"No evidence of God" = Is a bad argument against God

[mikkel_the_dane]

When did I ever even hint that "minds are not needed to say that minds are not needed"??

Those straws you're grasping for... did you actually get ahold on any?

You really need to read some Immanuel Kant. This is old news now. You can't say anything about the world as independent of the mind, because to say it, requires a mind. It is that simple. Google das Ding an sich or the thing in itself.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Well, we know God allowed the latter. Did He allow the former, too? If not, why not?

Is killing a single human cell much worse than owning another full grown human being?

ciao

- viole

Not only did the God of the Bible order the death of the infants and children who were Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:2–3), but he also sanctioned miscarriages and abortion. According to Exodus 21:22–25, if two people were fighting and one of them accidentally hit a pregnant woman and she miscarried, then the person who hit her was required to pay whatever the woman’s husband demanded and the court allowed. But if the woman was seriously injured and she died, then it was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It was a property crime if the woman miscarried, but it was murder if she died, and the person responsible for her death was also killed.

According to Numbers 5:11–31, if a man suspected his pregnant wife of adultery but there were no witnesses, then he would bring her before the priest to be tested in order to determine if she was guilty of adultery. She was brought "before the Lord" and required to drink bitter water, which contained ink and dust from the tabernacle floor. Before she drank this toxic water, the priest would write down the accusations against her and then wash the ink off in the water. It was believed that if she had committed adultery against her husband, then her stomach would swell and she would miscarry. If she was innocent, then nothing would happen and she would be free to go. Based on these three examples alone, it's blatantly obvious to see that the God of the Bible was definitely not pro-life.

 

[firedragon]

Would you please hold a truth like say a stone. You are doing ontological idealism.

Nope. You have not understood what ontological idealism is. Try not to throw in many words prior to understanding them. Where ever you found it, read the whole thing properly. This is not an experiential truth, its an objective truth, and for that dualism. It is you who is making ontologically idealistic claims. Just that you dont understand the phrases you are using. It is irrelevant. Only if you understood the ontology OF idealism. Then you will understand the ontological idealism. Dualist, monist, Dvaitha, Advaitha, Vedanta, whoever or what ever you are, it does not matter to this particular point being made.

 

[Bathos Logos]

You really need to read some Immanuel Kant. This is old news now. You can't say anything about the world as independent of the mind, because to say it, requires a mind. It is that simple. Google das Ding an sich or the thing in itself.

Was Kant counting geometrical principles that are entirely independent of a mind (existent or otherwise)? If so, then maybe he should rethink.

This is a geometric relationship that, again, not even inanimate objects (without any minds involved) can break ties with. Triangles and circles could exist out there in the universe with zero minds present to observe them, and still the relationship holds. It will be as true now as it is when all humans are gone from the universe, and it was as true when all the matter of the universe was just a twinkle on God's left butt cheek.

I don't even need to talk about it, or say anything about it for it to be true. So, if Kant says "You can't say anything about the world as independent of the mind, because to say it, requires a mind" - what does this mean for things that are true regardless whether or not anyone talks about them?

Again... you are grasping at straws, and now name-dropping. Name-dropping usually always spells the end.

 

[firedragon]

You really need to read some Immanuel Kant.

I think you should. You have not understood Kants idealism refutation. Please read Immanuel Kant. Then you will understand how far away from Kants philosophical arguments you are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope. You have not understood what ontological idealism is. Try not to throw in many words prior to understanding them. Where ever you found it, read the whole thing properly. This is not an experiential truth, its an objective truth, and for that dualism. It is you who is making ontologically idealistic claims. Just that you dont understand the phrases you are using. It is irrelevant. Only if you understood the ontology OF idealism. Then you will understand the ontological idealism. Dualist, monist, Dvaitha, Advaitha, Vedanta, whoever or what ever you are, it does not matter to this particular point being made.

Yeah, we understand Kant differently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Was Kant counting geometrical principles that are entirely independent of a mind (existent or otherwise)? If so, then maybe he should rethink.

This is a geometric relationship that, again, not even inanimate objects (without any minds involved) can break ties with. Triangles and circles could exist out there in the universe with zero minds present to observe them, and still the relationship holds. It will be as true now as it is when all humans are gone from the universe, and it was as true when all the matter of the universe was just a twinkle on God's left butt cheek.

I don't even need to talk about it, or say anything about it for it to be true. So, if Kant says "You can't say anything about the world as independent of the mind, because to say it, requires a mind" - what does this mean for things that are true regardless whether or not anyone talks about them?

Again... you are grasping at straws, and now name-dropping. Name-dropping usually always spells the end.

The problem is that truth is cognitive. You are claim something you can't perceive with external sensation as out there independent of the mind. The same with things. That is a cognitive concept.
Let us start here:
In philosophy, a noumenon is a posited object or an event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses.
That is what we are doing. You claim that there are noumenons. Then please point to one.

 

[firedragon]

Was Kant speaking about geometrical principles that are entirely independent of a mind (existent or otherwise)? If not, then maybe he should rethink.

No. Kant was not that stupid. Kant spoke of transcendental idealism and its experiential. He calls it formal or in order to differentiate it from material idealism. Analytical truths and objective facts in the examples of axioms like the law of non contradiction transcends any shape or form of idealism. It is not even related. So you are right.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you should. You have not understood Kants idealism refutation. Please read Immanuel Kant. Then you will understand how far away from Kants philosophical arguments you are.

Yes, this concept: Noumenon. Please point to one.

 

[firedragon]

Yeah, we understand Kant differently.

Not at all. You probably will misquote Kant or are going to misquote Kant. It is not about understanding differently, it is about completely misquoting Kant for the sake of argument thinking people are just ignorant and gullible.

Please quote in which book of Kant he associates ontology of idealism with a non-contradiction and says his transcendence doctrine avoids it. Please quote directly.

You have misunderstood everything so badly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not at all. You probably will misquote Kant or are going to misquote Kant. It is not about understanding differently, it is about completely misquoting Kant for the sake of argument thinking people are just ignorant and gullible.

Please quote in which book of Kant he associates ontology of idealism with a non-contradiction and says his transcendence doctrine avoids it. Please quote directly.

You have misunderstood everything so badly.

Rephrase that.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, this concept: Noumenon. Please point to one.

Hmm. So you brought in another word. Why?

Alright. So we could discuss Kant and Noumenon. Negative or Positive? Which one? Is it a thing by itself, or an object of sense? Is it a limitative conception? Is it necessary due to a limitative conception of sensibility as Kant says? And how is that related to non-contradiction and analytical truths?

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmm. So you brought in another word. Why?

Alright. So we could discuss Kant and Noumenon. Negative or Positive? Which one? Is it a thing by itself, or an object of sense? Is it a limitative conception? Is it necessary due to a limitative conception of sensibility as Kant says? And how is that related to non-contradiction and analytical truths?

What in the world are you talking about?

Okay, the laws of logic are the laws of thought and analytical requires thoughts.
So here is a simple version of what is at play:
"noumenon, plural noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing as it appears to an observer. Though the noumenal holds the contents of the intelligible world, Kant claimed that man’s speculative reason can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to the noumenon. ..."
noumenon | Definition, Example, & Facts

That is it. So please point to logic, analysis and noumenon as independent of speculative reason or rather the mind.

 

[Bathos Logos]

The problem is that truth is cognitive. You are claim something you can't perceive with external sensation as out there independent of the mind. The same with things. That is a cognitive concept.

This doesn't matter. As soon as you must admit that the "next capable mind" to encounter the thing would come to the exact same conclusions and measurements - without fail, it is done. The thing is objective. As in, it fits the definition of "objective" that you, yourself provided:

having reality independent of the mind

That explicitly means that it exists regardless whether a mind is there to perceive it or not. You claimed that something being "objective" required a mind, because that is in the definition... which, admittedly, the word "mind" is, but only in order to demonstrate that the word literally means that no mind is necessary for it to have presence in reality.

Let us start here:
In philosophy, a noumenon is a posited object or an event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses.
That is what we are doing. You claim that there are noumenons. Then please point to one.

I already did. The reality of the inner angles of a triangle summing to half a full compliment of the angle represented by a full circle. That is a reality. Again - no triangle capable of existing can break form with this principle. The principle itself exists, even if no one is there to perceive it, utilize it, or think on it. At any time a triangle comes into being, it adheres to this principle - with or without an observer.

I don't have to "hold it in my hand" for it to be true. What a ridiculous thing to insist.

Another "noumenon" that perhaps more readily fits your definition (since it seems to include human sense perception) would be gravity. When we pointed out telescopes at distant stars and saw them all wheeling around one another under the same pretenses of gravitational relationship as the bodies we had observed nearest us, did they all suddenly cover their mouths in surprise and go running into position to make sure that such gravitational relationships appeared coherent to our understanding? Is that how you envision this working? Because that's ridiculous. Point being that the event we've named "gravity" can so obviously be seen to be working, and to the same tune as the objects all around us, even in remote places of the universe where no life is known to be present. And the evidence of gravity having been working throughout time before we were even here is all around us. The shape of the Earth and the other planets that have formed in our solar system, for example. It exists, independent of any mind, and should rightfully be assumed to exist even if none of us are here... because again, all evidence points to it having existed far prior to the first human who could articulate the relationship to another human or himself/herself.

 

[firedragon]

Did you mean to post nothing as a reply?

Why would anyone wish to post nothing as a reply?

Some error happened. I cant understand.

My point being that "philosohpy" (proper), requires an observer. It is in the definition: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. But this fact I have raised does not require an observer to remain fact.

You claimed it was "philosophy". I don't believe it is. The fact itself is not "philosophy" and is objective.

You just made a philosophical argument Bathos.

Philosophy does not necessarily need an observer. Let me explain it to you. You are correct in your geometrical explanation and argument, but calling it "not philosophy" is absolutely wrong. What you are doing is, taking a triangle, explaining that it will always remain independently and/or objectively true, which is a philosophical argument.

You should understand that geometry or a triangle being an objective truth is an axiom you would take in the subject of geometry. Lets say that you wish to make a calculation of one angle based on the knowledge both other angles. This is a calculation based on the axiom that the angles inside a triangle add up to 180 degrees. Its true. Its objectively true. Making it an axiom, and a truth, is philosophy. Based on that you would do mathematics. Do you understand?

A triangle could never have 360 degrees if you add all the angles. Thats impossible. This is the very example most philosophers take to explain the law of non-contradiction. This is an analytical truth. Thats philosophy.

There is no point in trying to make it that exclusive. I hope you understand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

That explicitly means that it exists regardless whether a mind is there to perceive it or not. You claimed that something being "objective" required a mind, because that is in the definition... which, admittedly, the word "mind" is, but only in order to demonstrate that the word literally means that no mind is necessary for it to have presence in reality.

...

Then we can't talk about it or know it.

You are doing the first one. I am doing the second one.
"philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. ..."
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

 

[Bathos Logos]

You just made a philosophical argument Bathos.

Sure, the argument is philosophical. The principle itself, is not.

Philosophy does not necessarily need an observer. Let me explain it to you. You are correct in your geometrical explanation and argument, but calling it "not philosophy" is absolutely wrong. What you are doing is, taking a triangle, explaining that it will always remain independently and/or objectively true, which is a philosophical argument.

Sure, the argument is philosophical. The principle itself, is not.

You should understand that geometry or a triangle being an objective truth is an axiom you would take in the subject of geometry. Lets say that you wish to make a calculation of one angle based on the knowledge both other angles. This is a calculation based on the axiom that the angles inside a triangle add up to 180 degrees. Its true. Its objectively true. Making it an axiom, and a truth, is philosophy. Based on that you would do mathematics. Do you understand?

Sure, the act of making it an axiom is philosophical. The principle itself as it plays out in reality (and must necessarily play out), is not.

A triangle could never have 360 degrees if you add all the angles. Thats impossible. This is the very example most philosophers take to explain the law of non-contradiction. This is an analytical truth. Thats philosophy.

Which requires analysis, correct? The principle itself does not require analysis to be true. Otherwise, when not being analyzed, it wouldn't be true. But it is always true.

 

[firedragon]

Okay, the laws of logic are the laws of thought and analytical requires thoughts.
So here is a simple version of what is at play:
"noumenon, plural noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing as it appears to an observer. Though the noumenal holds the contents of the intelligible world, Kant claimed that man’s speculative reason can only know phenomena and can never penetrate to the noumenon. ..."
noumenon | Definition, Example, & Facts

That is it. So please point to logic, analysis and noumenon as independent of speculative reason or rather the mind.

Mate. YOU have not read Kant. Yet you are telling others to read Kant. Only to show you that you are looking at some web page on the internet that mentions Kant, you are dropping words and names. That is why you cannot understand a single I said about Kant himself.

This is irrelevant. Absolutely irrelevant. It is because you have not understood it you keep dropping words and names. The noumenal lies behind the mentally imposed forms of time, space, and causation, and is therefore unknowable. That is irrelevant to non-contradiction and an ontology of a triangle.

Actually this is laughable. I am out.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Then we can't talk about it or know it.

You are doing the first one. I am doing the second one.
"philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. ..."
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

Again, "philosophy", even as you have defined it, does not need to be involved in the principle that exists limiting the possibilities of these measurements. It simply does not. Otherwise you would have to state that the principle or relationship itself it somehow no longer applicable or true when capable minds are not there to take the measurements. When the truth is, the next capable mind would most definitely find the exact same principle/relationship in play. Thus fitting the very definition of "objective".

Also, I notice you dodged my point about gravity. Care to weigh-in on that one?

 

[firedragon]

Sure, the argument is philosophical. The principle itself, is not.

Good God Bathos. This is a principle. The principle is a philosophical argument.

Which requires analysis, correct?

No.