Why Atheists Don’t Really Exist

[RestlessSoul]

What exactly do you mean by "so" here? What test will tell me whether something is "so" or not?

If something is objectively so, then it must be so independently of you or any test you may subject it to - unless you are a metaphysical idealist, and I don’t think you are. Either it is so, or it is not. Difficulties only arise when we claim to know what is so.

Observation and perception are what we rely on to tell us what is so, but since the object, the observer, and the act of observation are necessarily inseparable, there is no way to directly experience something in the world as it would be were we not there observing it.

The correspondence theory of truth, which you have referred to above, does not resolve this dilemma, since the appeal to objective reality, to confirm our belief, relates to the real world only as we perceive it to be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If something is objectively so, then it must be so independently of you or any test you may subject it to - unless you are a metaphysical idealist, and I don’t think you are. Either it is so, or it is not. Difficulties only arise when we claim to know what is so.

Observation and perception are what we rely on to tell us what is so, but since the object, the observer, and the act of observation are necessarily inseparable, there is no way to directly experience something in the world as it would be were we not there observing it.

The correspondence theory of truth, which you have referred to above, does not resolve this dilemma, since the appeal to objective reality, to confirm our belief, relates to the real world only as we perceive it to be.

Yes, as for Agrippa's Trilemma for justification it in effect ends as a case of circular reasoning.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, as for Agrippa's Trilemma for justification it in effect ends as a case of circular reasoning.

'What is real' all comes down to an idea in the mind, and even if we believe our senses reveal to us real objects as they are, justifying that belief in itself requires an idea in the mind. At some point what is required of us if we are to avoid solipsism, is an act of faith. I believe that the universe is real and that I am not a Boltzmann brain-in-a-vat, but it requires faith to get me there.

There is no qualitative difference in my mind, between faith in the idea that I am a tiny convergence of transient phenomena in a vast, expanding universe, and faith in the idea that some force of overall necessity set that universe in motion, and continues to guide it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

'What is real' all comes down to an idea in the mind, and even if we believe our senses reveal to us real objects as they are, justifying that belief in itself requires an idea in the mind. At some point what is required of us if we are to avoid solipsism, is an act of faith. I believe that the universe is real and that I am not a Boltzmann brain-in-a-vat, but it requires faith to get me there.

There is no qualitative difference in my mind, between faith in the idea that I am a tiny convergence of transient phenomena in a vast, expanding universe, and faith in the idea that some force of overall necessity set that universe in motion, and continues to guide it.

Yeah and the joke is that the universe is real is in effect a case of ontological idealism, since real is not physical, but in the mind.

 

[blü 2]

Would you please without what makes sense to you as it pleases you, decide which of the 5 main theories of truth are correct?

Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

Now remember all philosophy through time for all time is written by me and I am the source of all philosophy.
Or learn when you are subjective and not just point out when other people are so.

That's called 'changing the subject'. Instead, let's start with your nice clear answer to my question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's called 'changing the subject'. Instead, let's start with your nice clear answer to my question.

I am a pragmatic who uses coherence, correspondence, language and deflationary theories of truth depending on the context and a skeptic because I accept false as correct in some cases.

 

[blü 2]

If something is objectively so, then it must be so independently of you or any test you may subject it to - unless you are a metaphysical idealist, and I don’t think you are. Either it is so, or it is not. Difficulties only arise when we claim to know what is so.

We claim the utility of it. Perfect objectivity isn't possible, but we can try to maximize the objectivity available.

Observation and perception are what we rely on to tell us what is so, but since the object, the observer, and the act of observation are necessarily inseparable, there is no way to directly experience something in the world as it would be were we not there observing it.

I may have mentioned this before, but anyway ─ I proceed on the basis of three assumptions ─ that a world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing me of that world, and that reason is a valid tool. So I'm content to rely on the second one, fully mindful of the role of subjectivity but pleased there's a more objective test possible.

The correspondence theory of truth, which you have referred to above, does not resolve this dilemma, since the appeal to objective reality, to confirm our belief, relates to the real world only as we perceive it to be.

See above. Only by observing the real world empirically will we get closer to understanding what it actually is. We know that wind is moving air, but 'dark matter' is still the name of a problem, not a thing.

 

[blü 2]

I am a pragmatic who uses coherence, correspondence, language and deflationary theories of truth depending on the context and a skeptic because I accept false as correct in some cases.

ie for you, "truth" means "pleasing to Mikkel". Okay, now we know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

ie for you, "truth" means "pleasing to Mikkel". Okay, now we know.

Yeah and your 3 axioms are pleasing to you and it is so pleasing to you to be all humans as a we. How special must you be since you are a we.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah and your 3 axioms are pleasing to you and it is so pleasing to you to be all humans as a we. How special must you be since you are a we.

You post on RF. Therefore you think a world exists external to you and therefore you think your senses can inform you about that world and eg read what I post/ And you consider reason is a valid tool.

So I don't see the point you're making here. You appear to be complaining that you're like you are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You post on RF. Therefore you think a world exists external to you and therefore you think your senses can inform you about that world and eg read what I post/ And you consider reason is a valid tool.

So I don't see the point you're making here. You appear to be complaining that you're like you are.

From there doesn't follow that correspondence truth is the only way to do the world.

P1: I act as if I accept that there is an external world which I can know about.
C: Therefore correspondence theory is correct.

That is not a valid deduction.

 

[blü 2]

From there doesn't follow that correspondence truth is the only way to do the world.

P1: I act as if I accept that there is an external world which I can know about.
C: Therefore correspondence theory is correct.

That is not a valid deduction.

Assuming a world exists external to the self and our senses are capable of informing us about that world, and that reason is a valid tool
P1: It is good to employ a definition of truth that maximizes objectivity.
P2: The correspondence definition of truth uses a test for truth that maximizes objectivity.
P3: The pleasing to Mikkel definition of truth does not maximize objectivity.
C. So the correspondence theory is the better definition of truth since as far as possible it maximizes objectivity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Assuming a world exists external to the self and our senses are capable of informing us about that world, and that reason is a valid tool
P1: It is good to employ a definition of truth that maximizes objectivity.
P2: The correspondence definition of truth uses a test for truth that maximizes objectivity.
P3: The pleasing to Mikkel definition of truth does not maximize objectivity.
C. So the correspondence theory is the better definition of truth since as far as possible it maximizes objectivity.

Well, it accounts for when you can't maximize objectivity.

 

[blü 2]

Well, it accounts for when you can't maximize objectivity.

Rather, the Pleasing to Mikkel definition tells you what's pleasing to Mikkel, but beyond that it doesn't tell you what's true and what's false.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Rather, the Pleasing to Mikkel definition tells you what's pleasing to Mikkel, but beyond that it doesn't tell you what's true and what's false.

So you can do everything a human does with the objective correspondence theory of truth?

 

[blü 2]

So you can do everything a human does with the objective correspondence theory of truth?

No. For example, I can't tell whether the statement "Mikkel enjoys the novels of Leo Tolstoy" is true or not. But I may be able to determine whether the statement "Mikkel says he enjoys the novels of Leo Tolstoy" is true or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. For example, I can't tell whether the statement "Mikkel enjoys the novels of Leo Tolstoy" is true or not. But I may be able to determine whether the statement "Mikkel says he enjoys the novels of Leo Tolstoy" is true or not.

I enjoy believing in God. Now leave me alone for me as me and then we can debate what happens when there are 2 or more humans.

 

[blü 2]

I enjoy believing in God.

Enjoy, then, enjoy!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Enjoy, then, enjoy!

Yes and it is a fact of how a part of the world works. Go figure.

 

[Audie]

Enjoy, then, enjoy!

It always comes down to emotions
aka self indulgence