placed on a "thing" (where thing could be a thought, object, concept, person, etc. I see this as slightly separate from meaning in the previous sense, because it reflects a sense of "worth" or "importance." I place great value in that silly rock. Indeed, I have many things from my dad, but that silly rock holds a place of preciousness to me that transcends the other objects. Value is an entirely subjective assessment. What is invaluable to one may have no value to another. Again, this meaning is temporal and subject. It is highly individualized, although there are many things we value in common. They include concepts like liberty and life, or even things like the Grand Canyon, the Mona Lisa, and the towering sequoias of Yosemite. Again, "subjective" is not synonymous with "unreal" or "fake." This valuing is perfectly real to each person assessing that value.

                        2) The purpose of a "thing" (where thing could be a thing or even a person. Again, "purpose" is something derived by a "purposer." The purposer can be a) the sentient being that created the thing, or b) a sentient being that uses the thing for a particular reason. Neither purpose is more or less "valid" or "real" or "true" than the other. The 14oz hammer in my tool box was designed to drive nails and pull nails. Perhaps it could more generally be said to pound things and pry things. However, it has another purpose I'm sure the designer never imagined: it is exactly the same length as the proper distance from a subfloor to an electrical outlet. Sometimes I sent my son to get my hammer for no other reason than to position an electrical box. For that moment and at that time, that was the purpose of the hammer. So what about humanity? In the atheist world, the creator of the new human is the parents. They may or may not have had a specific purpose in mind when conceiving. But the new human has their own sentient mind, and is perfectly capable of deriving purpose for themselves. This will be subjective, and transient. Again, the case cannot be made that it is fictitious or an illusion. It is simply finite and transient.

                        In all three cases, the argument that "meaning" without a creator god is "illusion" or "fiction" or "false" is simply unsustainable. Transient? Yes. Subjective? Yes. Temporal? Absolutely. Unreal or fake or fictitious? There is no other context I can think of where a thing that has a finite existence is considered "unreal" simply by virtue of that limited existence. I see no reason to suddenly leap to that argument for "meaning."
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • It's really not as difficult as you're making it out to be, and again, there are plenty of non-theists who believe that self-made meaning is illusory. We call these people nihilists. That you think their arguments or ours are unsustainable does not make it so.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            It's really not as difficult as you're making it out to be, and again, there are plenty of non-theists who believe that self-made meaning is illusory. We call these people nihilists. That you think their arguments or ours are unsustainable does not make it so.
                            And simply declaring subjective meaning to be "illusory" doesn't make it so either, Adrift. By this definition, any thought, any idea, any concept we conceive is "illusory." The human mind and its processes are all "illusion." Essentially - nothing is real if it is related to thought. "Subjective" is not synonymous with "illusory," which is what is being attempted here.

                            The term "illusion" means "a thing that is or is likely to be wrongly perceived or interpreted by the senses" or "a deceptive appearance or impression" or "a false idea or belief." None of these apply. The closest you might be able to come is "a false idea or belief," except I am not claiming that any meaning I derive is "absolute" or "eternal" or necessarily shared by any other. I am clear that it is subjective. And my use of meaning is perfectly consistent with how humanity uses the term when deriving language, or explaining the "meaning" an artist sought to convey with their art.

                            The argument simply fails. No one here actually lives that concept of meaning. Even Christians who hold to "ultimate meaning" live with subjective meaning every day of their lives, and never once suggest it doesn't exist or is an illusion. It is not until there is a discussion with the atheist, who believes that subjective and finite/temporal meaning is ALL there is, does it suddenly becomes "illusion." Even some atheists have bought into this canard. Rosenberg is apparently an example.

                            I'm not.
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-13-2019, 08:04 PM.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              A piece of driftwood could just as easily be a meaningful reminder of my dad as the rock that currently plays that role. The latter was your own example.
                              Yes, it was my example, but it seems you missed the point. The symbol might be arbitrary, but the thing it references -- objective reality -- is not.

                              Similarly, when you claim that your life has meaning -- that is to say your life has "a hidden or special significance" -- you are referencing an objective quality contrary to your world view.

                              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              ...it comes down to the same thing I initially predicted: only absolute/eternal "meaning" is real - and everything else is a fiction/illusion. It's a commonly put forward argument...
                              It might be a common argument, but it's not the one I put forward despite your valiant efforts to beat it into that shape.

                              You also might want to consider that the idea that life in an atheist universe is meaningless is not of my invention. It's a concept that atheist philosophers have wrestled with, despaired over, and in some cases accepted. Adrift mentioned Alex Rosenberg who wrote, "When it comes to making life meaningful, what secular humanists hanker after is something they can't have and don't need. What they do need, if meaninglessness makes it impossible to get out of bed in the morning, is Prozac."

                              Donald Crosby writes, "Strut, fret, and delude ourselves as we may, our lives are of no significance, and it is futile to seek or to affirm meaning where none can be found ... There is no justification for life, but also no reason not to live. Those who claim to find meaning in their lives are either dishonest or deluded. In either case, they fail to face up to the harsh reality of the human situation."

                              https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Existential_nihilism

                              Susan Blackmore, a psychologist responding to a question posed by BuzzFeed, gave this paradoxical reply: "The pointlessness of life is not a thing to be overcome. It's something to be celebrated now, because that's all there is."

                              Podcast host Stephen Knight says, "When we reject the imagined supernatural meaning from our existence, what we're left with is far from a consolation prize. Sure, it'll be messy at times, sometimes joyous, sometimes miserable, but it's all we'll ever know. And it's ours. We invent comforting lies to distract us from one simple truth: Oblivion looms."

                              Other responses are much the same...

                              https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/...ake-as-a-child

                              Professor Anthony Pinn depressingly reasons that "You have to drain from every moment as much as you can so at the end of life you can say you've lived."

                              https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...surdity-it-all

                              And on it goes.

                              Now here's the kicker: you agree with every single premise they use to reach that conclusion, and if the premises are true then the conclusion is necessarily true, and this is where you get stuck. You don't want it to be true, but if atheism is true then you have no choice: life is meaningless, and any attempt to find meaning is nothing but a comforting lie.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Then I suggest you take a course on basic logic, Seer. The foundational laws of reason are pretty universally accepted as true prima facie - without proof - on their merits - self-evidently. If you don't believe me, then ask some of the people who's opinion you do respect and whose word you will accept. Max or Chrawnus can tell you. There is no means for verifying or disproving the foundational building blocks of logic - without entering into a circular argument.
                                I did not say anything about proof Carp. I said you can not discover these "foundational laws" without first using reason to get there. These are not physical objects that present themselves to our senses, they are concepts that we reason to. If you think it works otherwise please show how that happens.


                                Seer - P1 isn't "arguing" anything. It's a premise. I cannot prove it to be true - but then again you cannot prove any of your premises to be true - and that doesn't seem to bother you. And the argument is sound, as your argument is sound. The conclusion is not known to be true because the premises are not known to be true. But that shouldn't bother you - because you put forward exactly the same kind of argument. SO why are you complaining that my premises cannot be shown to be true when your entire argument is based on premises that you cannot show to be true either?
                                Carp you are the one who was claiming that premises must be shown to be true! And that if one can not demonstrate that the syllogism is invalid. So which is it? And again, your conclusion did not follow since conceptual logical absolutes require a mind to conceptualize them. Unless you believe that rocks and gasses can conceptualize logical truths.


                                I have explained this several times now. The argument you put forward is a sound one. You cannot show it to be valid because you cannot show the premises to be true, so it is largely worthless. The circularity comes not in the argument itself, but in your attempt to use the laws of reason to prove that the laws of reason exist. A syllogism is rooted in the (presumably) absolute and (presumably) universal principles of logic: non contradiction, identity, and excluded middle. This entire argument, Seer, is useless if these laws of reason don't exist. You have to use them to prove them - which is circular.
                                So was your syllogism invalid? Admitting that you can not deduce that the conceptual laws of logic are universal and immutable?


                                I do not know how to help you Seer. Look at your statement. You are using the very laws whose universality and absoluteness you want to demonstrate to make that argument. The argument falls apart if these laws are NOT absolute and universal. And you don't see the circle? Can someone else here help Seer. I don't think he's going to accept this from me. I'm too suspect in his mind, and it seems pretty evident that he thinks I would sacrifice truth/honesty/reality to my "atheist agenda."
                                Nonsense Carp, using the laws of logic to demonstrate their universality is not the same thing as arguing for the mere existence of said laws. It could very well be that they are neither universal nor immutable. And I would like to see how you/we discover your foundational laws of reason without using reason. How does that happen? Give me an example.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                289 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X