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

Zubeneschamali

Mark Hamill wrote: »

(to antiskeptic) You can't all be right, so how do you tell who is right?

And given that most of you must be wrong, you'll understand why I think it is reasonable to believe all of you are wrong until someone produces some actual evidence that one or more of you is right.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nope, the meaning of the word is the same regardless of who is saying it, that's how words work.

The meaning of the word 'malaria' is one thing. The effect (and therefore meaning of the word 'malaria') is another thing.

I was talking about that 2nd kind of meaning. What secularism achieves from a perspective. If God then..

It is because your experience is only subjectively emotional that I can't tell if your worldview, based on that experience, is accurate

You not being able to tell whether God exists and manifests to a person doesn't mean the experience, in the event it occurs, is subjective or emotional.

One person may have one response to God turning up, another another. That would be a subjective and perhaps emotional.

An objective event isn't rendered a subjective event just because you aren't there to view it happening or the person can't prove it happened to you, Mark.

I stub my toe and break it. No one is there. I objectively broke my toe (because I can show it to you) but the manner in which I broke it is subjective emotional? Really?

So, if that applies to everyone (and it does)

See above

then to repeat myself:
You can't all be right, so how do you tell who is right? How do you tell you are right, without all the arrogance of assuming your subjective emotional experience is automatically better than anyone else.
It's almost as if we need something non-subjective to raise one proposed worldview above any other.
And I am agnostic to any proposed worldview that I have yet to be told of. But if a novel worldview fails that simple test then I am gnostic that they are indistinguishable from delusion and therefore there is no reason to hold to them.

That's fine. I don't mind that you can't hold my worldview for the reasons you mention. You weren't there to see me stub my toe either so if you are not satisfied with my claim then fine.

I'm glad you say 'indistinguishable from' rather than actually delusion though. That's a more consistent position given all your not in a position to know.

Now lets see if you can maintain that position 'going forward' rather than calling people deluded. You might even take some of you colleagues here to task if they err in that way.

Last point. It would be proper to include your own unprovable worldview into the mix of possible deludeds. 'We' rather than 'you'. Sure, you have strands of evidence presented to you and you conclude as you do. So does everyone.

:rolleyes: Lets try this again:
Do you or do you not believe your claim that your god is truth?
Do you or do you not believe your claim that materialism is not?
Do you or do you not have any evidence for this?

Yes/yes/yes. That you can't see the latter yes (no more than you can't see my toe stub) merely means you too can't know as I know.

But as I was saying, the point wasn't so much to prove but to fit materialism in with all the other false gods. I was looking at the commonalities.

When it comes to evidence, the post contains evidence. You can, for example, decide whether or not you believe rampant consumerism the result of man's need to fill a void. Or you can decide its the result of something else. Or that the void is a naturalistically occurring one. Or something that conveys advantage. Or whatever.

See it as an argument submitted in evidence. It is for you, your own, personal, jury .. to decide in whether it this explanation is that best fit or not.

It doesn't matter what you say to me. It matters only what you say.

And I would point out that the reason we do not hold to a flat earth anymore (bar a few outliers) is because of more materialism (further empirical observations and scientific experiments). That is the strength of materialism (empiricism and science) - we can continue working on something we think is true to confirm if it is true and refine it if it needs to be.

A treatise on scientific method misses the point. The point was you only know what you know. You don't know what you don't know. You don't know whether you are blind to aspects of reality and all the scientific method in the world won't solve that problem for you. All that need be is that an aspect of reality isn't open to scientific method and you're done in.

You consider the argument for materialism encompassing all reality a best fit. The argument is evidence submitted to you, the jury. And you decide.

Given I've a different view, which sees how materialism is encapsulated in the general need for false gods, I come to a different view.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The meaning of the word 'malaria' is one thing. The effect (and therefore meaning of the word 'malaria') is another thing.

I was talking about that 2nd kind of meaning. What secularism achieves from a perspective. If God then..

The possible effects of malaria (I think you mean symptoms) do not change it's meaning. Malaria is still one specific things.
Similarly, secularism is one specific thing. It doesn't serve any one person, it is a-religious.

antiskeptic wrote: »

An objective event isn't rendered a subjective event just because you aren't there to view it happening or the person can't prove it happened to you, Mark.

It is a subjective event because you cannot objectively prove it happened in the way you are claiming it did. And if you can't prove it happened in the way you claim (or at all) then it is indistinguishable from not having happened.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I stub my toe and break it. No one is there. I objectively broke my toe (because I can show it to you) but the manner in which I broke it is subjective emotional? Really?

That depends on what evidence you use to support your claims about how you broke your toe.
If you show me the hammer you dropped one your toe to brake it- objective claim with objective evidence.
If you claim god broke it by making you drop the hammer - subjective emotional claim based on subjective emotional evidence.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm glad you say 'indistinguishable from' rather than actually delusion though. That's a more consistent position given all your not in a position to know.

Now lets see if you can maintain that position 'going forward' rather than calling people deluded. You might even take some of you colleagues here to task if they err in that way.

Last point. It would be proper to include your own unprovable worldview into the mix of possible deludeds. 'We' rather than 'you'. Sure, you have strands of evidence presented to you and you conclude as you do. So does everyone.

I make a point to say "indistinguishable from delusion" to make sure readers understand why such a belief is then treated as delusion.

And to you last point, I am happy to discuss my world view (I already have in previous posts to you, in explaining what I see as the problems with yours). However, I have asked for explanation and justification of yours, specifically not in terms of my world view, and you have yet to present any. To repeat -
There are theists equally sure of all kinds of fundamentally contradictory beliefs, purely for subjective emotional reasons. You can't all be right, so how do you tell who is right? How do you tell you are right, without all the arrogance of assuming your subjective emotional experience is automatically better than anyone else.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yes/yes/yes. That you can't see the latter yes (no more than you can't see my toe stub) merely means you too can't know as I know.

What is the difference between your claim, which has some evidence I can't see, and a claim which has no evidence? Without any evidence, how do I determine which one to belief?

antiskeptic wrote: »

A treatise on scientific method misses the point. The point was you only know what you know. You don't know what you don't know.

It doesn't miss your point, it contradicts it. You don't know what you think you know. You think you know something, but without external review, you can't confirm if you know it. You can act like something you think and like to be true is true, but then you get situations like the Flat Earth, where you arrogantly assume that you know all there is needed to know about your subject and reject further observations based on the emotional desire that it your comforting belief is true as-is.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't know whether you are blind to aspects of reality and all the scientific method in the world won't solve that problem for you. All that need be is that an aspect of reality isn't open to scientific method and you're done in.

How do I tell the difference between what I don't know because I simply don't have the evidence and what I don't know because there is no evidence?
How do I tell the difference between the claims of two equally convinced people presenting their fundamentally contradictory and non-scientifically verifiable beliefs to me?
How do I tell the difference between my experiences and theirs, if mine are also fundamentally contradictory and non-scientifically verifiable?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The possible effects of malaria (I think you mean symptoms) do not change it's meaning. Malaria is still one specific things.
Similarly, secularism is one specific thing. It doesn't serve any one person, it is a-religious.

It serves in the manner described. If you contend with the manner described (society shifting from the constraint imposed by a formerly theocratic society) then by all means contend

It is a subjective event because you cannot objectively prove it happened in the way you are claiming it did. And if you can't prove it happened in the way you claim (or at all) then it is indistinguishable from not having happened.

Then you ought look up the word. My not being able to prove I stubbed my toe doesn't render the expererience a subjective one

That depends on what evidence you use to support your claims about how you broke your toe.
If you show me the hammer you dropped one your toe to brake it- objective claim with objective evidence.
If you claim god broke it by making you drop the hammer - subjective emotional claim based on subjective emotional evidence.

My pointing to where I say I stubbed my toe demonstrates nothing. You.might use subjective feelings to assess whether you think I am telling the truth or not, but my claim is not demonstrable. It could be utterly false

Rather than continue, we might as well resolve this. When you look up the word.

Whilst the word does mean 'based on own feelings' you need to show

non-demonstrable event = event must be based on feelings.

As you read this word right now (note the time) you are saying your reading the word was a subjective experience. One based on feelings and emotions. You cannot demonstrate to anyone that the event (your reading the word at the noted time) happened.

I think we might be at a resolution to part of our longstanding problem: you don't know what the word "subjective" means.

antiskeptic

smacl thanks Mark.

You too believe that if an event isn't demonstrable as having occurred, the event was subjective/emotional.

Good grief!

antiskeptic

One of the reasons for assembling a mechanism of mans fall/salvation in recent posts is to dispel a few atheist tropes. My intent isn't to so much evidence that this is the way it is (although I have posited aspects of the way mankind operates for you to decide for yourself whether this is the way you operate and why). Nor am I concerned with folk pointing to alternative theologies and finding that their tropes fit there. The aim is to posit a theology which would negate a number of classic objections to the Christian faith.

1. I need to worship God / God is a big bully who wants us to subject ourselves cravenly at his feet

Response: there is no need to worship God if you don't want to. It makes no difference to your salvation or no.

2. What about all the other religions? Are they all wrong.

Response: other religions (and philosophies) are false gods (for reasons given). But they can contribute to a persons salvation. There are many paths to the summit.

3. I have to believe something for which I have no evidence.

Response: Not so. If arriving at belief, you will be in that state because you have all the evidence you require for belief. You are not required to believe anything without evidence.

4. I have to do something to be saved.

Response. You don't have to lift a finger to be saved. You will be saved by default, unless you reject salvation. You don't have to be good, or go to church, or listen to me. There isn't one thing you have to do.

5. God is a crutch

Response: God is indeed a crutch. For people who realise they cannot walk by themselves.

6. The Bible is a crusty old book. We've moved on.

Response: the problem of man is as old as the hills: the desire for self sufficiency. From Adam right up to the present day, that desire hasn't changed and the evidence is all around us. Truth doesn't age so objection based on age isn't a sound objection.

7. If God can't be evidenced, God is subjective.

Response: let's see if Mark Hamill can square his reasoning with the definition of subjective.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

smacl thanks Mark.

You too believe that if an event isn't demonstrable as having occurred, the event was subjective/emotional.

Good grief!

Nope. It the assertion that an event occurred that is neither demonstrable nor has any evidence that is subjective. Your assertions are both hypothetical and subjective. To the onlooker they appear to be products of your imagination until something more substantial suggests otherwise.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Nope. It the assertion that an event occurred that is neither demonstrable nor has any evidence that is subjective. .

The event itself isn't necessarily subjective.

The assertion (as in the words used to express it on the screen on front of you isn't subjective ( we can see it written on the screen).

Which part is left? Which part is feelings/emotional.

The content of the claim (in the event I stubbed my toe today) and the words that assert the claim ("I stubbed my toe today") aren't subjective.

Whats left?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The event itself isn't necessarily subjective.

The assertion (as in the words used to express it on the screen on front of you isn't subjective ( we can see it written on the screen).

Which part is left? Which part is feelings/emotional.

The content of the claim (in the event I stubbed my toe today) and the words that assert the claim ("I stubbed my toe today") aren't subjective.

Whats left?

An assertion is a claim that something is factual. An assertion demands proof to actually become a fact. An assertion without any proof is no more than a statement belief or opinion and hence subjective.

If you assert you stubbed your toe for example, you might have stubbed your toe, you might just be having a whinge or you might even be grabbing some random hypothetical event out of the air to support your argument. Choosing to believe you without any evidence comes down to whether I consider you trustworthy in these things and whether it is something people lie about in general. Either way it becomes a subjective choice because we don't know if you stubbed your toe. I'd probably believe you on that one. If however the assertion was outrageous, such as the nonsense about gods and whatnot, I'd dismiss the assertion outright because outrageous claims demand proper evidence.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

An assertion is a claim that something is factual.

The definition you gave uses the term "declaration that something is the case". We might as well stick to that definition, seeing as you provided it. It doesn't change things much in any case.

An assertion demands proof to actually become a fact.

better said: requires a proof in order to become something that is taken by others to have been the case.

An assertion without any proof is no more than a statement belief or opinion and hence subjective.

The word subjective refers to the source of the contents of the assertion: the source defined as arising from personal feelings and emotions. If something is sourced in the objective reality then it is not subjective. There is nothing about subjectivity that says something need be provable in order to be objective. It merely needs not be the product of personal feelings or emotions.

That it is objective doesn't mean others need suppose it the case. They weren't there to observe, whilst you were. This is where you err. Something can be the case without being demonstrable to others as being the case. The thing happened, but can't be shown to others to be the case.

If I stub my toe and assert I stubbed it but can't prove it, I cannot show all that it is the case. But it is not my belief or opinion that I stubbed my toe - since that objectively happened.



(unless you are saying that everything that happened you today, which isn't proveable by you to others, is merely an belief you hold about what happened? That none of it objectively happened?

You believe you scanned the items on a McDonalds menu. You believe you admired the figure of a woman walking by (that it was a nice figure is, of course, subjective). You believe you heard a car horn paarp. You believe that you stubbed your toe in the breaking of it. These, being mere beliefs and opinions of yours, may not actually have happened at all. Until and unless you can prove them to everyone* else?

In which case: Phew!)


*which supposes there is anyone else. Why you would suppose it to be the case that there is anyone else by which to arrive at objectivity, when you can't suppose it to be the case that you admired the attractive figure of a woman walking by (a.k.a. someone else), is anyone's guess.

antiskeptic

A prophecy: at this point the empiricist commandeering of the word objective to mean "having the potential to be empirically demonstrated even if it couldn't be, through circumstance, at the time of it's occurrence".

Or some such

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This made Luther very angry indeed and he wrote at great length about the awful, stubborn, not like us, anti-Christ Jews.

"On the Jews and Their Lies" is Luther's seminal work in this area - note his listicle of seven remedial actions which the christians could undertake against their jewish neighbours:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

There is nothing about subjectivity that says something need be provable in order to be objective. It merely needs not be the product of personal feelings or emotions.

Unfortunately, that would require the holder of the subjective view to assert or to make some implicit acknowledgement of their subjectivity and could be forced to abandon it, should it be found to fail the objectivity test.

It's like looking down the two ends of the same empty toilet-roll - from one end, one sees far away (or one could, if it's directed in the right direction), but through the other end, one can only see what's near (assuming one keeps the roll steady and just moves around to see the view through the other end). In this context, near and far would be subjective adjuncts for the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity, though even this lacks somewhat of the finality in the area of objectivity at least.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The word subjective refers to the source of the contents of the assertion: the source defined as arising from personal feelings and emotions. If something is sourced in the objective reality then it is not subjective. There is nothing about subjectivity that says something need be provable in order to be objective. It merely needs not be the product of personal feelings or emotions

Subjective means deriving from a single point of view. Every argument you've made in this thread comes solely from your point of view and as such is subjective, unless of course you can point use to to another independent source that corroborates your claims.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Unfortunately, that would require the holder of the subjective view to assert or to make some implicit acknowledgement of their subjectivity and could be forced to abandon it, should it be found to fail the objectivity test.

You mean its subjective only if the holder affirms the view stems from feelings/emotion?. Or failing that, the view fails the objectivity test (whatever that is).

What is the objectivity test?

It's like looking down the two ends of the same empty toilet-roll - from one end, one sees far away (or one could, if it's directed in the right direction), but through the other end, one can only see what's near (assuming one keeps the roll steady and just moves around to see the view through the other end). In this context, near and far would be subjective adjuncts for the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity, though even this lacks somewhat of the finality in the area of objectivity at least.

No idea what that means I'm afraid. I was interested in whether an experience (such as stubbing ones toe without witness) was an objective experience or a subjective one (where subjective = feelings and emotions or smacl's belief and opinion. Such that I need to say next time "Ouch! I believe I've stubbed my toe ... better check the cctv to see whether it caught the event on tape so that I objectively stubbed my toe"

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Subjective means deriving from a single point of view. Every argument you've made in this thread comes solely from your point of view and as such is subjective, unless of course you can point use to to another independent source that corroborates your claims.

That isn't the meaning of the word.

Subjective is defined as arising from a certain aspect of oneself: feelings and emotions. Or your 'beliefs and opinions' (which I read as 'perhaps fervently held belief and opinions but not necessarily the case').

Mark Hamill shares that view: he holds that my position stems from feelings and emotion. I'm sure you've said as much yourself in the past.

Mark might note your not-so-subtle shift to silence on the source of the position. You've moved from subjective = belief/opinion to 'its a single view' with no mention of the source of the view.

Which presumably means 'it can be the case, but you were the only witness'

You (for the purposes of the discussion) admired the womans attractive figure today. Is that the case. Or is it not the case.

If holding it to be the case that you cast an appreciative glance, do you know you cast that glance?

smacl

So I'm walking down the street and I see a good looking woman. I think to myself that is a good looking woman. I turn to my friend and say "isn't that a good looking woman?" My friend looks back at me bemusedly and says "what woman? There's no one there". That is pretty much the reaction you're going to get trying to sell bible stories and the wonders of your chosen god on an atheist forum. Sorry, but just no. You can try to tart it up however you like but it remains fantasy and nonsense from where I'm sitting. Subjectively of course.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

So I'm walking down the street and I see a good looking woman. I think to myself that is a good looking woman. I turn to my friend and say "isn't that a good looking woman?" My friend looks back at me bemusedly and says "what woman? There's no one there". That is pretty much the reaction you're going to get trying to sell bible stories and the wonders of your chosen god on an atheist forum. Sorry, but just no. You can try to tart it up however you like but it remains fantasy and nonsense from where I'm sitting. Subjectively of course.

In the space of but a few posts:

You shifted from subjective = sourced in belief and opinions (something I'm familiar with you saying)

To subjective = the position of but one (no comment on source for the position). I'm not so familiar with that one. And so was teasing out your agreeing the single position can be the case and that the person can know its the case. Even if they can't prove it to others.

To abandoning the ring altogether..

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

The aim is to posit a theology which would negate a number of classic objections to the Christian faith.

You are very late to this - Catholic theology has been entirely immune to evidence and reason for hundreds of years.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

It serves in the manner described. If you contend with the manner described (society shifting from the constraint imposed by a formerly theocratic society) then by all means contend

I have already contended it, it is up to you to substantiate it. You declared that people have swapped one "self-serving god" for the "self-serving god" of secularism. Prove it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then you ought look up the word. My not being able to prove I stubbed my toe doesn't render the expererience a subjective one

My pointing to where I say I stubbed my toe demonstrates nothing. You.might use subjective feelings to assess whether you think I am telling the truth or not, but my claim is not demonstrable. It could be utterly false

Rather than continue, we might as well resolve this. When you look up the word.

Whilst the word does mean 'based on own feelings' you need to show

non-demonstrable event = event must be based on feelings.

As you read this word right now (note the time) you are saying your reading the word was a subjective experience. One based on feelings and emotions. You cannot demonstrate to anyone that the event (your reading the word at the noted time) happened.

I think we might be at a resolution to part of our longstanding problem: you don't know what the word "subjective" means.

You don't seem to understand where we are in the discussion. I suppose when you spin in place so much, directions get very confusing.
You earlier said:
I objectively broke my toe (because I can show it to you)
So I am taking it that you broke it and can show that it is broken with empirical evidence.
We are know talking about the cause of the brake.

If you show me the hammer you dropped one your toe to brake it- objective claim with objective evidence. You can demonstrate that hammers exits and you can show me how it brakes a toe by dropping it on mine.
If you claim god broke it by making you drop the hammer - subjective emotional claim based on subjective emotional evidence. You cannot show me that god exists, or show that god actually broke your toe (and you weren't just clumsy).
The subjective applies to your claim about god causing your brake, because you have no objective evidence for god (something you pride yourself on, despite a lack of explanation as to why you think objective evidence is inferior to your subjective god).

Demonstrating some outcome as being objective reality (your toe is broken) does not render any claim about the event causing that outcome automatically objective. If your claim is indistinguishable from not happening at all, then it is indistinguishable from delusion, hence it is a subjective claim.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

1. I need to worship God / God is a big bully who wants us to subject ourselves cravenly at his feet

Response: there is no need to worship God if you don't want to. It makes no difference to your salvation or no.

4. I have to do something to be saved.

Response. You don't have to lift a finger to be saved. You will be saved by default, unless you reject salvation. You don't have to be good, or go to church, or listen to me. There isn't one thing you have to do.

So I don't have to worship god or do anything to be saved. Therefore god saves people 100% arbitrarily.

antiskeptic wrote: »

2. What about all the other religions? Are they all wrong.

Response: other religions (and philosophies) are false gods (for reasons given). But they can contribute to a persons salvation. There are many paths to the summit.

4. I have to do something to be saved.

Response. You don't have to lift a finger to be saved. You will be saved by default, unless you reject salvation. You don't have to be good, or go to church, or listen to me. There isn't one thing you have to do.

Wait, you said that I don't need to do anything to be saved in 4, but here in 2 you say what we believe can effect salvation. Which is it, does our actions effect salvation or not?

antiskeptic wrote: »

3. I have to believe something for which I have no evidence.

Response: Not so. If arriving at belief, you will be in that state because you have all the evidence you require for belief. You are not required to believe anything without evidence.

But if I do not arrive at belief, then I will not be in that state because there is no evidence for it. Therefore I am required to believe without evidence.

antiskeptic wrote: »

7. If God can't be evidenced, God is subjective.

Response: let's see if Mark Hamill can square his reasoning with the definition of subjective.

Be nice if you could get the argument right. If god can't be evidenced, then belief in god is indistinguishable from delusion. Therefore that belief is subjective. Just like all of the beliefs in other gods that you believe are false.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

smacl wrote:

Subjective means deriving from a single point of view.

That isn't the meaning of the word.

Yes it is:

Dictionary.com wrote:

1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4. Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

Meriam-Webster.com wrote:

Definition of subjective

(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subject: such as
a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness
b : being or relating to a grammatical subject especially : nominative
2 : of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
3a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective sense 2a
b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4a(1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal subjective judgments
(2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background a subjective account of the incident
b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli subjective sensations
c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes a subjective symptom of disease — compare objective sense 2c
5 : lacking in reality or substance : illusory

In general, subjective means derived from a single point of view.
Specific subjective claims be emotional or delusional, but they are all ultimately subjective because they are of singular source with no external (i.e. objective) rationale.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

What is the objectivity test?

It's the means by which distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity - as a subject, we are inherently subjective, but should that limit our ability to determine whether we are being truly objective?

But we - as fallible beings composed of atoms - are also objects within the physical world, so that suggest that objectivity is possible, at least in principle. And what about the overlap between the two? Can it be the case that one can be subjective while being objective? Or the opposite - can one fail to be subjective while also failing to be objective? This suggest a continuum from complete subjectivity at one end through objective subjectivity, then subjective objectivity and finally coming to complete objectivity.

The truth seems to lie somewhere upon that spectrum, with the position objectively differing for each of us.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So I don't have to worship god or do anything to be saved. Therefore god saves people 100% arbitrarily.

Quite the opposite. He will surely bring you to belief unless you prevent that.

Damnation occurs from your doing something (namely, refusal to be brought to belief. Preventing being brought to belief). It is not arbitrary so: it is a function of your doing nothing (in which case arrival at belief and salvation) or doing something (in which case damnation)


It's a bit like the climate crisis (in the event you hold to man-made climate disaster in the offing). If we do nothing about our current practices then we will* surely arrive at one destination. If we do something (i.e. change our practices) we will arrive at another destination.

Doing nothing about our current practices and doing something are two possibilities. Two possibilities are all that is required to achieve two outcomes.

Indeed, the climate crisis can be seen as a case of refusing to believe the truth and so be saved. For if we fully believed that we are destroying our planet (and so ourselves) we would be saved*. Of course, we don't fully believe. We might believe in part, but nevertheless book our flight to a sun destination. Self interest still at work.

[* Full belief of the evidence being presented would bring an end-of-self of sorts. We would cease and desist from (i.e. surrender) the kind of self-absorbed behaviours that are destroying the planet.

For this illustration I am assuming that ceasing and desisting, arising from full belief of the evidence, would save us. There are many who reckon its already too late. Amongst them, me.

There are simply too many self's to overcome. What will and is occurring on self vs. climate/planet is precisely the same thing that occurs in relation the larger issue of self vs. God. The creation of false gods.

Remember the purpose of creating false gods: something to bow to because there is a sense that we need to bow. But we create a false god that only requires us to bow so far. Outside that, self can continue to do as it pleases.

And so we exchange plastic straws for paper ones. Or forgoe disposable coffee cups. Or buy a bag for life. We head down to Power City and dump our short life electrical goods, then head in to buy the latest model.

And book our holidays in the sun.

And when jolted by a threat to self, we'll climb over each other to stockpile whatever it is that is being threatened. Whether individually down at the supermarket. Or nationally in our voting in politicians who promise to do what it takes to protect our selfs.

Build The Wall.]

Wait, you said that I don't need to do anything to be saved in 4, but here in 2 you say what we believe can effect salvation. Which is it, does our actions effect salvation or not?

Believe is a state of being (stative verb). You need to arrive in that position alright. But it is not you who brings you to that state. Rather, it is evidence which has you in that state.

But if I do not arrive at belief, then I will not be in that state because there is no evidence for it. Therefore I am required to believe without evidence.

If there is no evidence that will because the evidence was evaded by you. The attempt will be made to put the evidence before you. But you can evade.

You won't believe without evidence. And won't therefore be saved. There is no requirement to believe without evidence. Indeed, it is impossible to believe without evidence.

Be nice if you could get the argument right. If god can't be evidenced, then belief in god is indistinguishable from delusion. Therefore that belief is subjective. Just like all of the beliefs in other gods that you believe are false.

If God / my stubbing my toe being the cause of a toe break can't be evidenced then it is indistiguishable from delusion from your perspective. But not mine.

Are you saying my stubbing my toe is a subjective belief I have, merely because I can't evidence it to you? That even though I was there to see myself stubbing my toe, I merely feel I have stubbed my toe and possibly haven't actually stubbed it at all?

All our experiences in the objective reality are subjective?

You err at 'therefore' still apparently not having looked up the word subjective.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

It's the means by which distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity - as a subject, we are inherently subjective, but should that limit our ability to determine whether we are being truly objective?

But we - as fallible beings composed of atoms - are also objects within the physical world, so that suggest that objectivity is possible, at least in principle. And what about the overlap between the two? Can it be the case that one can be subjective while being objective? Or the opposite - can one fail to be subjective while also failing to be objective? This suggest a continuum from complete subjectivity at one end through objective subjectivity, then subjective objectivity and finally coming to complete objectivity.

The truth seems to lie somewhere upon that spectrum, with the position objectively differing for each of us.

Okay. 4 people have a subjective take on a car crash they witness. Or 12 angry men.

But what of their witnessing the fact of a car crash? Did a car crash happen objectively ? And if viewing something alone, such as the million and one things we view alone each day. Did they happen objectively? Say my stubbing my toe.

Smacl seems to have bailed in amswering. Mark still appears to be confusing how his being faced with the assertion a toe was stubbed is not the same as a person faced with stubbing their toe (calling their experience subjective for them because it can't be evidenced to him)

What do you say about your stubbing your toe alone. An objective experience?

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

What do you say about your stubbing your toe alone. An objective experience?

I say "Read an intro to philosophy book".

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I say "Read an intro to philosophy book".

I say answer.

But it appears an answer is loosening the reins on the kind of subjective which is consistently applied to my positon on here

We have seen an expansion from "subjective" (stemming from feelings, emotions, beliefs.. the fuzzier stuff) to "subjective" (the only one present).

It is not clear what the view is regarding this latter subjective (only one present for an event which happens, say stubbing one's toe). Mark appears to think it the former subjective: one believes they stubbed their toe. Or feels they stubbed their toe.

Smacl went silent on the matter of his admiring a womans figure. I'm not sure whether he knows he admired or whether he agrees with Mark, he only believes he admired her figure and that being a belief, he may not have admired her figure at all.

What do you think?

antiskeptic

You say this

Mark Hamill wrote: »

In general, subjective means derived from a single point of view.
Specific subjective claims be emotional or delusional, but they are all ultimately subjective because they are of singular source with no external (i.e. objective) rationale.

..and this.

Mark wrote:

If god can't be evidenced, then belief in god is indistinguishable from delusion. Therefore that belief is subjective.

In your first statement you appear to distinguish between subjective (emotional, feelings) and subjective (singular source).

The former subjective we can agree, are beliefs (where beliefs are defined as being prone to error). You don't say what the position is on the latter subjective (say my observing myself stubbing my toe). This stubbing can't be evidenced as there is a singular source, me. Is this a belief too (and prone to error - that is, even though I witnessed my toe stubbing I might not have stubbed my toe at all)?

In your second statement, you appear to hold non evidencing as necessarily belief in. So non ability to evidence my toe stubbing means I believe I stubbed my toe. And since my belief (subject to error), I must consider that it might not actually have happened.

You seem to be saying that all our daily experiences are beliefs. Say driving a car and the millions of observations made in the course of that pursuit - these are all beliefs and prone to error. How remarkably accurate our beliefs (which are all prone to error) must be, given our comparative triumph in car driving.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

What do you say about your stubbing your toe alone. An objective experience?

It's partially objective and partially subjective - existing on that spectrum I mentioned above. The physicality of the experience - object impacts object - leading to the objective portion of the event, and the feelings generated creating the subjective portion, at least within the mind of the walker anyway. To keep things simple, it seems easier to consider the simple case of a human walker and an inanimate rock where there's a single locus of subjectivity, divided over two objects. The case of two people bumping into each other would create two subjective experiences, this complicating the gedankenexperiment.

Depending on the speed of the relative impact and the size, density and hardness of the rock, one would enjoy different subjective experiences extending from objectively subject (were the rock small) and subjectively objective (were the rock large). Seems reasons to assume that were the impact unnoticeable, then the impact would be entirely objective, and were it to lead to the death of the subject or the destruction of the rock (the object), then it would be entirely subjective.

robindch

BTW, for the sake of simplicity, it seems wise to omit the possibility of contingency within the simple subject/object world we're considering. Adding contingency, or at least accounting for its simpler forms and influences, would complicate matters somewhat.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

It's partially objective and partially subjective - existing on that spectrum I mentioned above. The physicality of the experience - object impacts object - leading to the objective portion of the event, and the feelings generated creating the subjective portion, at least within the mind of the walker anyway.

It was that objective element I was interested in. One will go 'feck, that hurt, hope its not broken'. The other will call an ambulance. Subjective responses. Both have had an objective experience however: toe met rock and toe was broken.


For physicality of experience I assume you mean objective reality (my toe) encountering objective reality (a raised patio slab)

What I have encountered on here regarding the physicality of experience in relation to God (I, part of objective reality, meets him, part of the objective reality) is the claim that the encounter necessarily lies on the subjective side.

Necessarily is the bit I have a problem with. That is an unsupported step.

To keep things simple, it seems easier to consider the simple case of a human walker and an inanimate rock where there's a single locus of subjectivity, divided over two objects. The case of two people bumping into each other would create two subjective experiences, this complicating the gedankenexperiment.

Depending on the speed of the relative impact and the size, density and hardness of the rock, one would enjoy different subjective experiences extending from objectively subject (were the rock small) and subjectively objective (were the rock large). Seems reasons to assume that were the impact unnoticeable, then the impact would be entirely objective, and were it to lead to the death of the subject or the destruction of the rock (the object), then it would be entirely subjective.

Again you've lost me. Sure, the subjective (defined as emotional, feeling based) would vary depending on size, speed, hardness. But so long as impact detected and shy of the person dying unaware of the impact, the person has had an objective impact.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

BTW, for the sake of simplicity, it seems wise to omit the possibility of contingency within the simple subject/object world we're considering. Adding contingency, or at least accounting for its simpler forms and influences, would complicate matters somewhat.

To an extent. Ultimately, we as individuals are the judges of where we encounter that which is objective (our toe did actually hit that slab) and that which might be the result of our subjectivity (our self-recognised ability to err).

I don't see anyway to evade this. Any decision of ours to refer the matter to an exterior court for judgment arises from our first granting that court authority.

We judge the court to be in a better position to comment when and where we consider ourselves open to error. We don't in some areas: such as stubbing toes. We judge ourselves to be correctly observing.

Rendering every conclusion about objectivity/subjectivity ultimately our own. We either decide ourselves, or we decide to refer cases to an exterior court we've granted authority to.

Like the Catholics pointing to what the Magisterium says. They have granted the Magisterium the authority to tell them what they ought to believe. Rendering whatever they believe their own belief.

So that none have excuse

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote:

So I don't have to worship god or do anything to be saved. Therefore god saves people 100% arbitrarily.

Another picture on salvation being of God and you having to do nothing to be saved vs. damnation all of you, a refusal to be brought to belief. Which results in your damnation.

Quint (God) shooting yellow barrels (truth/evidence) into the shark (you).

Quint's aim is to exhaust the will of the shark and bring it to the surface (belief). The shark's will is naturally bent to staying below the surface. To avoid being brought to the surface.

If the sharks will does nothing, the barrels will bring it to the surface.

If the sharks will insists, and despite the pain that must be borne, it can stay submerged. An exercise of will keeps him submerged.

Do nothing and be saved.
Do something and be lost.


The analogy is limited of course. There is nothing about the barrels or surfacing which is attractive to the shark. His nature is as a cat catching mice. No option but to.


The truth is a different matter. The truth is beautiful and the lie is ugly. Although the truth hurts (for who enjoys their ugliness exposed) the person who doesn't suppress the truth is, in effect, acknowledging its beauty. Even of that means pain or difficulty or imconvenience or loss of status.

Truth is an attribute, a characteristic, the essence of God. Since that is what he is about, then insofar as you acknowledge truths supreme value in your life, you are acknowleging, by extension, his supremacy in your life. Whenever you tell or live the truth, as opposed to the lie, you acknowledge your love of God (or if that too difficult to swallow, your love of what he stands for.

We all live the truth and live the lie. We love both. That is the set up of this stage called life. An exposure to both options. And ability to taste both.

The question being asked though, is which will you plump for? That we are attracted to the truth isn't enough. Truth is attractive and so we get no credit for our being attracted. No more than iron filings get credit for being attracted to a magnet.

But if we resist being drawn by truths attractiveness. If we prefer our wills bent, the lie. Well that, being of us, being of our effort, receives due payment. For it is right and good that work and effort is paid for.

The wages of sin is death.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay. 4 people have a subjective take on a car crash they witness. Or 12 angry men.

But what of their witnessing the fact of a car crash? Did a car crash happen objectively ? And if viewing something alone, such as the million and one things we view alone each day. Did they happen objectively? Say my stubbing my toe.

Smacl seems to have bailed in amswering. Mark still appears to be confusing how his being faced with the assertion a toe was stubbed is not the same as a person faced with stubbing their toe (calling their experience subjective for them because it can't be evidenced to him)

What do you say about your stubbing your toe alone. An objective experience?

Well pardon me for not amswering

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing an event, e.g. a car crash, and the perception of that event by one or more witnesses. The event is objective. Perception and assertions relating to that event are subjective. As these assertions become supported by additional independent observations and evidence they become proportionally less subjective.

Context is also important. I see a woman walking down the street, I have no reason to doubt what I have seen as it is a daily occurrence. I stub my toe, curse floridly and limp along, I know what has happened as it is again a common occurrence. I am visited by an omnipotent being who claims to be my lord and master, I question what I have seen. I check the tequila bottle to make sure I haven't inadvertently swallowed the worm. I look for other indicators that I might be unusually stressed, anxious or otherwise delirious. My belief is that something somewhere has snapped and as a result I have become delusional.

Chatting to a friend who's an addiction counselor a while back, he mentioned a number of his clients have demons. His take on it was that these are very real demons, but still entirely subjective and a part of his client's mind. I'd place your god very much in the same category.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Well pardon me for not amswering

You seem to have difficulty distinguishing an event, e.g. a car crash, and the perception of that event by one or more witnesses. The event is objective. Perception and assertions relating to that event are subjective. As these assertions become supported by additional independent observations and evidence they become proportionally less subjective.

I understand the subjective part " the red car broke the lights" when it didn't

I'm looking at the bit "there was a car crash" . The objective bit. Let's assume an event where nobody else was there.

Such as you admiring a figure and no one noticed you admiring a figure

Context is also important. I see a woman walking down the street, I have no reason to doubt what I have seen as it is a daily occurrence. I stub my toe, curse floridly and limp along, I know what has happened as it is again a common occurrence. I am visited by an omnipotent being who claims to be my lord and master, I question what I have seen. I check the tequila bottle to make sure I haven't inadvertently swallowed the worm. I look for other indicators that I might be unusually stressed, anxious or otherwise delirious. My belief is that something somewhere has snapped and as a result I have become delusional.

We have established that a person has objective experiences sans having to prove it before before deeming it to self as objective.

Now the evaluation stage. The person assesses in light if all available information, including the information supplied by the experience. They decide, in the round, what they consider the case to be. It doesn't matter how fantastical things might appear to someone without access to the same information. That' a matter of scale. Which can be dealt by scale of evidence. If the evidence stitches together such as to accommodate the scale then so be it.

When you have an explantion which posits the condition of mankind, which fits far better than the alternatives then you run with it. Going where the evidence points. This most especially when the evidence of own life (to which we are especially privy) matches the explanation to a T.

What can you do when you have a theory which best fits your observations? But run with it.

Chatting to a friend who's an addiction counselor a while back, he mentioned a number of his clients have demons. His take on it was that these are very real demons, but still entirely subjective and a part of his client's mind. I'd place your god very much in the same category.

No great surprise there. Given the evidence at your disposal. But we aren't talking about how you ought to respond. We are talking about how I ought to respond

And then talking about a leap you make in supposing me deluded. When you more correctly should take an agnostic view.



You too are privy to own life. This needn't produce belief that you are at end of self now, since that conclusion occurs at the end of the process. That doesn't mean you can't take note of self. How promotion of self in subtle and not so subtle ways takes place. How you find there are damaging things you do that you know you shouldn't do but can't seem to help doing. They can be noted. And can be explained away as sourced in other things (such as addictive personality).

No matter. For the process will roll along whatever you do, assessing and evaluating you. It will use your attempts to evade against your self directed way. It will attempt to corner you. To hang you by your own petard ..as it were. To your ultimate benefit of course



For anyone interested in a biblical description of a man arriving at end of self then Romans 7 nails it, terminating with the conclusion at vs. 24.

The passages reference to law can be taken by an unbeliever to mean 'law written on your heart and in your conscience'. There is no need, at this point, to acknowledge this law inside as stemming from God. For there is no need to acknowledge where the law inside comes from in order to find yourself subject to it. Being subject to this law does the necessary work, not your being aware of its source.

If you also happen to acknowledge that this inner law is good (it telling you to be compassionate, kind, etc.) then you are, unbeknownst to yourself, also acknowledging that it is holy (or wholesome).

Recognising yourself as subject to the law. Recognising the law as holy. Recognising the difficulty you have following the law, indeed, finding that no matter how hard you struggle, something within prevents you following it. Law, holy, sin. All whilst an unbeliever in any of these things!

As I was saying: communication between God and man is ongoing, despite man's unbelief. Man subject to a process -whether he likes it or not.


Few people, if given the opportunity to wave a magic wand, would wave to be rid of the law within. We know that although this law cramps our style and that we duck, dodge and transgress it, without it we would go over the side of a cliff and becomes utterly perverted.

The passage can be stripped of any reference to God. It can be read by a confirmed, God-antagonistic athiest even, given all are privy to the workings within themselves.

-


This man is being nailed by wholesome law and what it demands of him. Better said, he is being nailed by his responses to that demand. He recognises that he is in the grip of something he cannot control (there is no need for a person on the way to end of self to know what the correct label for the thing that controls him is: sin). He is recognising that he has a serious dilemma and that self-directed self cannot escape that dilemma. He needs help. He needs a ... er ... crutch.

He has hit belief A. And having met the criterion for salvation and being saved, he can immediately utter his now-knowledge of what lay beneath resolution to his problem

"Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ."

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

And then talking about a leap you make in supposing me deluded. When you more correctly should take an agnostic view.

Why on earth should I take an agnostic view? Someone asserts something incredulous and implores that I share their fantastical beliefs I start by asking them to provide some rather strong support for these beliefs. If they can't, I dismiss their assertion as no more than subjective belief or opinion. When the assertion amounts to the same tired old religious proselytising, not only do I find it to be utter nonsense, but I find it objectionable as this is stuff I've rejected years ago and had to repeat that rejection process numerous times.

I have no objections to religious people holding and publicly celebrating their strongly held beliefs. Once they become pushy about me subscribing to their beliefs it is an entirely different matter.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Why on earth should I take an agnostic view? Someone asserts something incredulous and implores that I share their fantastical beliefs

I don't implore anything. I state my position (in an environment where folk state theirs) and see folk saying its a delusion.

I don't mind that they don't believe it. I don't expect them to believe it. Far from it. I expect them to object with everything they have.

What I am highlighting is the jump to "delusion". That's a particular objection (where successful objections reinforce the position the person making them occupies. The better an objection is sustained to an attacking view, the more their own position is defended). It has been the case that "lack of evidencing" has been taken to support the charge of delusion. We have been seeing that lack of evidencing says nothing at all about the objectivity of the experience. It turns out we can know things, despite being unable to evidence them to anyone else. Lack of evidencing has zero impact on the possible objectivity of my position. The charge of delusion cannot be supported in this way since it makes an unsustainable assumption regarding the objectivity of my position.


The next problem is scale. Fantastical scale. You ought to appreciate that scale on one side can be overcome by a corresponding increase in evidence to support the case on the other. Sure, it's my assessment that the evidence for the case matches the scale of the proposition. But that's the same balance to be struck when it comes to assessing anything we know from personal, unevidence-able experience. From God down to admiring a woman's figure. If you can know the one, based on self-assessment of the evidence, then you can know the other.

Flight might appear to have immense scale to those without the tools or technology to make flying machines. That scale is a relative trifle to others, who have the necessary tools. Whether the latter can show a flying machine to the former isn't relevant. What's relevant is their being able to make flying machines and they know it.

Scale isn't an issue in itself. Yet the charge of "delusion" has relied on it.


Not being able to evidence to others and scale. The grounds for the charge of "delusion" turn out to stand on sand. What grounds are left for making the charge of delusion. If not these?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I am highlighting is the jump to "delusion". That's a particular objection (successful objections reinforcing the position the person making it occupies. The more objection is sustained, the more their own position is defended. It has been the case that lack of evidencing has been taken to support the charge of delusion. We have been seeing that lack of evidencing says nothing at all about the objectivity of the experience. It turns out we can know things, despite being unable to evidence them to anyone else. Lack of evidencing has zero impact on the objectivity of the case. The charge of delusion cannot be supported in this way.

You perhaps need take more cognizance of the fact you're posting in an atheist forum so. In this forum the self evident truth, as you call it, is that people don't believe gods exist. They are typically of the opinion that gods are a human invention and only exist in the imagination of the religious. Insisting that anyone here should treat the existence of gods as credible is not a reasonable starting point for a discussion. As per my initial response to your opening post, I'm of the opinion you've started this discussion in the wrong forum. If you don't want your beliefs labelled as nonsense, perhaps post in the Christianity forum. If you want a broad spectrum of mixed beliefs, maybe after hours. Of course you're welcome to post as you wish in this forum, but not on the basis that your god exists outside of your own personally held subjective belief.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

You perhaps need take more cognizance of the fact you're posting in an atheist forum so. In this forum the self evident truth, as you call it, is that people don't believe gods exist. They are typically of the opinion that gods are a human invention and only exist in the imagination of the religious. Insisting that anyone here should treat the existence of gods as credible is not a reasonable starting point for a discussion.

I understand the means by which credibility is held to be established on this forum. Silence on a matter doesn't assign a matter any credibility since silence is, well, silence.

In seeking to silence a particular objection I am not adding to credibility. I am doing some damage to incredibility however.

The matter to hand is silencing the delusion charge. The charge of delusion is a positive statement. And positive statements (as you will know) require foundations upon which to make them.

As per my initial response to your opening post, I'm of the opinion you've started this discussion in the wrong forum. If you don't want your beliefs labelled as nonsense

Nonsense is a positive statement too. It is not silence. It too requires foundations. It doesn't matter what forum I am in, the rules are the same. Make a positive statement, then foundations for that positive statement.

perhaps post in the Christianity forum. If you want a broad spectrum of mixed beliefs, maybe after hours. Of course you're welcome to post as you wish in this forum, but not on the basis that your god exists outside of your own personally held subjective belief.

I take it you are stating your own personal experiences (such as admiring a womans figure yesterday) are all subjective beliefs? Where subjective beliefs are defined as perhaps not having happened at all.

He who lives by subjective beliefs dies by same.

I am quite happy on this forum, given the silencing of a positive statement (delusion, nonsense) is the aim. I also have been taking the opportunity to lay out a theology which seeks to sidestep some of the more common objections atheists have - such as having to worship at the feet of God. The aim isn't, of course, to prove this is the way it is. But given atheist objections are raised to other theologies they don't believe in, they might as well see how their objections fair to this theology they don't believe in. Call it a thought experiment

And who knows. Perhaps someone will be able to see a hint of Romans 7 man at work in themselves. Or the exercise of selfs as laying at the root of the worlds problems. Call it "evangelism through the back door whilst I'm at it".

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nonsense is a positive statement too. It is not silence. It too requires foundations. It doesn't matter what forum I am in, the rules are the same. Make a positive statement, then foundations for that positive statement.

You should perhaps better acquaint yourself with this forum so. The last long running thread by a theist on this forum keen on creationism got re-titled 'Origin of specious nonsense', that being most people's position on the subject in this neck of the woods.

Perhaps someone will be able to see a hint of Romans 7 man at work in themselves.

Perhaps they will, though the Christian bible isn't exactly canon here either, and Romans 7 man at work sounds like a Monty Python Australian pop cross over from where I'm sitting,

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

You should perhaps better acquaint yourself with this forum so. The last long running thread by a theist on this forum keen on creationism got re-titled 'Origin of specious nonsense', that being most people's position on the subject in this neck of the woods.

Understood. But when the position of those on the forum can't find sustainance - aside from "this is the atheist forum, whaddya expect"...

Your own inability to state yours a belief position, regarding that which I would have thought to be something you would have said you know .. is noted.

The very silence I was seeking.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your own inability to state yours a belief position, regarding that which I would have thought to be something you would have said you know .. is noted.

Sorry, but what does that even mean? While I don't doubt what you write makes sense to you, could I humbly ask that you read what you've written prior to posting to see if it likely to make sense to your intended audience.

The very silence I was seeking.

Maybe you could try some early Art & Garfunkel if that's your thing.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Sorry, but what does that even mean? While I don't doubt what you write makes sense to you, could I humbly ask that you read what you've written prior to posting to see if it likely to make sense to your intended audience.

Your admiring that womans figure of course. You never said that whether it was something you believe occurred (subject to error) or something you know occurred (not subject to error)

Subjective (belief) or subjective (you were the only one to witness it)

You might clarify.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your admiring that womans figure of course. You never said that whether it was something you believe occurred (subject to error) or something you know occurred (not subject to error)

Subjective (belief) or subjective (you were the only one to witness it)

You might clarify.

Still have no idea what you're on about. I see a woman I find attractive, it is clearly subjective. I find one thing or another attractive about many women I meet. Other people might find other things or nothing attractive about the same women. It's clearly subjective. What's your point exactly?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Still have no idea what you're on about. I see a woman I find attractive, it is clearly subjective. I find one thing or another attractive about many women I meet. Other people might find other things or nothing attractive about the same women. It's clearly subjective. What's your point exactly?

I'm not talking about that kind of subjective assessment. I'm talking about your admiring her in the first place. You remember admiring a woman. No one was there, so you cannot evidence it as having happened. That makes it the kind of subjective you yourself expounded upon (single source)

You either know you admired her figure

OR

You believe you admired her figure, but you could be wrong that it happened - you might have imagined it and any number of things you think happened yesterday.

Which is it?

fritzelly

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not talking about that subjective assessment. I'm talking about your admiring her in the first place. You remember admiring a woman. It happened. No one was there so you cannot evidence it happened. That makes it the subjective you yourself raised expounded upon (single source)

You either know you admired her figure..
You believe you admired her figure, but you could be wrong that it happened - you might have imagined it and any number of things you think happened yesterday.

Which is it?

Schrodinger's cat comes to mind, aka pointless argument

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not talking about that subjective assessment. I'm talking about your admiring her in the first place. You remember admiring a woman. It happened. No one was there so you cannot evidence it happened. That makes it the subjective you yourself raised expounded upon (single source)

You either know you admired her figure..
You believe you admired her figure, but you could be wrong that it happened - you might have imagined it and any number of things you think happened yesterday.

Which is it?

Again struggling to understand your point. Do I question my memory of events? Yes, regularly. My memory for that type of minutiae is poor. There is nothing in the scenario that is ostensibly objective. You clearly find women's figures fascinating, and while I appreciate the sentiment it isn't something I tend to obsess over and hence commit to long term memory. Personally I'm more taken by the dynamics than specifics, so a mischievous smile and lively eyes would tend to stick in my mind more than a huge pair of tits balancing a large arse. Each to their own, hey?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Again struggling to understand your point. Do I question my memory of events?

Pick any event which you clearly remember as having occurred. Do you know it occurred or do you believe it occurred.

Unless you have serious problems with your memory, I'm thinking of any number of a thousand things that occurred today, where no one was there to witness.

Pick one of them

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Pick any event which you clearly remember as having occurred. Do you know it occurred or do you believe it occurred.

Unless you have serious problems with your memory, I'm thinking of any number of a thousand things that occurred today, where no one was there to witness.

Pick one of them

Any event? What like reaching the summit of Mont Blanc with my then girlfriend now wife? Being there through the visceral intensity when that same wonderful woman delivered our first born? Holding my father's hand in the morgue and crying my eyes out? Obviously.

Seeing some 'woman with an attractive figure' walk down the road or how many cups of coffee I had today? Not so much.

looksee

I suspect that Antiskeptic is working on the basis that as long as people are reading and digesting (as against skimming through, as I am) his lengthy meanderings they are not engaged in more sinister, though rational, discussions about atheism on other threads. He is therefore, in a very small way, saving us from ourselves. Or indeed, making us think about Christianity - in this he is considerably less successful, he is far too distracting with his female figures and angels-dancing-on-a-pin 'subjectivity or objectivity' logorrhea.