Objective Value and seeing argument!

[blü 2]

Salam

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

Salam. The value of who we are is subjective ─ ask any hungry bear or mosquito or shark.

Each species evolves with instincts to ensure reproduction. With insects, spiders, many fish and molluscs, and some animals, not least rodents, sheer volume may be the technique. With others, including us, instincts promoting individual survival are foremost ─ and we're one of a few special cases because our infants are wholly dependent till about age five. So we've evolved a strong set of individual survival instincts, including a large kit of self-preservation instincts ─ which are exploited in many kinds of movies, and with daredevil live stunts (sadly for Alex Harvill, and he's not the first). We're also gregarious, so our place in the tribal peck order matters, and self-assertion may be rewarded.

In other words, we're valuable because we've evolved to think so.

 

[viole]

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.

3) is a statement. Where is the argument that it is true? Same with 4) which also smells of circularity, by invoking the conclusion, in the premises.

Since you like unproven statements as premises to prove God, why do you make it so complicated? Look, I can optimize it

1) God exists
2) ergo, God exists

ciao

- viole

 

[MikeF]

in relation to your discussion with Link, my question would be:

is it possible that there is a source of “good” (an absolute goodness) which could be used to estimate our relative value and goodness?

Things might be easier if there was a rule book and an unbiased referee external to humanity. But, alas, they don't exist. Therefore it is up to us to collectively come up with a rule book that finds the right balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the group. And we must start treating every single human being as part of the same group.

 

[night912]

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 argument as a whole, is invalid. Premise 3 does not follow premise 2. Demonstrate how you get from, "That value we perceive ourselves is not accurate to who we are," to "We have an accurate value to who we are."

This problem must be dealt with before it can even move on to the next premise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Explain. I don't see it that way.

It means that you argument uses an assumed conclusion.

It's a fallacy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

If you had an A+, then obviously you should be familiar with the fallacy of "assumed conclusion" and be able to recognize it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It's not an ad hominem to point out flaws in your argument "dude"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It's fallacious.

It uses an assumed conclusion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That you claim your god sets your value is nothing more than your belief.

And also once again an assumed conclusion....


- god assigns value
- we have value
- therefor god exists

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Our assignment is not absolute, but it is done with a belief that is an accurate value assignment that we do our best to see and love and assign ourselves to us and others. The absolute assignment we can't do and rather only God can is part of my argument, how can I not understand it when I stated this as part of my argument.

So, in the premises of the argument, you consider it an assumed given that the god the argument is supposed to demonstrate to exist, actually exists and does things. And that then leads you to the conclusion that therefor god exists.

This is textbook assumed conclusion.

 

[sayak83]

By the way, if value is an illusion, then love is baseless, because love is valuing a human being. There is types of love, and types of valuing and types of valuing in relationships of one human to another, but all of it an illusion if there is no objective value.

Love sees the truth when it values human beings in my perspective. It doesn't fully know what it loves, but it loves based on the truth that humans do have objective value.

Selfishness as in preferring yourself over others, is of course, mathematically incorrect equation. It's irrational.

Values are subjective not illusions.
There is no reason to think that only objective things or properties can be real.

 

[Link]

Here are some verses that to me is a sign that Quran is from God as he argues by his vision/witnessing reality to remind of his existence:

Does he think that no one sees him? (90:7)

Does he not know God sees? (96:14)

We will show them Our signs in the horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. But is it not sufficient concerning your Lord that He is, over all things, a Witness? (41:53)

What, He who stands over every soul for what it has earned? -- And yet they ascribe to God associates. Say: 'Name them! Or will you tell Him what He knows not in the earth? Or in apparent words?' Nay; but decked out fair to the unbelievers is their devising, and they are barred from the way; and whomsoever God leads astray, no guide has he.(13:33)

 

[sayak83]

I'm not assuming. I've elaborated why ""we would not even try to estimate who we are, if there was not an objective value to who we are". If we assign value ourselves, it's not like taste in music or food where some of it is there and the other part is our subjective taste/enjoyment, when it comes to value of deeds and who we are, it doesn't work that way. It's rather that we try to get as close as possible to valuing people who they are.

Let me explain further. Love is assignment of value and it has emotion to it, but really it's a type of emotion when value people. Different type of relationships and valuing - is such that love has two components:

(1)Subjective assignment (who and what these people mean to me)
(2)Subjective but estimating assignment with respect to objective value

What I mean by 2, is that say you love your wife/husband/kid etc, the love for what they mean to you is also related with 2. That is you also try to estimate what value they have independent of what they mean to you. You also assess with that, their deeds in relationship to 1. You value them in belief there is an objective value.

In the situation of 1, if you going to love a wife for example, you say, you mean this much to me. But when asked, "Why do you mean this much to me?", it's just looks, it's shallow. So you should love them for characteristics they have and along with that can come similar hobbies, beliefs, viewpoints, humor. But the primary thing they want to see is that you see value in them independent of their looks and hobbies and similar viewpoints.

This doesn't mean you can actually objectively fully absolutely determine that value, but that value you know is there. You say, well I recognize this and this about you, so I like that. For all you know, that is what she shows you but she maybe the opposite, butt you do your best. If she deceived you, then you were wrong about that.

But you do so trusting her and also with belief there is an accurate value.

I hope I've made this a bit more clear.

The absolute accurate viewpoint to who we are, I argue, is only in God's vision. But how we act, we assume this, that there is an accurate reality to who we are, even if we don't know it fully.

I, and many people here, do not do any such thing. Value, for us, is always subjective and dependent on the relationship between the person(or idea etc) being valued and the one doing the valuing. And changes as the identity of the valuer changes. My value to my company where I work is different from my value to my wife or my value as a citizen of a nation. They are different. There is no such thing as final intrinsic value irrespective of the context and relationship with the valuer. Even self-value is simply a special case of my value to myself. No perspective of value is more elevated than any other. Every value is on equal footing, even that of God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

All values are subjective, none is objective.
Personhood is purely material and is a temporary phenomenon.
We can exactly asign what we are. A working bundle of molecules, which after a time fails.
All that involves no God or Allah.

 

[Link]

All values are subjective, none is objective.
Personhood is purely material and is a temporary phenomenon.
We can exactly asign what we are. A working bundle of molecules, which after a time fails.
All that involves no God or Allah.

Anyone can deny premises in a sound argument. I've elaborated why I believe in each premise in my argument. You left no details to refute any of the content for each premise while I have elaborated on each one.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are welcome to your views.

 

[BrightShadow]

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.

Thanks for posting. It did make me think!

Your premise works well with people who already believe - it will be an affirmation to their way of thinking! However, from a disbeliever's point of view - I am afraid this may not convince them readily. It will not align with their thought pattern because they don't have belief in a creator in that equation. The Atheists will give credit to nature before giving any credit to a God they don't believe in. To them everything happened by chance!
I personally think that Atheists don't use their critical and systematic thinking capabilities in a way believers do. To believe everything was created by "chance" is obviously unlikely. For that to happen - too many factors need to be in the right order! But yet the disbelievers still surround themselves with a thick cloud of doubts regarding the concept of a creator and remain comfortable in their surroundings. Even if someone puts a fog-light on top of their heads and point them to a more believable way that requires less explanation and less chance - they choose to remain a disbeliever until proof is presented to them on a platter! I think they need a intent and desire to believe - it is lacking!

Anyhow, we all (at some point in our lives or another) underestimate our true potential. Those of us who work hard - do get pleasantly surprised at your own achievements and accomplishments sometimes. On the other hand - those of us who don't believe in our ability are reluctant to try and thus remain failed. So, obviously we misjudge ourselves about our potentials quite often and our miscalculation sometimes have positive results (wins) and sometimes negative results (defeats) in life.

So, the question is - why we don't know our own capabilities? Didn't we strive and evolve into our current state to meet our needs?? So, then shouldn't we all know what we are capable of since we developed ourselves into the way we are today? So, why don't we know?
So, I agree - that a creator must be behind establishing our parameter, we didn't do it ourselves. And since creator did it - it remains an unknown factor to us and we get to discover our talents and our worth in a mystifying way. We sing and we discover we are good or bad at it. We play sports and discover we are uniquely good or bad at it.
We can walk but we cannot fly like the birds. If necessity helped birds to develop wings then I am sure early homosapiens would have wanted wings as well. So, why don't we have wings? Life would have been easier for us if we had wings. So, a creator must have decided what we can have and what not!

All the physics the chemistry the biochemistry the genetics or biological information science (DNA) involved in the creation of human body should suggest a purposeful intelligent designer is behind it. A designer who has set parameters. But disbelievers want to believe all that happened due to necessity, evolution and chance and parameters developed and are set by ourselves via our strives and needs! But even if they are right then where did the consciousness come from in the first place?
So, through the process of deduction - it should be clear to all that - there is a creator behind it all!

 

[Link]

Salam

@BrightShadow Thanks for feedback and argument. I'm going to ask people not to respond to your argument though, because, as good as it is, it's off-topic to the original topic.

Also, this argument is emphasized in Quran at the end of Surah Fussilat as well as in the start of Mohammad's (s) mission:

"Does he think no one sees him?" ,
"Does he not know God sees him?"

And the end of Surah Fussilat:

...does it not suffice them concerning your Lord that He is a witness upon all things?
..alas they are in doubt regarding His meeting, alas God encompasses all things!

And also,

"Is he who upholds every soul by what it has earned..." and other phrases, "no one (truly) knows them but God"

Contains this argument and even further emphasis with accountability and how we earn our value, positive or negative.

Consciousness (the argument you put mainly) in creatures who display that is also emphasized in Quran as signs, but is off-topic to the original post.

With peace and blessings.

 

[Link]

Salam

@BrightShadow, forums people are not as sincere, but in real life (meeting people), and dialogue, I've convinced a few people with this argument.

 

[BrightShadow]

Salam

@BrightShadow Thanks for feedback and argument. I'm going to ask people not to respond to your argument though, because, as good as it is, it's off-topic to the original topic.

Also, this argument is emphasized in Quran at the end of Surah Fussilat as well as in the start of Mohammad's (s) mission:

"Does he think no one sees him?" ,
"Does he not know God sees him?"

And the end of Surah Fussilat:

...does it not suffice them concerning your Lord that He is a witness upon all things?
..alas they are in doubt regarding His meeting, alas God encompasses all things!

And also,

"Is he who upholds every soul by what it has earned..." and other phrases, "no one (truly) knows them but God"

Contains this argument and even further emphasis with accountability and how we earn our value, positive or negative.

Consciousness (the argument you put mainly) in creatures who display that is also emphasized in Quran as signs, but is off-topic to the original post.

With peace and blessings.

No problem! I thought I was on topic. Maybe I missed something!