You Can't Argue Against God

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's a very strange question to ask.

Yeah, now answer it.

Do you have an example of "subjective" evidence that isn't?

Yes, that I support human rights. There are no objective evidence for human rights, and that I support them is a case of subjective evidence, as it is only true because I do that as me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, that doesn't mean anything in regards to objectively real, because the test is in effect in part subjective as it requires a mind.

As I said multiple times, the way you try to rape the word "objective", you render it completely useless and end up calling simply everything "subjective".

It's an exercise in futility.

In your little world, a thermometer showing that water boils at 100°C is "subjective evidence", because you read the thermometer using your eyes and parse the data using your brain.

It's beyond ridiculous.

So here is the joke about your axiom of real. If real was a fact, you wouldn't need it as an axiom in your thinking and reasoning, but because real is an idea in your mind you have to assume it is true.

Which is not a problem if it continues to produce consistent results that are commonly observable.

You are just confusing yourself with silly solipsism-style nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, you could be in a Boltzmann Brain universe and in some variants there would be no air.
That is your problem of naive empiricism in effect.

There is an external world but what that is as external from the mind is unknowable. That is the reason you start with 3 axioms.
And why we have methodological nautralism.

Yes, we all start with 3 basal assumptions.
You seem to be the only one who considers this a problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, common ground.
Yes, most people would say the same thing. However, it actually usually is the later though most would also deny applying it to themselves.

Your post concerning god beliefs are not empirical. Those are the beliefs that were the point of discussion. It's disingenuous of you to pretend it wasn't.

Also, meds don't always work. I've had to go through different meds with to find something that does work.

How many exorcism have you tried.

I don't require trying exorcisms to know they don't work.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are working on the assumption that your perceptions provide you with an accurate picture of mind-independant reality.

It's not really an assumption. It's based on evidence of consistently reproducing results and testing that perception against reality.

But this is a baseless assumption, because your perceptions themselves are anything but mind-independant.

No, it's not baseless. You can test your assumptions.

Except the 3 basal assumptions off course, although it could be said that the continued consistency in producing useful results when you operate from those 3 assumptions is evidence that they are likely accurate.

Off course, if you are going to go down the silly solipsism route of @mikkel_the_dane ...
Then I'll just shrug my shoulders and walk away. I see no usefulness in that line of reasoning.
One might even ask why one would even get out of bed, if that is how one looks at the world.

Here's the thing: something appearing obvious to you, is no rational basis on which to assume that your perceptions are either universal, or objectively true.

What are you talking about here, exactly?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God exists as the source that determined that everything that is possible, is possible, and everything that isn't, isn't. Logically, there must be a source that set these parameters for what could happen, and what couldn't, ... and then set it all in motion.

Why do you call that source "god"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I said multiple times, the way you try to rape the word "objective", you render it completely useless and end up calling simply everything "subjective".

It's an exercise in futility.

In your little world, a thermometer showing that water boils at 100°C is "subjective evidence", because you read the thermometer using your eyes and parse the data using your brain.

It's beyond ridiculous.


Which is not a problem if it continues to produce consistent results that are commonly observable.

You are just confusing yourself with silly solipsism-style nonsense.

Yeah, here are the relevant everyday defintions of objective and subjective for the fact that I support human rights.

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Not objective as it is a personal feeling that I support human rights.
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
Not objective as it is not based on sensible experience independent of individual thought and I am not all observers as I support human rights.
-having reality independent of the mind
Not objective since that I support human rights happens in my mind

Definition of SUBJECTIVE

of, relating to, or constituting a subject: such as; of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness; being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

-relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
Subjective as I know perosnally that I support human rights
-peculiar to a particular individual
-arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
-arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes
Meets all 3 as subjective since I support human rights

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Off course, if you are going to go down the silly solipsism route of @mikkel_the_dane ...
...

What is your objective evidence that it is silly.
Please explain using these definitions of

Definition of OBJECTIVE

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations; limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Definition of SUBJECTIVE

of, relating to, or constituting a subject: such as; of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness; being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

As to how you know with evidence silly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, we all start with 3 basal assumptions.
You seem to be the only one who considers this a problem.

No, that is a reason that we have methodlogical naturalism,

 

[Nakosis]

Your post concerning god beliefs are not empirical. Those are the beliefs that were the point of discussion. It's disingenuous of you to pretend it wasn't.

Actually they are quite empirical to those who experience them. Which I've been trying to explain to you but you'd don't seem ready to hear anything which doesn't fit within your concept of reality.

I don't require trying exorcisms to know they don't work.

Well I have. Not for any specific demon. Just a general cleansing of the house. I didn't come across any demons about the house afterwards so I can't say it didn't work.

 

[Nakosis]

After what?

After being skeptical about anything which doesn't fit his concept of reality.

And how does he stop being skeptical?

About his own concept of reality.

 

[paarsurrey]

to rape the word

How does one rape the word?
Oh, you mean misuse, right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You Can't Argue Against God​

#197
"Moses didn't know the Hebrew language so he needed some good assistant (Vazir), he requested Aaron just for that and G-d graciously granted it, so there is no argument (of Moses) against G-d, please, right?"
Job's case is also similar, he didn't argue against G-d, please, right?

They argued with God, not against God.
One could also say God allowed them to argue so to benefit their understanding. Jesus also argued with God. Perhaps that was to benefit our understanding.

I agree here, please.

Regards

 

[blü 2]

Well, that doesn't mean anything in regards to objectively real, because the test is in effect in part subjective as it requires a mind.
So here is the joke about your axiom of real. If real was a fact, you wouldn't need it as an axiom in your thinking and reasoning, but because real is an idea in your mind you have to assume it is true.

But as I relentlessly point out, you share the axiom. I am not imaginary.

 

[blü 2]

All that means is that God is a meta-idea. Just like your "objective reality" is a meta-idea. That means that they are ideas that we use to understand all our other ideas about what is real and true.

How is it, then, that you have parents?

 

[blü 2]

All that means is that God is a meta-idea. Just like your "objective reality" is a meta-idea. That means that they are ideas that we use to understand all our other ideas about what is real and true.

Okay, so we agree God exists solely as an idea in an individual brain.

We just disagree as to whether a world exists external to the self, in this case external to your self for you, and my self for me.

And if it doesn't, we can't be having this conversation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Fine with me. That's the reality that works for you. Although not too far from the reality I expect, but I could of had a different one. Even if it is an illusion, our conversation, it works well enough, consistent enough to be accepted as reality.

That is what I said, it is the neatest/subtlest of illusions. To get out of it is enlightenment.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That same with real. You can't point to either. They are both concepts in the mind.

Mikkel, you are the 'Super' skeptic. We are not at that level.
All these problems disappear if one accepts 'Zero energy universe'. That is 'Out of Nothing'. That there is no difference between existence and non-existence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, that I support human rights. There are no objective evidence for human rights, and that I support them is a case of subjective evidence, as it is only true because I do that as me.

That there are two levels of existence. One of 'Nothing/everything', and the other 'The Perceived World'.
Buddha understood it. Advaita Hinduism accepts it.
It calls the first as 'Paramarthika Satya' (Absolute Reality) and the second as 'Vyavaharika Satya' (Pragmatic Reality).

 

[Madsaac]

Science does not believe in objective truth. Science doesn't believe in anything. All science can do is investigate the physical functionality of a theory about physical functionality by testing to see if it functions.

Yes you are right. Science can investigate the physical functionality of a theory about physical functionality by testing to see if it functions. And isn't it science wonderful? Yes? More then god has ever done.

"Thingness" is a human concept. No humans, no "things". Just an ocean of undifferentiated, unrecognized phenomena.

Yeah whatever you want to call it, I can recognise it

Proof is an irrelevant factor. Everything is the proof. Because what we call everything is beyond what we can know to be so, and all that we think we know is subjectively known, anyway. It's not objective.

Okay not everything, I agree we can't know everything. How about we prove what we can know? Agree

Yes, we can make our imaginary approximations of 'what is' more functionally effective. And we can pretend this means that we "know what is". But when we humans allow ourselves to fall for our own pretenses, we are setting ourselves up for a disaster. Because that pretense blinds us and makes us arrogant. A condition that invites great danger. Like blind men playing in traffic.

What disaster are you talking about?

It's not pretences, we are just doing what we have evolved to do, it's very simple actually.

Yes so to avoid this danger you speak of, lets investigate it.