@sayak83, this post might help My argument from vision circular?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Value to who we are - A premise of Seeing argument.
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Are you saying that the FSM sometimes manifests as pizza? I like that idea as I consider all good food to be heavenly!
No. I mean whether a conclusion from a set of priors is true on not must be based on whether the prior premises are true or not. The conclusion cannot be analysed First. We must analyse the arguments that lead to it.
I agree, but again, the thread to discuss validity of the argument, I linked you to it.
This thread is particularly looking at premise 3 (the bolded one).
Anyways. I am debating your assertion in p3 that there exists an exact value of who we are by my relational multivalent view of value.
Okay, I will assess it and reply. But on a short outlook without going to much details, I can say multivalent view of value doesn't mean there is no exact concrete form of it as well. Of course, there is relations with value that are of different form between brother and sister, mother and son, etc, but that it's a different subjective.
I am saying that those are the only kinds of values we experience and there is no reason to believe values are anything other than relational and multivalent.
Okay, before I reply, can you reply to the post above this post of yours?
I think you have to go a step further than (paraphrasing) *subjective values don't disprove objective value*, I think you have to either prove objective value for p3 to be valid or at the very least provide evidence of its *probability* (as opposed to it's possibility).
I've presented proof for value in the first post. If his post doesn't negate it, then I don't need to restate my proofs.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
But we know exactly what we are, bundles of molecules, and therefore, 'physical energy'.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
It seems as if this is a different logical argument than the one in that other thread. maybe it's the same conclusion, but if it takes a different path to get there, it's a different argument.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
The wise understand these as fetters. We should just fulfill our duties ('dharma') without getting embroiled in emotions. That is what Gita tells me.
That is correct, in this thread, I'm trying to prove V. Not the argument in the other thread.
Let's begin very simply, with your very first premise. I would like you to note that in your parentheses "(since he alone can judge)" you assume the conditional of your first phrase ("If God does not exist). In logic, if you are going to assume your premises, you can "prove" anything at all, though almost all of it will necessarily be wrong.
Not sure. I have not analysed love in that way. Caring for the happiness/sadness of the one you love and looking after their interests is an important part.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
...which makes unbroken dharma transmission essential. what is one to do if/when it is broken?
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
then this argument could be circular, referring to the other thread doesn't help.