Objective Value and seeing argument!

[Link]

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

And it was a claim without addressing the content that I used to support the first premise.

 

[ratiocinator]

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

Subjective. The whole concept of value is itself is subjective. We only have value in the minds human beings. Even things that have agreed values are constructs of collective societies and so ultimately subjective.

We would not even try to estimate who we are, if there was not an objective value to who we are.

Non sequitur. We may try to assess our value in relation to something (like society as a whole or our own value system) but there is no objective standard outside of the minds of humans.

We don't subjectively decided we are good or bad, we try to rather see if we are good or bad.

The concepts of good and bad are equally subjective.

The rest is equally flawed but it doesn't really matter as your first premiss is obviously false.

 

[Link]

Subjective. The whole concept of value is itself is subjective. We only have value in the minds human beings. Even things that have agreed values are constructs of collective societies and so ultimately subjective.

My first premise and start was elaborating this is not true. When someone addresses how I stated things and why that is not true, we can have a conversation.

 

[Link]

Non sequitur. We may try to assess our value in relation to something (like society as a whole or our own value system) but there is no objective standard outside of the minds of humans.

We wouldn't try to estimate if there was no objective value. If it was our minds making it up, we would not even try but recognize it as an illusion and be done with it.

And you contradicted yourself, you first said non-sequitur then stated our minds are objective in estimating, make up your mind, so we can discuss the right premise you doubt.

 

[ratiocinator]

When someone addresses how I stated things and why that is not true, we can have a conversation.

I did address it. Nothing in your item 1 is objective. You refer exclusively to subjective concepts - value itself being the first.

 

[ratiocinator]

We wouldn't try to estimate if there was no objective value.

Why not? Our value with respect to the collective values of the society we happen to live in may be important to us. Equally, an individual may have their own value system and reject that of society. Neither are ultimately objective.

 

[McBell]

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.

You declared your beliefs as though they are facts.
Nothing more.

 

[Link]

I did address it. Nothing in your item 1 is objective. You refer exclusively to subjective concepts - value itself being the first.

You are making a claim, which you later said the opposite. But you haven't addressed my reasoning yet. You called it non-sequitur, but it's reasonable, if it was an illusion, we wouldn't try to recognize the value because we get to just make it up as we go. The fact we estimate, shows we believe there is objective value, and in fact, we never try estimate except maybe the end of a rainbow before people knew what it was, a non-existing thing.

We exist, we have objective value, is the reason that motivates to understand who we are and recognize who others are, in value.

 

[Link]

Why not? Our value with respect to the collective values of the society we happen to live in may be important to us. Equally, an individual may have their own value system and reject that of society. Neither are ultimately objective.

You are agreeing with my premise that we can't assign value to ourselves, which means, we are trying to estimate our value. The fact our brains and society don't assign ourselves the accurate value we agree upon.

It doesn't refute we have an objective value nor the reasoning I showed that we believe/know we have objective value. And we would make no effort if there was no objective value, because we can assign whatever we want without basis.

 

[ratiocinator]

If it was our minds making it up, we would not even try but recognize it as an illusion and be done with it.

The world is full of people who passionately believe illusions. However, something not being objective does not make it unimportant to an individual. Beauty is entirely subjective but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy a beautiful landscape. Taste in food is entirely subjective but that doesn't stop me wanting to eat things I like and avoid things I don't like.

 

[Link]

You declared your beliefs as though they are facts.
Nothing more.

Step aside bro, you don't want discuss any of the premises or elaboration, but just deny God and his existence and proofs for him, nothing new in this regard right?

 

[ratiocinator]

You are agreeing with my premise that we can't assign value to ourselves...

Of course we can. Most people take note of the society they live in and its, collective but equally subjective, values, but some people reject the values of their society - probably most people do to some extent.

...which means, we are trying to estimate our value.

With respect to our mind and other people's - neither of which are objective.

The fact our brains and society don't assign ourselves the accurate value we agree upon.

You've just assumed that there is an accurate one. Nothing you've said actually leads to that conclusion.

 

[Link]

The world is full of people who passionately believe illusions. However, something not being objective does not make it unimportant to an individual. Beauty is entirely subjective but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy a beautiful landscape. Taste in food is entirely subjective but that doesn't stop me wanting to eat things I like and avoid things I don't like.

Beauty is not entirely subjective but actually very mathematical, it involves equations. Maybe some people override that equation, maybe racism kicks in, but the equations are there, and we recognize beauty. But that is all off-topic.

Food is partially subjective and partially it has to do with the food. It's not one or the other.

But value doesn't work that way, it's different then both, in that beauty has math equations for it in our minds, and taste has to do with what we like true but also how things taste. Value we don't see it, and are trying to see it. Some trying harder then others to know the truth about it.

But it's something that is created with our actions and intentions/states in those actions, which are hidden from physical eyes. And actions can be witnessed through physical eyes or read about, but the state of the person and intention, cannot. God knows the value of each person, and really no fully does but him.

The guide who witnesses our deeds and all humans and Jinn, also, his knowledge though accurate, it's not fully accurate and God sees even what is beyond those who record our deeds, and knows what is hidden from them.

Even him with the holy spirit and light, cannot fully see us. This while food you can taste it, and that's it. And beauty, you see it, then that it's. This is while value is hidden, we don't see it and it's something we look at from afar. It's exactly like God in this respect, we see God but don't really know what he is fully. We somewhat know, and yet really really don't.

 

[McBell]

Step aside bro, you don't want discuss any of the premises or elaboration, but just deny God and his existence and proofs for him, nothing new in this regard right?

The problem here is that you are unable to discuss your premise because you refuse to see even the possibility that your premise is completely subjective.

As has already been flat out pointed out by another member (which you completely ignored), value is completely subjective.
That you claim your god sets your value is nothing more than your belief.
And beliefs are not objective.

So we do not even have to go past your first faulty premise to show that your conclusion is not sound.

 

[Link]

The problem here is that you are unable to discuss your premise because you refuse to see even the possibility that your premise is completely subjective.

As has already been flat out pointed out by another member (which you completely ignored), value is completely subjective.
That you claim your god sets your value is nothing more than your belief.
And beliefs are not objective.

So we do not even have to go past your first faulty premise to show that your conclusion is not sound.

The problem is always with the one presenting proofs, never with the one listening, right?

 

[McBell]

The problem is always with the one presenting proofs, never with the one listening, right?

And here you are presenting a faulty premise AND not listening to those explaining why it is faulty.

 

[Link]

And here you are presenting a faulty premise AND not listening to those explaining why it is faulty.

So it's not those presenting proofs, it must be Theists are always wrong?

 

[ratiocinator]

Beauty is not entirely subjective but actually very mathematical, it involves equations.

That will be why different people find different things beautiful then

But value doesn't work that way, it's different then both, in that beauty has math equations for it in our minds, and taste has to do with what we like true but also how things taste. Value we don't see it, and are trying to see it. Some trying harder then others to know the truth about it.

Again - no argument, just an assumption that there is a truth about it.

But it's something that is created with our actions and intentions/states in those actions, which are hidden from physical eyes.

Assertion - where is the argument?

God knows the value of each person, and really no fully does but him.

Another assertion - where is the argument?

 

[McBell]

So it's not those presenting proofs, it must be Theists are always wrong?

I really do hate to be the one to break it to you, but you do NOT represent all theists.

 

[Link]

I already presented the argument in the OP. You are jumping from one premise to another. Which one(s) do you dispute and explain why.

Is it there is an objective value? I already explain why we wouldn't estimate nor society, if it was a complete illusion which it would be, if there is no objective value.