You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

And I don't see much point in a discussion using terms with no definition. Imagine attempting to build a building using drawings wherein the units of measurement haven't been first defined.

Which term(s) in your assertion below do you feel is ill-defined, misrepresented or otherwise ambiguous?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Self assessment. Its how anyone knows anything ultimately.

Don't believe me? Then try show me how you know anything that isn't based, ultimately, on self assessment.

So. Tell me something you know and we can quick fire our way down the chain to self assessment

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Which term(s) in your assertion below do you feel is ill-defined, misrepresented or otherwise ambiguous?

Self assessment? Know? Believe? The assertion will stand or fall on the meaning of such words.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Self assessment? Know? Believe? The assertion will stand or fall on the meaning of such words.

The assertion remains specious for any well understood definitions for those words though when tested against the example I provided. If you disagree, please illustrate how the following example derives from self-assessment.

I know that a geodetic network that I helped develop for a client today is robust and fit for purpose.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

The assertion remains specious for any well understood definitions for those words

But wasn't it yourself who introduced the notion of subjective (S2) as lone observation? That is, observing something on your own

There was nothing in the definition, that I recall, regarding the objectivity (where that is tentatively defined as not arising from personal feelings or emotions) or otherwise of the lone observation.

You are handwaving. 'Well understood'. But when unpacking what is well understood it's not quite as simple as you'd like it be.

Since you rest on well understood and you apparently don't understand so well, well, doesn't that which relies on it falter?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

But wasn't it yourself who introduced the notion of subjective (S2) as lone observation? That is, observing something on your own

There was nothing in the definition, that I recall, regarding the objectivity (where that is tentatively defined as not arising from personal feelings or emotions) or otherwise of the lone observation.

You are handwaving. 'Well understood'. But when unpacking what is well understood it's not quite as simple as you'd like it be.

Since you rest on well understood and you apparently don't understand so well, well, doesn't that which relies on it falter?

Your specious assertion doesn't use the term subjective nor rely on it, so this is beside the point. How about you address that first? Fourth time of asking now.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Your specious assertion doesn't use the term subjective nor rely on it, so this is beside the point. How about you address that first? Fourth time of asking now.

You is a critical element in an examination of what YOU say YOU know. Subjective is unavoidably involved given it comments on YOU.

smacl earlier in proceedings wrote:

Subjective means deriving from a single point of view.

"B..b..but you never mentioned the word subjective."

Pathetic.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You is a critical element in an examination of what YOU say YOU know. Subjective is unavoidably involved given it comments on YOU.

"B..b..but you never mentioned the word subjective."

Pathetic.

Right, so my example is "I know that a geodetic network that I helped develop for a client today is robust and fit for purpose." Lets have a quick look at the components of this example shall we;

The geodetic network in question was observed out by a team of qualified and highly experienced geosurveyors with calibrated equipment using a rigorous method of measurement and a large number of redundant measurements. We adjusted using a least squares method comparing an a priori stochastic model to the a posteriori computational results and checked error ellipses of every point at 90%, 95%, and 99% confidence intervals, and also investigated all observation residuals and chi-squared statistics for any possible outliers. Myself and my client did this independently based on a different subset of observations before comparing results.

Remind me which part of the knowing the above is robust and fit for purpose is based on self assessment or in any way subjective?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Right, so my example is "I know that a geodetic network that I helped develop for a client today is robust and fit for purpose." Lets have a quick look at the components of this example shall we;

The geodetic network in question was observed out by a team of qualified and highly experienced geosurveyors with calibrated equipment using a rigorous method of measurement and a large number of redundant measurements. We adjusted using a least squares method comparing an a priori stochastic model to the a posteriori computational results and checked error ellipses of every point at 90%, 95%, and 99% confidence intervals, and also investigated all observation residuals and chi-squared statistics for any possible outliers. Myself and my client did this independently based on a different subset of observations before comparing results.

Remind me which part of the knowing the above is robust and fit for purpose is based on self assessment or in any way subjective?

We haven't got a definition of subjective in order to wonder whether. And we know whose wriggling wildly to grt off that hook.

"Words are well understood" (a.k.a. whatever smacl likes it to mean - except when reminded of what he has said)

"Subjective wasn't mentioned and isn't involved" (although mentioned by you now as a counter point to your knowing).

You might as well just say 'I don't agree that you can show knowing arising from self assessment" and kick to stalemate. Better than all this ducking and diving.

Save us all some time we can't get back.

Enough. The horse will only drink at a trough of his (somewhat self confounding) choosing.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

"Words are well understood" (a.k.a. whatever smacl likes it to mean - except when reminded of what he has said)

Nope, words are well understood as in their meanings are defined in dictionaries. The dictionary definitions for subjective for example have already been provided by Mark Hamill on this thread. What you might like words to mean aren't really of much consequence unless that concurs with what they actually mean.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

We haven't got a definition of subjective in order to wonder whether.

On the contrary, you'll find that my observations previously certainly constitute something which some might term "Notes Towards a Definition of Subjectivity". Did you not read them, or if you did read them, did you not understand them?

I'm a little shocked to be honest with you as I tried to keep them as clear and concise as possible.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Nope, words are well understood as in their meanings are defined in dictionaries. The dictionary definitions for subjective for example have already been provided by Mark Hamill on this thread. What you might like words to mean aren't really of much consequence unless that concurs with what they actually mean.

I gave you your quote. Your quote. As to what subjective involves. Mark?? You're flailing around to consider anything but what you say.

As if it would help. You would still have to say what lone observance involved (your own introduction to the mix). Is there no word for it?

So what if a definition said 'from from own feelings and emotions'? Does that mean all lone observance stems from 'feeling and emotion'? You would have to say .. and quickly face the consequences of such stupidity were you to say yes..


A person faced with an assertion that knowing is sourced in self seeks to dodge and duck and dive amy idea of establishing what subjective is. Subjective pointing to self.

That is the target to drag you kicking and screaming to. What better than duck and dodge and dive any attempt to define the target.

That's Infantile level stuff. Transparently so.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

That is the target to drag you kicking and screaming to. What better than duck and dodge and dive any attempt to define the target.That's Infantile level stuff. Transparently so.

Thing is, your specious assertion that self assessment is ultimately how anyone knows anything fails on the very simple basis that most knowledge is not subjective. People share common knowledge arrived at by consensus. Sometimes they even write it down in things like dictionaries. This works for any definition of subjective.

I'm also rather surprised you would make an assertion broad enough to include what anyone knows about anything. Or does having direct contact with your god also confer omniscience?

Also still waiting for how my example amounts to self assessment.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Thing is, your specious assertion that self assessment is ultimately how anyone knows anything fails on the very simple basis that most knowledge is not subjective.

There you go again! Using a word, which you've spent 2 days avoiding establishing the definition of, to make a counter assertion.

If you are hell bent on avoiding settling on what subjective entails, how can you say most knowledge isn't subjective?

It's beyond bonkers!

smacl

I see I'm going to have to make this simpler, as you seem to be struggling with basic English here. You asserted the following in bold.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Self assessment. Its how anyone knows anything ultimately.

Don't believe me? Then try show me how you know anything that isn't based, ultimately, on self assessment.
So. Tell me something you know and we can quick fire our way down the chain to self assessment

Self assessment is defined as "the act or process of analyzing and evaluating oneself or one's actions : assessment of oneself"

To know anything has a number of definitions, such as "to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of" and "to perceive directly : have direct cognition of"

Using anyone and anything implies your assertion holds for every person and every thing. For the person I took myself as requested in your post. For the thing I knew, I took the fact that a piece of work I'd done that day was fit for purpose. This work was done collaboratively with others and the results rigorously tested before being signed off.

So your assertion, with the terms you considered required further definition expanded, and specific values plugged in reads

"The act or process of analyzing and evaluating myself or my actions is how I became aware of the truth or factuality that the work I did earlier was fit for purpose"

This is of course rubbish. I know what I did was fit for purpose as it was tested by myself and others as being fit for purpose using rigorous methods. No self assessment involved.

You seem to struggle to discern between knowledge and belief, as evidenced all the way back to the title of this thread. You also make a mistake in thinking your personally held beliefs constitute objective truth, which they clearly do not.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I see I'm going to have to make this simpler, as you seem to be struggling with basic English here. You asserted the following in bold.



Self assessment is defined as "the act or process of analyzing and evaluating oneself or one's actions : assessment of oneself"

To know anything has a number of definitions, such as "to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of" and "to perceive directly : have direct cognition of"

Using anyone and anything implies your assertion holds for every person and every thing. For the person I took myself as requested in your post. For the thing I knew, I took the fact that a piece of work I'd done that day was fit for purpose. This work was done collaboratively with others and the results rigorously tested before being signed off.

So your assertion, with the terms you considered required further definition expanded, and specific values plugged in reads

"The act or process of analyzing and evaluating myself or my actions is how I became aware of the truth or factuality that the work I did earlier was fit for purpose"

This is of course rubbish. I know what I did was fit for purpose as it was tested by myself and others as being fit for purpose using rigorous methods. No self assessment involved.

You seem to struggle to discern between knowledge and belief, as evidenced all the way back to the title of this thread. You also make a mistake in thinking your personally held beliefs constitute objective truth, which they clearly do not.

This work had collaborative sign off. We'll leave aside the fact that Windows 8 most certainly had collaborative signoff and it didn't prove robust and fit for use.

Collaborative sign off amongst other elements enables your knowing the product robust and fit for purpose.

From where the authority granted to these various processes such that they are considered to reliably tranlate into knowledge? I'm not so much interested in a ladder diagram showing the route. Rather, I am asking who grants authority that the route works.

In other words: if the product passes this and that test and these and those persons sign off on those tests .. then robust and fit. Who grants authority to the test. Who grants authority to persons signing the tests, such that the combination: authorative tests passed, as confirmed by authoriative people signing off = robust and fit.

You might point to external standards bodies who assemble tests.To which the same question. Who grants these bodies authority?

Things will boil down to 'lots of others agree with my view. It is the mass of same opinion which gives me certainty"

Who granted authority that a mass of same opinion confers certainty? I am not interested in why granted so much as I am in who granted. The why, will of course, stem from an observation and assessment of self.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Collaborative sign off amongst other elements enables your knowing the product robust and fit for purpose.

From where the authority granted to these various processes such that they are considered to reliably tranlate into knowledge? I'm not so much interested in a ladder diagram showing the route. Rather, I am asking who grants authority that the route works.

In other words: if the product passes this and that test and these and those persons sign off on those tests .. then robust and fit. Who grants authority to the test. Who grants authority to persons signing the tests, such that the combination: authorative tests passed, as confirmed by authoriative people signing off = robust and fit.

Doesn't matter. The agreed definition of "fit for purpose" in the context of this job was passing agreed and well specified QA tests. The whole point of this type of QA is that it is independent of subjective interpretation.

Your previous assertion is specious because it demands that all knowledge is subjective. Information, from which knowledge is derived might be inaccurate, incomplete and context sensitive. It might also be subjective. If knowledge is not derived from a subjective information, it is not subjective.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Doesn't matter.

Oh but ot does. We were talking about what you know.

The agreed definition of "fit for purpose" in the context of this job was passing agreed and well specified QA tests. The whole point of this type of QA is that it is independent of subjective interpretation.

Did you agree to the definition? Because if you didn't, then you mighr not be so sure you know what YOU know.

Does what you know rely on your agreeing (aka granting authority to the QA test)

Your previous assertion is specious because it demands that all knowledge is subjective. Information, from which knowledge is derived might be inaccurate, incomplete and context sensitive. It might also be subjective. If knowledge is not derived from a subjective information, it is not subjective.

Lets hold that thought!

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Oh but ot does. We were talking about what you know.



Did you agree to the definition? Because if you didn't, then you mighr not be so sure you know what YOU know.

Does what you know rely on your agreeing (aka granting authority to the QA test)



Lets hold that thought!

Rubbish. I know that the work done was fit for purpose on the basis of passing specified tests, where those tests were carried out independently by multiple groups. My appraisal of the the suitability of tests is irrelevant. What I know "that the work is fit for purpose" is contextually limited to a previously agreed definition of "fit for purpose".

Edit: Let me dumb this down for you a bit more in case you're still struggling that with the concept that all we know is ultimately based in self assessment. I know that when adding base 10 integers, 1 + 1 = 2 Which bit of that is based on self assessment?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Rubbish. I know that the work done was fit for purpose on the basis of passing specified tests, where those tests were carried out independently by multiple groups. My appraisal of the the suitability of tests is irrelevant.

If you appraised the suitability tests as unsuitable, then you wouldn't know what it is you say you know. Would you?

Doesn't what YOU know then rely on YOUR appraising the tests as suitable?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you appraised the suitability tests as unsuitable to draw the conclusion you draw then you wouldn't know what you say you know. Would you?

Doesn't what you know then rely on your appraisal?

Nope. QA/QC procedures and tests are defined and agreed in advance of starting the project, as is the case with every major infrastructural project. My appraisal of the suitability of these tests occurred long before these tests took place. If I'd had any concerns, I would have voiced them at that point. I didn't and know that the results they provide is correct to the desired level of confidence and thus the work is fit for purpose.

For someone who was complaining that my previous posts were 'infantile' you seem to be struggling with some extremely basic stuff here.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Nope. QA/QC procedures and tests are defined and agreed in advance of starting the project, as is the case with every major infrastructural project. My appraisal of the suitability of these tests occurred long before these tests took place.

Which doesn't alter the question. You appraised the tests as suitable. The tests (whenever they occur) lead to knowledge.

Back to reliance on your appraisal for subsequent knowledge.

(YOUR appraisal is something self-assessed. "Oneself or ones actions". The action is your appraising. You clearly judged yourself (oneself) to be correct in your appraisal)

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Which doesn't alter the question. You appraised the tests as suitable. The tests (whenever they occur) lead to knowledge.

Back to reliance on your appraisal for subsequent knowledge.

(YOUR appraisal is something self-assessed. "Oneself or ones actions". The action is your appraising. You clearly judged yourself (oneself) to be correct in your appraisal)

Doesn't matter. "Fitness of purpose" in this context is defined as "having passed the specified tests", my appraisal of those test has no bearing on this. Much like saying 1+1=2 (in the context of integer arithmetic on base 10 numbers), there are plenty of plain facts that leave no wriggle room for subjective interpretation.

smacl

Just looking at the title of this post again OP

You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

As per my earlier post, you seem to be failing to distinguish between "to know" and "to believe".

You certainly don't "know" what anyone else on this forum believes (as opposed to what they don't believe).

Saying something is "true or not" is simply saying it might be true.

The statement "your opinion matters" demands an audience, yet you deride all opinions and beliefs that are contrary to your own, apparently on the quest to save souls.

I think your title should actually read

I believe God might exist. My opinion matters

Let me know if I've missed anything :cool:

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Doesn't matter. "Fitness of purpose" in this context is defined as "having passed the specified tests", my appraisal of those test has no bearing on this. Much like saying 1+1=2 (in the context of integer arithmetic on base 10 numbers), there are plenty of plain facts that leave no wriggle room for subjective interpretation.

More like 1 = 1 since robustness is defined as the test result. Is 1 = 1 knowledge?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

More like 1 = 1 since robustness is defined as the test result. Is 1 = 1 knowledge?

Firstly, you're just putting up your own straw man to knock down there.

Secondly robust does not mean absolutely indestructible. Far better than a flimsy straw man though.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Firstly, you're just putting up your own straw man to knock down there.

Perhaps what's below helps?

Secondly robust does not mean absolutely indestructible. Far better than a flimsy straw man though.

I understood "is robust and fit for purpose" to mean something like "this vaccine will be safe". More a prediction of performance than the working title of a qualiry test phase passed. My mistake.

In that case.

You know your system passed a quality test. In order for you to know that, you would have to appraise and make judgement on whether the test was carried out properly and honestly. You are reliant on others and so must judge others.

This step is a self-assessment. If you assess badly, do you still know what you know? The test may have been faulty.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

This step is a self-assessment.

No it isn't, it is an assessment of the test results, not an assessment of the self or one's own actions. More specifically an assessment that the analysis of a set of observations carried out by someone else fall within agreed and documented ranges. Worth noting that just because an assessment demands a technical skill, e.g. manually carrying out a chi square test, doesn't imply self assessment.

Mark Hamill

Sorry for delay in getting back to the thread.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Self assessment. Its how anyone knows anything ultimately.

Don't believe me? Then try show me how you know anything that isn't based, ultimately, on self assessment.

So. Tell me something you know and we can quick fire our way down the chain to self assessment

Every other theist with contradictory beliefs says the same thing, that their self assessment tells them they are right. You can't all be right, therefore your self assessment is not enough to say that you are. What else do you have?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yet you are not able to walk through it line by line to find out where it goes wrong?

Assert without evidence / dismissed without evidence springs to mind.

I thereby dismiss your disagreement. Its all piffle and waffle.

You argument doesn't contradict me, that's why I didn't go through it line by line. But fine, if you want to make this more embarrassing, lets break it down:
I asked that if we reject god, is that a choice on our behalf. You said no. At this point, this would agree with my assessment that our salvation (which is predicated on accepting god) is out of our hands and therefore 100% arbitrary.

You then try some argument as if I'm making a category error. It's not a case of "choose to reject" vs "choose to accept", it's actually a case of "choose to reject" vs do nothing, because our ability to accept god is nobbled (by god making us blind to god).
So what should I do?

Argue that if rejection is an active choice that we are aware of, then "do nothing" must be an active choice that we are aware of too, therefore you are fundamentally contradicting yourself and haven't even answered the original question? (don't mistake a lack of required effort to continue to do nothing for a lack of active choice to continue to do nothing).

Or accept your point and argue that it doesn't change the situation. If we can't choose to accept god because we are blind to him, then our "rejection" of him must be equally nobbled. Therefore our reaction, either way, to god is out of our hands. Therefore his salvation of us is not based on what we choose to do, but what god chooses to do and so is 100% arbitrary.

So, to repeat myself, are you wrong or are you wrong?

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

Namely, secularism.

Secularism is not irreligion. There are very many religiously devout secularists, but they're generally members of locally minority religions, unsurprisingly.
Secularism is never too popular with a church which has significant local temporal power.

Who wouldn't plump for an option that made it easier to do as you please? Seems a no brainer to me.

Most people do what they please anyway. It's just that some use religion to justify their actions, others don't - and members of nominally the same religion frequently come to entirely opposite conclusions as to what their religion says is moral.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

My mistake.

Who gives you the authority to assert that you have made a mistake?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sorry for delay in getting back to the thread.

No prob

Every other theist with contradictory beliefs says the same thing, that their self assessment tells them they are right. You can't all be right, therefore your self assessment is not enough to say that you are. What else do you have?

No more than you, who are included in the body of contradictory beliefs. Self assessment rules your waves too.

. But fine, if you want to make this more embarrassing, lets break it down:
I asked that if we reject god, is that a choice on our behalf. You said no[/quote.

So far so good.

(choice was defined along the lines of a will able to operate in two directions. You can chose a cream bun or chose a chocolate eclair. )

At this point, this would agree with my assessment that our salvation (which is predicated on accepting god) is out of our hands and therefore 100% arbitrary.

Your assessment is that if not choice (as outlined above) then arbitrary.

But can we eliminate arbitrary by other means? What other bridge can there be?

You then try some argument as if I'm making a category error. It's not a case of "choose to reject" vs "choose to accept", it's actually a case of "choose to reject" vs do nothing, because our ability to accept god is nobbled (by god making us blind to god).
So what should I do?

That's the bridge argument alright - except that the word choose in 'choose to reject' implies choice. Which above is defined as a will able to act in two directions.

Since will is suggested by me as only being able to operate in one direction, if it operates at all, we cannot use the word 'choose' in my proposal.

We can say things like 'will against' or 'refused to love the truth'. They better indicate a single act of will, with no unintended inference that a will act in the other direction is possible.

Additionally, if more an aside. Our ability is nobbled by our being sinful. God didn't do it, sin did. And your sin-infection can be laid at Adams feet. He introduced the blind bug to mankind.

Argue that if rejection is an active choice that we are aware of, then "do nothing" must be an active choice that we are aware of too, therefore you are fundamentally contradicting yourself and haven't even answered the original question? (don't mistake a lack of required effort to continue to do nothing for a lack of active choice to continue to do nothing).

If you make that argument we would have to figure out how an act of will is involved in doing and changing nothing, when no will act achieves the same thing.

Ockhams Razor would appear to apply. Along with Newtons Law - objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an exterior force. In this case the force would be will act moving the at rest object.

That's the active will bit. As far as awareness goes, we would appear to be aware when we are not actively willing. Aware of where we occupy and if willing to move, aware we are willing to move

Or accept your point and argue that it doesn't change the situation. If we can't choose to accept god because we are blind to him, then our "rejection" of him must be equally nobbled.

Then you could argue that point. It would be difficult, I think, because if our will can act in one direction and not the other, then that would be that.

Suffice to say, I can't be said to be contradicting myself when you have not chosen which argument strand you want to follow. Conclusions of either argument aren't forgone in your favour. It would appear self evident, for example, that doing nothing means no movement or change of position. Therefore will act to do nothing superfluous to requirements.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Who gives you the authority to assert that you have made a mistake?

Me. Its the same authority that produced scientific method. If we didn't self recognize our ability to err, why would we seek a solution?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

No it isn't, it is an assessment of the test results

But an assessment of the NCT test results of my mates €800 Almera indicated it was robust and fit for use. But the tester bent things to cover the fact that the cat convertor innards had been removed.

What my friend knew was based on an assessment: the NCT test is straight. When it wasn't in fact.

No matter - we can be wrong in what we think we know. The point is that our sense of knowing rests on an assessment of ours.

, not an assessment of the self or one's own actions.

The action involving self is the assessment that the test is providing accurate information. For you need to assess the information as accurate in order for you to know the test has indeed been passed (a.k.a. robust and fit).

Whether the test is or isn't accurate isn't, as I say, the point. What we know can turn out to be wrong. But your knowing rests on your assessment

More specifically an assessment that the analysis of a set of observations carried out by someone else fall within agreed and documented ranges. Worth noting that just because an assessment demands a technical skill, e.g. manually carrying out a chi square test, doesn't imply self assessment.

Mistakes can't be made or data corrupted?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Who gives you the authority to assert that you have made a mistake?

Me. Its the same authority that produced scientific method. If we didn't self recognize our ability to err, why would we seek a solution?

You misunderstood yourself.

You are not, as you appear to think, allowing the reasonable possibility that you could be mistaken which is philosophically defensible position. Instead, you are making a positive, and completely subjective, assertion that you are making an objective mistake. You're essentially dividing by zero and hoping to come up smelling of roses.

So - again - who or what gives you the authority to declare that you have made a mistake?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

You misunderstood yourself.

You are not, as you appear to think, allowing the reasonable possibility that you could be mistaken which is philosophically defensible position. Instead, you are making a positive, and completely subjective, assertion that you are making an objective mistake. You're essentially dividing by zero and hoping to come up smelling of roses.

So - again - who or what gives you the authority to declare that you have made a mistake?

Objective? Since my position is that such ideas are founded in self, objective can't but rest in the overarching subjective*

*Where subjective is defined as lone view.

Therefore, if I say I made a mistake it is because I, ultimately, am the decision maker. There is nothing I can refer to, to add concrete objectivity, that I don't sit in authority over. Rendering your 'objective' an objective with a small 'o'. Something subservient to and a product of my being a Subjective.

I could, of course, be mistaken. I might not be in agreement with any actual objective reality (with a big 'O'). But there is no authority, outside myself, that I can access to decide on that matter. It is I, and only I, who can assess.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mistakes can't be made or data corrupted?

Of course they can, to err is human. However making an error in something you assess does not somehow magically change the action from assessing something else to self assessment.

When I talk about robust tests I'm referring to having controls, blinds and redundancy in place to minimize potential exposure to most sources of error, including but not limited to human error. When we provide results it is to a declared accuracy at a stated level of confidence.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

No more than you, who are included in the body of contradictory beliefs. Self assessment rules your waves too.

This is not an answer to my question, just a wish that I am the same as you.
I reject subjective evidence in favour of objective evidence, so my views are fundamentally not based on self-assessment, for the very reason I asked my question. So try again and this time answer it:
Every other theist with contradictory beliefs says the same thing, that their self assessment tells them they are right. You can't all be right, therefore your self assessment is not enough to say that you are. What else do you have?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's the bridge argument alright - except that the word choose in 'choose to reject' implies choice. Which above is defined as a will able to act in two directions.

Since will is suggested by me as only being able to operate in one direction, if it operates at all, we cannot use the word 'choose' in my proposal.

We can say things like 'will against' or 'refused to love the truth'. They better indicate a single act of will, with no unintended inference that a will act in the other direction is possible.

Additionally, if more an aside. Our ability is nobbled by our being sinful. God didn't do it, sin did. And your sin-infection can be laid at Adams feet. He introduced the blind bug to mankind.

If we do not actively choose to reject god, if it is not a choice that we are even aware of, then god saving us is not based on something we are actively, or even aware of, doing. Therefore it is as a result of gods own choice and as god is completely unbound by any rules (all powerful, omnipresent), it is 100% arbitrary. Calling if "choose to" or "will to" makes no difference here.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you make that argument we would have to figure out how an act of will is involved in doing and changing nothing, when no will act achieves the same thing.

Ockhams Razor would appear to apply. Along with Newtons Law - objects at rest remain at rest unless acted upon by an exterior force. In this case the force would be will act moving the at rest object.

That's the active will bit. As far as awareness goes, we would appear to be aware when we are not actively willing. Aware of where we occupy and if willing to move, aware we are willing to move

You are still mistaking a lack of effort for a lack of choice. Lets keep it simple - we have two outcomes - acting which causes an effect, not acting which causes nothing. If we are aware of this then not acting is a choice to not cause the effect that acting would otherwise cause.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then you could argue that point. It would be difficult, I think, because if our will can act in one direction and not the other, then that would be that.

This means nothing, so lets try again:
If we can't "will to" accept god because we are blind to him, then "our will" to reject him must be equally nobbled.
If I force you to do something, then even if you apply the physical effort to do it, I am the one ultimately responsible for it being done.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Suffice to say, I can't be said to be contradicting myself when you have not chosen which argument strand you want to follow. Conclusions of either argument aren't forgone in your favour. It would appear self evident, for example, that doing nothing means no movement or change of position. Therefore will act to do nothing superfluous to requirements.

You have contradiccted yourself on every front.
If we can only "do something" or "do nothing" then that it still a choice between two possibilities.
If we are not aware of this choice, and one possibility requires no effort, then the deck is stacked against us in such a way that we can't win, without the dealer (i.e. god) doing it for us.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Therefore, if I say I made a mistake it is because I, ultimately, am the decision maker. There is nothing I can refer to, to add concrete objectivity, that I don't sit in authority over.

But who gave you that authority to decide what's true and what's false?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I could, of course, be mistaken.

That's a logically defensible position, but your position that you are mistaken is completely indefensible as it requires you to take an objective position on a subjective basis.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This is not an answer to my question, just a wish that I am the same as you.
I reject subjective evidence in favour of objective evidence, so my views are fundamentally not based on self-assessment

You would have to show how objective is arrived at without than being rooted in self-assessment (Subjective). It might be helpful to define:

- Objective as that which is real, irrespective of whether we have access to that reality.
- objective as that part of Objective we consider ourselves as being able to access.

Naturally, to get from little o to big O requires a mechanism. I suggest self at root of that mechanism


If, for example, you decide that multiple observations provide more objectivity than sole observations then you would have to explain how you arrive at this conclusion. Without the use of your own assessment that multiple improves on sole.

If we do not actively choose to reject god,

Some rigour:

I have said that the word "choice" isn't being used. Choice indicates will operable in two directions (e.g. active for/ active against).

"Will act" and other such expressions is the term. In the context of my proposition only one will act direction is possible: will act against.

The other state possible is no will act. No will act isn't active for or against. No will act is simply no will act. The will doing nothing.



Also, the rejection isn't of God (although that is, by extension, what it is ). The rejection is of truth.


Correcting your statement thus:

"If we do not willfully reject truth"

.. if it is not a choice that we are even aware of

Not rejecting truth isn't a choice (from above). Nor is it a will act. You are exposed to the truth by God. If you don't will act to reject (or turn away, deny etc) you will stay exposed to it.

Whilst rejection is a will act (and the only will act we can perform), not rejecting is not a will act.

Not will act... No will act.


I'll pause here. You are utilising incorrect terminology and building on that. I've corrected things to show you where things are wrong. You might reconsider the whole on that basis?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

But who gave you that authority to decide what's true and what's false?!

Myself. I grant myself the authority. Final authority in fact.There is no other place to obtain final authority on the matter of true and false.

I can't grant it to anyone or anything outside of me. To do so would require me to decide it's true that there is another who has authority over me. How can I establish this is true if I haven't the authority to decide what's true?

By a process of elimination, I must be the final authority.

Of course, having the final say on true and false grants you to ability to decide on truth and falsity within yourself. And so you can detect self-error. And refer to externally provided systems, such as empirical method or the mechanisms of sin, to correct yourself. You do grant authority over you to others in that case. But not final authority.


-


Of course, because I am my own authority, what I decide true or false might not be the case. I mean, what Objective Standard can I calibrate myself against? I am subjective (aka a lone view)

Any Objective Reality that there is might be other than I suppose it.


-

To point to outside yourself is like the Catholic who insists the Magisterium has authority to tell them what is true. True Christianity in this case.

It is however, the individual who has decided for himself that the Magisterium is their higher authority. Making the individual the highest authority.

[An aside. God seeks to remake man to be his children. That is the level of stage setting we were born onto, you and me.

To paraphrase the Bible 'there is no intercessor, no priests or pastors or gurus or scientific bodies or go-betweens between God and a man, (save JC and he's God)'.

Biblically, my argument as to 'me: final authority' happens to stack up. Me, the final authority on what I held to be true and what I held to be false, facing God at Judgement. Nothing or nobody else standing in front of me as my higher authority.

Only my Higher Authority before me.

The one in the presence of whom I have spent a life deciding what I would do each time when confronted with His truth and his adversaries lie (all that is false). Whether and/or not I believed in Him is irrelevant. I decided either way.

.. but I mean that as an aside]

That's a logically defensible position, but your position that you are mistaken is completely indefensible as it requires you to take an objective position on a subjective basis.

I said

Objective? Since my position is that such ideas are founded in self, objective can't but rest in the overarching subjective*

As I have been saying, your idea of 'objective' is actually a product of the Subjective (that is, stand alone view). If these Subjective>objectives happen to match any actual Objective Reality then they move from being objectives to Objectives.

There is no way for us to establish the Subjective-objective becoming actual Objective though. Bar being self-satisfied that this is so.

Again, each method we apply to gain insight in the Objective Reality we hold to be there, is calibrated off self decision as to true and false.

We all bootstrap in the end. Until we die.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Of course they can, to err is human. However making an error in something you assess does not somehow magically change the action from assessing something else to self assessment.

Your knowledge rests on your confidence. Where do you get that confidence?

As we shall surely see...

When I talk about robust tests I'm referring to having controls, blinds and redundancy in place to minimize potential exposure to most sources of error, including but not limited to human error. When we provide results it is to a declared accuracy at a stated level of confidence.

You are mounting your primary assessment (for your knowing relies on confidence in the test result) into a pile of sub-assessments. Each contributing part-confidence to make up the whole . And were we to go digging into each we would see they too would rest on sub assessments.

(you might dispense with one central sub-self assessment at this point. Namely 'we'. Any confidence stemming from 'we' rests on own appraisal that 'we' provides more confidence than 'me'. It is 'me' who decides an aspect of 'me' isn't necessarily as reliable as 'we', and so defers to 'we'

Clearly, "we" on its own cannot demonstrate that more confidence is to be obtained by employing "we". That would be a circular argument)

So lets dig. Blinding produces confidence. And that sub confidence helps build the final confidence in the knowing being discussed. Lets then assess blinding and where you get your confidence. Where, other than self assessment that blinding generates confidence would blinding obtain that attribute?

If referring to more sub-assessments you might just fast forward to the base of the inverted pyramid of confidences. And tell me about the base building blocks on which all else is built. It would save time.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your knowledge rests on your confidence in your assessment. Where do you get that confidence?

As we shall surely see...





You are mounting your assessment into a pile of sub-assessments. Each requires your confidence. And were we to go digging into each we would see they too would rest on sub assessments.

So lets dig. Blinding produces confidence. And that sub confidence helps build the final confidence in the knowing being discussed. Lets then assess blinding and where you get your confidence. Where, other than self assessment that blinding generates confidence would blinding obtain that attribute?

I think you're talking utter nonsense and are failing to make anything that even approaches a cohesive argument. People can and do assess things other than themselves all the time. If this was not the case we would not need the term self assessment as we could simply use the term assessment. The larger part of human knowledge is neither subjective nor vested in the individual, it is something accrued and revised collectively over generations. When I make a technical assessment, in conjunction with others, it is on the basis of a collective understanding acquired, tested and revised over an extended period of time by a large number of people. Much as you fail to be able distinguish between what it means 'to know' and 'to believe' you seem to struggle with the concept of human knowledge that is not vested in the individual. I have a tiny fragment of that crystallized human knowledge in a bookshelf behind me as a type. Frankly I find it rather bizarre that you struggle with this but then maybe it is a necessity if you tag the label 'god did it' to anything you don't fully understand.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

I think you're talking utter nonsense and are failing to make anything that even approaches a cohesive argument. People can and do assess things other than themselves all the time. If this was not the case we would not need the term self assessment as we could simply use the term assessment. The larger part of human knowledge is neither subjective nor vested in the individual, it is something accrued and revised collectively over generations. When I make a technical assessment, in conjunction with others, it is on the basis of a collective understanding acquired, tested and revised over an extended period of time by a large number of people. Much as you fail to be able distinguish between what it means 'to know' and 'to believe' you seem to struggle with the concept of human knowledge that is not vested in the individual. I have a tiny fragment of that crystallized human knowledge in a bookshelf behind me as a type. Frankly I find it rather bizarre that you struggle with this but then maybe it is a necessity if you tag the label 'god did it' to anything you don't fully understand.

I think you would be better starting the first thing you disagree with rather than going off on one. If for no other reason than dispelling the impression that you are diverting.

Mark started off like that. Then he obliged to my request to go line by line. Within no time he had changed a term I'd used (will act only possible in one direction) to a term of his own insertion: 'choice' (which implies will possible in two directions)

The error (his error) is the problem in following the argument. You might find the same if you apply the same step wise process.

Knowledge. A function of confidence. From where confidence?.

And so forth.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think you would be better starting the first thing you disagree with rather than going off on one.

Right so Ted, wouldn't want to go off on one. Maybe better just to revisit your own enlightened comments instead.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I thereby dismiss your disagreement. Its all piffle and waffle.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Pathetic.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's Infantile level stuff. Transparently so.

Perhaps these comments are really just self assessment, which is after all your ultimate truth.

I for one have had enough of this pigeon chess and will leave you to it.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Right so Ted, wouldn't want to go off on one. Maybe better just to revisit your own enlightened comments instead.

I'm a bit surprised by this. The very quality process you lean on for your knowledge would operate line by line yet when it comes to this it's problematic for you. You're "off and running" with a treatise on how you think it is rather than dealing with the issues posed.

You point to the collective, for example, but don't tell me how YOU conclude the collective as buttressing YOUR knowledge in some other-than-self way.

You are being asked line by line. Your knowledge rests on confidence in a test. If you had no confidence you wouldn't be on here saying 'I know'

Your confidence. Sourced from somewhere.

It can't be someone elses confidence in the test (or if it is, it is your confidence in them and their confidence in the test). Can kicked down the road.

Your confidence then turns to sub components of the test. The bits that make it up. And kicks the can down the road

I want to trace where this confidence comes from.

Your knowledge starts with you and your confidence and ends, I suggest, with you and your confidence in you.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Myself. I grant myself the authority. Final authority in fact.There is no other place to obtain final authority on the matter of true and false.

So you're saying that subjective truth and objective truth are the same thing - since the first, in your strange world, dictates the second. And that your own opinions hold supreme authority over all external reality.

That's complete self-centered nihilism. Or in maths terms, you've divided yourself by zero and declared that you possess infinite knowledge.

/overandout

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

So you're saying that subjective truth and objective truth are the same thing - since the first, in your strange world, dictates the second.

The argument rests on who has final authority on true and false. If not you then who? And how do you grant that authority to what or whomever that authority is.

Without arguing in a circle.


-

What I conclude to be objective (small o) is a product of my final Subjective* say. What is Objective is an entirely different matter. It is as it is, whatever I might conclude. My objective might not be Objective. And might be.

Best I can do is judge whether or not and get on with the day.

(*as defined. Subjective = lone total view. NOT based on just emotion, feelings etc.- i.e. subjective)


Thus no to this...

And that your own opinions hold supreme authority over all external reality.

.. since all external reality is Objective and my opinions don't govern it. How could my opinions hold supreme authority over, for example, God?? Clearly that is not what I am arguing towards.

Good grief man!

That's complete self-centered nihilism. Or in maths terms, you've divided yourself by zero and declared that you possess infinite knowledge.

Is that true or false? You deciding? Or have you a higher authority who says so? And if so, how did this authority obtain its position over you without your agreeing to it first?

Cabaal

robindch wrote: »

So you're saying that subjective truth and objective truth are the same thing - since the first, in your strange world, dictates the second. And that your own opinions hold supreme authority over all external reality.

That's complete self-centered nihilism. Or in maths terms, you've divided yourself by zero and declared that you possess infinite knowledge.

/overandout

I think they've decided they are god
:rolleyes:

Myself. I grant myself the authority. Final authority in fact

Maybe thats the idea of this thread, antiskeptic wants people to believe in them as a god. A weak, meaningless, useless god, but a god none the less.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

You would have to show how objective is arrived at without than being rooted in self-assessment (Subjective). It might be helpful to define:

- Objective as that which is real, irrespective of whether we have access to that reality.
- objective as that part of Objective we consider ourselves as being able to access.

Naturally, to get from little o to big O requires a mechanism. I suggest self at root of that mechanism

I don't need to define any of that. Objective, regardless of which definition you want to weasel in, is not the same as subjective. Therefore self-assessment (which is purely subjective) does not come from objective reasoning or logic. Regardless of any of that, you still are deflecting from answering my question so I'm going to keep asking it until you answer it:
Every other theist with contradictory beliefs says the same thing, that their self assessment tells them they are right. You can't all be right, therefore your self assessment is not enough to say that you are. What else do you have?

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll pause here. You are utilising incorrect terminology and building on that. I've corrected things to show you where things are wrong. You might reconsider the whole on that basis?

I'm not going to waste anyone's time responding the rest of your post as I already addressed all your points in my previous post. Go back to my post, try to get past the first sentence in the second paragraph and maybe we will get somewhere.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mark started off like that. Then he obliged to my request to go line by line. Within no time he had changed a term I'd used (will act only possible in one direction) to a term of his own insertion: 'choice' (which implies will possible in two directions)

Please don't lie about what I did.
I both took your term and showed how it doesn't stop my term still applying and took your term and showed how you were still wrong even if we only used it. You deleting large swathes of my post to pretend I didn't does not change what I wrote and what is visible for everyone to see.