Objective Value and seeing argument!

[Link]

Salam

(1) Is Value of who we are objective or subjective.

We would not even try to estimate who we are, if there was not an objective value to who we are. We don't subjectively decided we are good or bad, we try to rather see if we are good or bad.

Asking other humans feedback is not a problem, but we take account of what they say to help us recognize who we are. That is if we take their feedback without an objective value to who we are, they themselves would be just making it up and it would have no value.

The fact that we even take account of what others say, show, we are trying to recognize who we are and our value, some trying even to their best of their abilities.

We don't just assign ourselves value, we try to recognize what our value is, which means we have an objective value.

(2) We are a perception

Seeing compassion, love, justice, in ourselves and others, requires us to assess actions and believe there is personhood to the person, and states of being that are non-material. When I say non-material, I am not necessarily saying a soul yet, let's say, it's a program generated by the brain from an atheist point of view. Regardless of what viewpoint, we are an idea/non-material/perception type existence. Which brings the next point.

(3) Can our brains generate who we are accurately?

I say they cannot, because they don't have an objective measurement to who we are and way of assessing our actions, in short, we don't assign who we are accurately but rather estimate and somethings we are right about ourselves and other things wrong.

(4) If we have an objective value, where does it exist?

I say if we an objective value, the only place we really can exist is with God, in his vision, judging us exactly as we are. God sees us exactly as we are, and the only thing that can.


Putting the premises together:

(1) We are a perception.
(2) That value we perceive ourselves is not accurate to who we are.
(3) We have an accurate value to who we are.
(4) The accurate value to who we are, can only be seen and assigned by God (Perfect judge and assessor to who we are).

Therefore God exists.

 

[McBell]

Your "value" is based entirely upon what you are being compared to.

 

[Link]

Your "value" is based entirely upon what you are being compared to.

This maybe true, I don't see how it disqualifies what I have said.

 

[McBell]

This maybe true, I don't see how it disqualifies what I have said.

It answers point one.
Your value is completely subjective and based entirely upon what it is you are being compared to.

 

[Link]

It answers point one.
Your value is completely subjective and based entirely upon what it is you are being compared to.

It's a claim then, I already explain how that claim is not true.

 

[F1fan]

Putting the premises together:

(1) We are a perception.
(2) That value we perceive ourselves is not accurate to who we are.
(3) We have an accurate value to who we are.
(4) The accurate value to who we are, can only be seen and assigned by God (Perfect judge and assessor to who we are).

Therefore God exists.

Your conclusion that a God exists is part of premise (4), thus not accurate.

But that's OK because none of these premises are true in any objective way.

 

[Link]

Your conclusion that a God exists is part of premise (2), thus not accurate.

Explain. I don't see it that way.

 

[Link]

But that's OK because none of these premises are true in any objective way.

Denial won't make them untrue nor the proof of each go away nor the clear reminder of each become ambiguous, but suit yourself.

 

[F1fan]

Explain. I don't see it that way.

That you "don't see it that way" is your problem.

Premises in logic have to be true. Every part of them. Look at premise 4, you refer to a God as if it exists, and from that you conclude a God exists. THAT is illogical. You don't understand logic.

You can't string a list of beliefs together and think it's logic. EVERY premise has to be factual and true FIRST!

 

[Link]

That you "don't see it that way" is your problem.

Premises in logic have to be true. Every part of them. Look at premise 4, you refer to a God as if it exists, and from that you conclude a God exists. THAT is illogical. You don't understand logic.

You can't string a list of beliefs together and think it's logic. EVERY premise has to be factual and true FIRST!

Alright bro, I got A+ in the last logic class I took. But I don't understand logic.

 

[F1fan]

Alright bro, I got A+ in the last logic class I took. But I don't understand logic.

LOL, not according to what you've posted.

Let's note that Creationists can get an A in biology class. You need to apply what you've learned. You aren't.

Did you not learn that ALL premises in a syllogism have to be true objectively?

 

[Link]

Address the OP, I am not tolerating the side-track ad hominem thing you trying to do dude.

 

[McBell]

That you "don't see it that way" is your problem.

Premises in logic have to be true. Every part of them. Look at premise 4, you refer to a God as if it exists, and from that you conclude a God exists. THAT is illogical. You don't understand logic.

You can't string a list of beliefs together and think it's logic. EVERY premise has to be factual and true FIRST!

Only if the conclusion is to be considered sound.
Conclusions can be valid, but not sound.

Not that I am saying his is either.

 

[Link]

First you stated it was invalid, now you saying all premises have to be true.

An argument to be valid, doesn't have to have all arguments true.
To be sound, it does.

Which one are you stating first. Is it invalid or is valid but not sound.

And if the latter, tell me which premise is not true so we can discuss it.

 

[McBell]

Address the OP, I am not tolerating the side-track ad hominem thing you trying to do dude.

He is addressing the OP.

YOU are the one who started the tangent by trying to pat yourself on the back.

 

[Link]

Only if the conclusion is to be considered sound.
Conclusions can be valid, but not sound.

Not that I am saying his is either.

The validity is actually very clear. So let's decide first, what is potential invalid about the argument?

Then we can discuss which premises you guys doubt and need elaboration for if it's valid.

 

[McBell]

First you stated it was invalid, now you saying all premises have to be true.

An argument to be valid, doesn't have to have all arguments true.
To be sound, it does.

Which one are you stating first. Is it invalid or is valid but not sound.

And if the latter, tell me which premise is not true so we can discuss it.

Your fist premise is not true.
Your value is not absolute.
No ones is.

 

[Link]

He is addressing the OP.

YOU are the one who started the tangent by trying to pat yourself on the back.

He says I don't understand logic, etc, trying to make it as if I don't know anything about logic. He was trying to side-track it.

 

[McBell]

The validity is actually very clear. So let's decide first, what is potential invalid about the argument?

Then we can discuss which premises you guys doubt and need elaboration for if it's valid.

My VERY FIRST post in this thread is pointing out that your value is not absolute.

 

[Link]

Your fist premise is not true.
Your value is not absolute.
No ones is.

Okay you made a claim, but I already elaborated why the first premise is true. So if you can address that, so we can work from there, it would be appreciated.