Value to who we are - A premise of Seeing argument.

[Link]

p1 If God does not exist, there doesn't exist a perception to who we exactly are (since he alone can judge perfectly to value).
p2 If there doesn't exist a perception to exactly who we are, there doesn't exist exact value to who we are.
p3 There exists exact value to who we are (assertion)
Therefore God exists. (modus tollens with transitional rule to p2 and p1)

p1: Not G -> Not S
p2: Not S -> Not V
p3: V
c: G (modus tollens with transitional rule to p2 and p1)



I would argue if there is no concrete reality to who we are, would not be able to guesstimate to who we are. We guesstimate even without knowing the concrete value of ourselves or anyone, but have to live with some sort of estimation of people's actions and ours. These two relate, how we see ourselves impacts how we see others and vice versa. But we with some truth to our assessment realize it's not the whole thing.

That is to say, when you write a program on a computer, there is two ways it can happen:

(1) Writing a program in real life on a computer (you know computer exists)
(2) Writing a program in a dream on a computer (you assume it exists)'

To elaborate 2, and make the analogy, if you were lucid dreaming, you can write on the computer, but you wouldn't expect there to be a real program if you were fully aware that it's but a dream. You wouldn't take writing on it seriously, since it can produce anything, and have no bearing on what you program, since it's made up.

Same with the self and value. You make some sort of assessment on belief that hidden behind your vision, is a reality that there is true value. A true assessment of you is contained. The only way you should believe there is no true value, if you cease all assessment entirely related to personhood and value to people. You can't, because it's that ingrained in you to know you have value.

(V) Value to who we are.
(A) Assessment (estimation/guessing type) to who we are

Not V -> Not A
A
Therefore V (Modus tollens)

 

[McBell]

I am not sure how accurate the claim "a perception does not exist until it is perceived" actually is.

 

[Quintessence]

Interesting. Not sure I agree, but interesting.

From my perspective as a polytheist and an animist, I do view identity as more relational than some seem to in my surrounding culture. That is, our identities are defined by the interactions and perceptions of humans with the many other-than-human persons we share this planet with. The sum totality of all this - what I sometimes call The Weave - would be akin to the "perfect perception" that can truly know the nature of things. So in a fashion I could view your god as an emergent property of all the things I consider gods, but to use some singular word to articulate this? Doesn't work for me, I guess. No word can articulate it. It's beyond speakings and words.

 

[Link]

Interesting. Not sure I agree, but interesting.

From my perspective as a polytheist and an animist, I do view identity as more relational than some seem to in my surrounding culture. That is, our identities are defined by the interactions and perceptions of humans with the many other-than-human persons we share this planet with. The sum totality of all this - what I sometimes call The Weave - would be akin to the "perfect perception" that can truly know the nature of things. So in a fashion I could view your god as an emergent property of all the things I consider gods, but to use some singular word to articulate this? Doesn't work for me, I guess. No word can articulate it. It's beyond speakings and words.

I believe Ahlulbayt (A) and past Ahlulbayts (a) (Prophets (a) overall) and Angels (a) close to God, they can produce an emanating vision from God but that God's vision still sees the unseen reality of our intentions and states of his creation in a hidden way thing nothing else can.

That is because God is completely hidden and ultimate highness is forever journeyed to, and so in time, we will all (creation) know more of God's judgment and unseen reality as well as to who we are in that respect, but we never fully know either God or anyone for that matter, since everything exists only perfectly in absolute perfection vision.

My question to you, does that "perfect perception" grow? You see, from my understanding is that it will. Your gods will continue to ascend and grow in perfection or am I wrong? The consensus they have will also grow.

But towards what? You see to me it must be towards God. Also the emanation of vision should be linked back to the absolute perfect vision. How, no one can explain fully but somehow everything is brought from the hidden to the manifest, and is manifest and hidden, like God. God alone knows the unseen, but he brings out his unseen through Messengers. God is manifest and unseen, and everything is like that too. We too are manifest, yet unseen, our truest form we don't know. God alone knows it.

 

[Quintessence]

My question to you, does that "perfect perception" grow?

It can't - that which is perfect is without flaw and precisely as it ought to be. Growth is fundamentally incompatible with the nature of perfection. Something can't become "more" of itself or "more" perfect else it is not perfect and as it ought to be. A perfect thing simply *is* itself - it does not "grow."

 

[Link]

It can't - that which is perfect is without flaw and precisely as it ought to be. Growth is fundamentally incompatible with the nature of perfection. Something can't become "more" of itself or "more" perfect else it is not perfect and as it ought to be. A perfect thing simply *is* itself - it does not "grow."

Unless they are a perfect path as I believe Ahlulbayt (a) are. They increase in blessings, but there is no fault in them. That is increasing and growing in blessings is part of the perfect way they ought to be.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

p1 is simply nonsense:

1. "who we exactly are" is meaningless, while
2. "[God] alone can judge perfectly" (a) assumes deity, (b) presumes judging, and (c) claims 'perfection'.

The kindest observation that can be made might be the infamous: Garbage In --> Garbage Out.

 

[LuisDantas]

p1 If God does not exist, there doesn't exist a perception to who we exactly are (since he alone can judge perfectly to value).

I just don't see how this could be anything else but a dogmatic premise, even with the qualifiers of "exactly" and "perfectly".

How would we know that? We can't. It has to be taken on faith.

p2 If there doesn't exist a perception to exactly who we are, there doesn't exist exact value to who we are.

Generally speaking, a value may easily exist exactly even if it is entirely unperceived.

But it seems that you are speaking here of a very tentative form of value, which arguably does not even exist except as an artificial, human-made tool for some form of judgement call. I would indeed argue that such is the case. I will further argue that such a value probably can't ever be made exact in any case; artificial as it is, it still potentially changes every day for any given person.

p3 There exists exact value to who we are (assertion)

I had not read this part previously. As it happens, I have just challenged it right above.

(...)

I would argue if there is no concrete reality to who we are, would not be able to guesstimate to who we are. We guesstimate even without knowing the concrete value of ourselves or anyone, but have to live with some sort of estimation of people's actions and ours. These two relate, how we see ourselves impacts how we see others and vice versa. But we with some truth to our assessment realize it's not the whole thing.

Do we?

Myself, I think that this idea that there is some sort of personal value that defines who we "really" are is speculative at best.

Unless I am mistaken, you are pretty much saying outright that we live our whole lives without having access to this supposed concrete value of ourselves.

That brings the question of how necessary that value is if it even exists as such. How significant can a value be if it is literally unknowable?

I can only assume that you are operating under the so-far unstated premises that people are judged by your God after they die according to this true personal value that is apparently know to that God alone.

If that is your belief, then that is it. I don't think that you are arguing for that here in this topic, though.

(...)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

p1 If there is not tomato sauce there is no perfect pizza.
p2 If there is no perfect pizza there is no exceptional dinner
p3 There is an exceptional dinner (assertion)
Therefore God exists. (modus tollens with transitional rule to p2 and p1)

p1: Not TS -> Not PP
p2: Not PP -> Not ED
p3: ED

Therefore: bon appetit!

 

[sayak83]

p1 If God does not exist, there doesn't exist a perception to who we exactly are (since he alone can judge perfectly to value).
p2 If there doesn't exist a perception to exactly who we are, there doesn't exist exact value to who we are.
p3 There exists exact value to who we are (assertion)
Therefore God exists. (modus tollens with transitional rule to p2 and p1)

p1: Not G -> Not S
p2: Not S -> Not V
p3: V
c: G (modus tollens with transitional rule to p2 and p1)



I would argue if there is no concrete reality to who we are, would not be able to guesstimate to who we are. We guesstimate even without knowing the concrete value of ourselves or anyone, but have to live with some sort of estimation of people's actions and ours. These two relate, how we see ourselves impacts how we see others and vice versa. But we with some truth to our assessment realize it's not the whole thing.

That is to say, when you write a program on a computer, there is two ways it can happen:

(1) Writing a program in real life on a computer (you know computer exists)
(2) Writing a program in a dream on a computer (you assume it exists)'

To elaborate 2, and make the analogy, if you were lucid dreaming, you can write on the computer, but you wouldn't expect there to be a real program if you were fully aware that it's but a dream. You wouldn't take writing on it seriously, since it can produce anything, and have no bearing on what you program, since it's made up.

Same with the self and value. You make some sort of assessment on belief that hidden behind your vision, is a reality that there is true value. A true assessment of you is contained. The only way you should believe there is no true value, if you cease all assessment entirely related to personhood and value to people. You can't, because it's that ingrained in you to know you have value.

(V) Value to who we are.
(A) Assessment (estimation/guessing type) to who we are

Not V -> Not A
A
Therefore V (Modus tollens)

Please show that things can't exist unless somebody has exact and complete perception of that thing.

Otherwise P2 is bare assertion.

 

[Link]

p1 is simply nonsense:

1. "who we exactly are" is meaningless, while
2. "[God] alone can judge perfectly" (a) assumes deity, (b) presumes judging, and (c) claims 'perfection'.

The kindest observation that can be made might be the infamous: Garbage In --> Garbage Out.

It's an implication, it doesn't assume existence of God. I don't know why people can't see that.

 

[Link]

Please show that things can't exist unless somebody has exact and complete perception of that thing.

Otherwise P2 is bare assertion.

I will argue for p2 in a different thread. But value is qualia, it's not material here. So it definitely needs perception. From naturalist view, it would be the mind that perceives the value to who we are. That is why I separated the premises 1 and 2 even though I could've made into 1.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hmm... I may have been put on ignore by @Link

 

[sayak83]

I will argue for p2 in a different thread. But value is qualia, it's not material here. So it definitely needs perception. From naturalist view, it would be the mind that perceives the value to who we are. That is why I separated the premises 1 and 2 even though I could've made into 1.

So you wish to argue P1 only.
Why do you believe that there is ONE concrete reality about who we are. One could argue a relational concept of identity where what X is, is dependent on how Y perceives X to be and there there is no unique privileged perception of who X is. So X is whatever is perceived about X from various Y's and is multivalent.
So for example, I may be father to my son, husband to my wife, son to my father, owner to my cat, professor to my students and devotee to my God, the I to my experience....and all these identities of me are equally valid and none more privileged than another.

 

[Heyo]

p3 There exists exact value to who we are (assertion)

How do you know?
According to your premise (p1) only god (if it exists) can know that. Asserting that it is so is assuming gods existence, therefore the argument is circular.

 

[Link]

How do you know?
According to your premise (p1) only god (if it exists) can know that. Asserting that it is so is assuming gods existence, therefore the argument is circular.

I argued for the premise in this thread.

 

[Link]

Hmm... I may have been put on ignore by @Link

You are not on ignore.

 

[Link]

So you wish to argue P1 only.
Why do you believe that there is ONE concrete reality about who we are. One could argue a relational concept of identity where what X is, is dependent on how Y perceives X to be and there there is no unique privileged perception of who X is. So X is whatever is perceived about X from various Y's and is multivalent.
So for example, I may be father to my son, husband to my wife, son to my father, owner to my cat, professor to my students and devotee to my God, the I to my experience....and all these identities of me are equally valid and none more privileged than another.

This thread, I'm arguing for p3 alone. I will make a thread for each premise. Or else, debates will be all over the place.

 

[sayak83]

This thread, I'm arguing for p3 alone. I will make a thread for each premise. Or else, debates will be all over the place.

You cannot argue the conclusion from your premises first! What kind of a debate is that?!

 

[Link]

You cannot argue the conclusion from your premises first! What kind of a debate is that?!

If you mean it's circular, I've made a thread to assess validity: My argument from vision circular?