Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Commoner]

We can measure the precise degree of molecular agitation within matter, as it's temperature. We cannot define when that matter becomes "hot" or "cold", however. In this way, temperature is both objective and subjective. It's also both actual and conceptual.

The agitation of molecules within matter is a real phenomenon regardless of it's "objectivity" or it's "subjectivity". But it's only "real" to us, however, as an experienced idea. If no humans existed, the molecules within matter would still agitate, but there would be no temperature. Because there'd be no hot or cold, and no scale to quantify the agitation within the molecules.

PureX, "hot" is not the same as "temperature". "hot" is subjective and does not even correspond directly to temperature, but to other factors like heat conduction, etc...

You are talking about two different things. Temperature is not "hot" and "cold".

 

[Commoner]

Existence is itself a concept that exists only in our minds. Every concept exists only in our minds. You keep stating this as though we're supposed to recognize something significantly different about art, or God, that makes them somehow "unreal" or less real than all the other concepts that exist in our minds. But it's not working for me.

Great, full circle again. I will not humour you any further on this point.

The term "art", like the term "God", refers to a broad range of ideas. I agree. Yet there is an over-arching ideal that limits that range, too. Not everything is art. And not everything is God. Yet it's very difficult, and perhaps impossible to define exactly what that over-arching ideal is.

Super! What isn't "god"?

They don't mean anything to you, because you have already closed your mind to such ideas. They mean a great deal, however, to millions of other people. You are not the yardstick by which meaning is established for all.

BS, PureX, bs. Show me these millions that can make sense of your philosophical definitions. Hell, maybe they can explain them to me.

God in my life is love, forgiveness, generosity, joy, peace, unity and freedom. God in me is courage, wisdom, kindness, strength, tenderness, and humility. God in you is seeing you in me and me in you and that we are all one, unique but together. God is an ideal that heals us, if we will act on it. God is an ideal that transcends life and existence, so as to give them meaning and purpose. God is the challenge of becoming that which is the greatest in me to be. I'm being as clear about this as I can be.

I've checked - there's no god in me. That's a pretty clear description, but not a description of something that exists outside your mind. I'll ask you again: what is the difference between "god" and "Todd" - the mental image of "god" I can conjure up? Where is the point at which your "god" is more than a figment of your imagination?

 

[Commoner]

Found this quote recently that I like. The "inwardness" that the individual is --that we each are--passionate about is "I am."

Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion of the individual's inwardness and the objective uncertainty. If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my faith.

- Soren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript

That's a good description of what's going on, maybe just a bit too...generous. I guess it depends on the "faith" in question. I believe he was focused mostly on Christianity, wasn't he?,

 

[rrosskopf]

Where everything came from, I don't know but it doesn't make me want to invent a god who roasts babies in hell.

Not all Christians believe that...

" 8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
...
14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. "
(Moroni 8)

 

[rrosskopf]

Well NOW we're getting somewhere! If God has interfered in human history, then that means He has physically acted to change the natural progression of events. This is important to this kind of discussion, because now we may start to understand God by way of his actions on earth and by way of the times He chose NOT to act on earth.

So, let's start with the things you believe he did. Can you provide some instances?

The translation of the Book of Mormon is perhaps the most thouroughly witnessed and significant supernatural event of modern times. It is tied to the calling of a new prophet of God. It has led to a movement that has dominated the western U.S., and continues to grow throughout the world.

"13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. "
(Isaiah 29)

 

[rrosskopf]

That's ridiculous! There are many, many, many, many, many instances of skeptics being convinced by evidence. MANY were skeptical of round earth theories in 1491. The evidence convinced them. MANY were skeptical that an automobile would be more effective for the average person than a horse. The evidence has convinced them. Skeptics are won over by evidence every day.

It absolutely floors me that this thread even exists. That people would take an assertion that not only has no evidence, but by its very nature can never have evidence and then have the cojones to say that we are SOOOOO skeptical that we refuse to believe the MOUNTAINS of evidence they present. What a joke!

I didn't say that skeptics couldn't be converted, or accept truth, but that pure skepticism causes people to be blind to any evidence. Why should someone take an honest look at the plausibility of something if they are convinced it is foolishness? A great skeptic can look at the sun in the middle of the day and deny its existence. I have asked athiests what evidence they would accept for the existance of God, and have discovered that in some cases extreme and ridiculous amounts of evidence are needed. The ultimate form of skepticism appears to be mocking; it requires no proof, and offers no apology.

 

[Willamena]

PureX, "hot" is not the same as "temperature". "hot" is subjective and does not even correspond directly to temperature, but to other factors like heat conduction, etc...

You are talking about two different things. Temperature is not "hot" and "cold".

Surely that's his point: we can measure the objective, not the subjective.

That's a good description of what's going on, maybe just a bit too...generous. I guess it depends on the "faith" in question. I believe he was focused mostly on Christianity, wasn't he?,

The "faith" in question is defined in the first line.

 

[Commoner]

Surely that's his point: we can measure the objective, not the subjective.

That doesn't make temperature subjective. It doesn't make "hot" objective. They are not the same thing, so I don't really understand the point.

Wouldn't it be the same to argue that a chair can be subjective because the "feeling" touching it produces is subjective? Maybe I've completely misunderstood this but wasn't the whole point to say that something can be both subjective and objective at the same time?

 

[PureX]

Where is the point at which your "god" is more than a figment of your imagination?

It's at the point at which it works in my life. God becomes real when I can experience the idea of God working in myself and others. This is no different than any other idea. The idea of evolution becomes real when we can experience it working in the world around us. Until then, it's just an idea.

It may be time to just let this conversation be at an impasse.

 

[Willamena]

That doesn't make temperature subjective. It doesn't make "hot" objective. They are not the same thing, so I don't really understand the point.

Wouldn't it be the same to argue that a chair can be subjective because the "feeling" touching it produces is subjective? Maybe I've completely misunderstood this but wasn't the whole point to say that something can be both subjective and objective at the same time?

"Hot" and "temperature" are not the same thing, but then neither is "32°C" and "temperature", or "32°C" and "hot". Yet no one would deny that "32°C" is a degree of temperature, or that it's hot.

It is hot relative to lower temperatures; it is temperature as a measurement; it is subjective in its relationship; it is objective in its observability. It is subjective and objective depending on how we view it (perspective). All that "changes" to turn it from objective into subjective is perspective. (That is the "turn", if you're a poker player.)

In the broader picture, it is both.

 

[Commoner]

It's at the point at which it works in my life.

So does believing in imaginary things. (from imaginary friends to an unrealistic self-image, etc...) Though they might not be "real", the comfort and emotions they provide are real. This does not make them real.

It may be time to just let this conversation be at an impasse.

I think you might be right. We're all getting a bit repetitive.

 

[Commoner]

"Hot" and "temperature" are not the same thing, but then neither is "32°C" and "temperature", or "32°C" and "hot". Yet no one would deny that "32°C" is a degree of temperature, or that it's hot.

It is hot relative to lower temperatures; it is temperature as a measurement; it is subjective in its relationship; it is objective in its observability. It is subjective and objective depending on how we view it (perspective). All that "changes" to turn it from objective into subjective is perspective. (That is the "turn", if you're a poker player.)

In the broader picture, it is both.

Temperature is an...icky example, since most people don't really know what it means. You could not deny the measured temperature, you could deny that it's hot. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that I can present you with objects of the same temperature and ask you to assess them - and you would correctly report back that some of the objects feel cooler than other objects. "hot" does not correspond to temperature, neither is it objective in the sense that it can be independetly verified. To simplify: things of a lower temperature can seem "hotter" than things of a higher temperature. The only way you can say objectively that 32°C is hot is f you define it as such - or, if talking about a "hot day", the "hot" is determined (implied) by the temperature being substantially higher than average. In the same way you could mistakenly claim "hot" to be objective to a degree, because most people will agree to a point what they interpret as "hot" or "cold". The only way to make "hot" objective is to define it - just as degrees of temperature must be defined (with things like the boiling point of water under standard pressure) in order to make them an objective measurement.

I am a poker player, but I don't understand the analogy (and I'm a bit bummed out because of it ).

 

[PureX]

So does believing in imaginary things. (from imaginary friends to an unrealistic self-image, etc...) Though they might not be "real", the comfort and emotions they provide are real. This does not make them real.

But we aren't talking about imaginary friends, or unrealistic self-images, both of which we can reasonably test. So this is a false analogy.

We all "believe in imaginary things". That's what ideas are. They are imagined connections and relationships between phenomena that we experience, that work for us predictively. The concept we carry around in our minds of the world around us and how it works is entirely imaginary. Hopefully, this image of reality that we hold has been tested against our experiences of reality and so is not too seriously mis-imagined, but it IS imagined nevertheless.

 

[Willamena]

Temperature is an...icky example, since most people don't really know what it means. You could not deny the measured temperature, you could deny that it's hot. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that I can present you with objects of the same temperature and ask you to assess them - and you would correctly report back that some of the objects feel cooler than other objects. "hot" does not correspond to temperature, neither is it objective in the sense that it can be independetly verified. To simplify: things of a lower temperature can seem "hotter" than things of a higher temperature. The only way you can say objectively that 32°C is hot is f you define it as such - or, if talking about a "hot day", the "hot" is determined (implied) by the temperature being substantially higher than average. In the same way you could mistakenly claim "hot" to be objective to a degree, because most people will agree to a point what they interpret as "hot" or "cold". The only way to make "hot" objective is to define it - just as degrees of temperature must be defined (with things like the boiling point of water under standard pressure) in order to make them an objective measurement.

I am a poker player, but I don't understand the analogy (and I'm a bit bummed out because of it ).

What does it "really mean" apart from a measure of kenetic energy --and whether the measure is in averaged terms of degrees, in relative terms like "hot" and "cold", or in some other more precise unit of measure, is there that much difference to the person observing it?

The only way you can effectively say "objectively true" (or anything) about anything is that you've defined it as such.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

But we aren't talking about imaginary friends, or unrealistic self-images, both of which we can reasonably test. So this is a false analogy.

We all "believe in imaginary things". That's what ideas are. They are imagined connections and relationships between phenomena that we experience, that work for us predictively. The concept we carry around in our minds of the world around us and how it works is entirely imaginary. Hopefully, this image of reality that we hold has been tested against our experiences of reality and so is not too seriously mis-imagined, but it IS imagined nevertheless.

We're not saying that they're not "real" as in that they don't exist at all, we're saying they're "real" as in that they only exist as a concept and nothing more, that they are not objective. Oh right can't use that word with you...

 

[Willamena]

We're not saying that they're not "real" as in that they don't exist at all, we're saying they're "real" as in that they only exist as a concept and nothing more, that they are not objective. Oh right can't use that word with you...

The idea that equates "objective" with the material world is a fallacy. Ideas can be objective. Concepts --especially concepts --can be objective. Everything that is a noun is objective.

The idea that equates "objective" with the material world removes, separates and distinguishes a world of "idea" from reality (implying, of course, that nothing in the world of idea is real, and even that "we" as thinking being are not real).

 

[Vile Atheist]

Temperature is an...icky example, since most people don't really know what it means. You could not deny the measured temperature, you could deny that it's hot. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that I can present you with objects of the same temperature and ask you to assess them - and you would correctly report back that some of the objects feel cooler than other objects. "hot" does not correspond to temperature, neither is it objective in the sense that it can be independetly verified. To simplify: things of a lower temperature can seem "hotter" than things of a higher temperature. The only way you can say objectively that 32°C is hot is f you define it as such - or, if talking about a "hot day", the "hot" is determined (implied) by the temperature being substantially higher than average. In the same way you could mistakenly claim "hot" to be objective to a degree, because most people will agree to a point what they interpret as "hot" or "cold". The only way to make "hot" objective is to define it - just as degrees of temperature must be defined (with things like the boiling point of water under standard pressure) in order to make them an objective measurement.

I am a poker player, but I don't understand the analogy (and I'm a bit bummed out because of it ).

In other words, our measure of temperature is objective and our perception of temperature is subjective.

 

[Commoner]

What does it "really mean" apart from a measure of kenetic energy --and whether the measure is in averaged terms of degrees, in relative terms like "hot" and "cold", or in some other more precise unit of measure, is there that much difference to the person observing it?

The only way you can effectively say "objectively true" (or anything) about anything is that you've defined it as such.

Because "hot" and "cold" are not a measure of temperature. They could possibly be a measure of something else (maybe "heat", "thermal conductivity", etc...), but they could not be "objective" in any sense, since they are not independent of the person (mind) that's doing the measuring. "Hotter" does not mean "of a higher temperature", althought the two are related. The misconception comes from the colloquial usage of terms like "temperature" and "heat".

I don't really understand where you're going with this. Yes, we are able to estimate temperatures within a certain range (let's say from 0-100°C) relatively accurately by using our senses. It is because when we touch something, we sense the heat flow from us to the object or vice versa and this implies either a decline or an increase in temperature and since our body temperature is relatively stable ad our skin conducts heat at a certain rate we can guesstimate the temperature of other objects - but only relative to our temperature. This is why you can't tell if you have a fever by touching your own forehead. I don't think you can get any more subjective than that.

 

[Commoner]

In other words, our measure of temperature is objective and our perception of temperature is subjective.

Pretty much. :yes:

 

[Willamena]

Because "hot" and "cold" are not a measure of temperature. They could possibly be a measure of something else (maybe "heat", "thermal conductivity", etc...), but they could not be "objective" in any sense, since they are not independent of the person (mind) that's doing the measuring. "Hotter" does not mean "of a higher temperature", althought the two are related. The misconception comes from the colloquial usage of terms like "temperature" and "heat".

I don't really understand where you're going with this. Yes, we are able to estimate temperatures within a certain range (let's say from 0-100°C) relatively accurately by using our senses. It is because when we touch something, we sense the heat flow from us to the object or vice versa and this implies either a decline or an increase in temperature and since our body temperature is relatively stable ad our skin conducts heat at a certain rate we can guesstimate the temperature of other objects - but only relative to our temperature. This is why you can't tell if you have a fever by touching your own forehead. I don't think you can get any more subjective than that.

Well, I won't argue further with such firmly set ideas.