"No evidence of God" = Is a bad argument against God

[Bathos Logos]

Well, we are deep into philosophy. I have been there before.
So here is my position. You are a product of the rest of everything and as a part of everything, so you can never be independent of it and it can never be independent of you, unless you accept actual ontological dualism.
As for this: "...it is impossible to conceive..." that is in your brain and not independent of you, so that is subjective as a limit of your brain.

No... it is literally a limit of the shapes and measurements involved. This is not "philosophy". This is hard-line, undeniable fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No... it is literally a limit of the shapes and measurements involved. This is not "philosophy". This is hard-line, undeniable fact.

Shapes and measurements requires brains. So to say there is something requires a brain. Or try doing that without using your brain.
I am tried of the philosophy of having existence independent of the mind. If that is the case it is unknowable and we can't speak of it. That is Kant BTW.

 

[firedragon]

No, I won't play with you today. Sorry. Not in the mood. Cheers.

Alright. Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Well, now we are getting somewhere. It is objective in that it requires no emotional evaluation. It is subjective in that it requires a brain, it is not independent of brains as such and not all brains can understand it. Whether it is so just for this universe or all possible universes I don't know.

You have not understood objective facts. Objective facts will stay true even if one has no brain, where it will never change. A triangle cannot be a circle. It is in philosophy called an analytical fact. Not a contingent fact. It is not an inductive truth.

 

[firedragon]

No... it is literally a limit of the shapes and measurements involved. This is not "philosophy". This is hard-line, undeniable fact.

It is philosophy Bethos. What you are speaking of are analytical facts, and you are using Aristotelian logic. Its philosophy then, it is philosophy today, and no logician anywhere will make it a historical fact or a contingent fact.

Which means as you said "undeniable fact".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You have not understood objective facts. Objective facts will stay true even if one has no brain, where it will never change. A triangle cannot be a circle. It is in philosophy called an analytical fact. Not a contingent fact. It is not an inductive truth.

An analysis requires a brain.

 

[Bathos Logos]

It is philosophy Bethos. What you are speaking of are analytical facts, and you are using Aristotelian logic. Its philosophy then, it is philosophy today, and no logician anywhere will make it a historical fact or a contingent fact.

Which means as you said "undeniable fact".

Again, however, the fact also remains that regardless who would ever do the "analyzing" (ever!) the same fact would present itself. It is, again, there, objectively awaiting an observer. Would you be willing to make the claim that, just because an observer doesn't exist, that the relationship between these figures and measurements also doesn't exist? My point being that "philosohpy" (proper), requires an observer. It is in the definition: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. But this fact I have raised does not require an observer to remain fact.

If it did, let's please think on, it would mean that, if all capable species went extinct, that the relationship would no longer be what it is now, until such time as another capable species arose to make the measurements and do the analyzing. That is simply untrue, and is, quite frankly, preposterous.

It is there, awaiting discovery, at all times... and always has been, and will be there, waiting still when all of us are gone, and it awaits another capable mind. It is still there. It is a fact that simply doesn't "care" if an observer is present or not.

If a tree falls in the forest when no one is present does it make a sound? No. But does it still make vibration? Yes.

 

[firedragon]

An analysis requires a brain.

Very good. Analysis requires a brain.

But even if you dont have a brain, objective truths will remain objective truths. Its not subjective just because you dont have a brain.

A triangle being not a square will always remain an analytical fact even if all creatures with brains are killed.

 

[firedragon]

Again, however, the fact also remains that regardless who would ever do the "analyzing" (ever!) the same fact would present itself. It is, again, there, objectively awaiting an observer. Would you be willing to make the claim that, just because an observer doesn't exist, that the relationship between these figures and measurements also doesn't exist?

Before trying to refute someone, try to understand what they say.

I agreed with you. Read that post again.

Cheers.

 

[viole]

God allowed a lot that he didn't want. And scripture makes that clear. You want a God who controls everyone's actions?

Nope, but He looks to favour some of the things we do, and I do not understand why, since you would agree they are all evil.

Let's test it: is He OK with abortion today in the same way He was with slavery back then?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, however, the fact also remains that regardless who would ever do the "analyzing" (ever!) the same fact would present itself. Iit is, again, there, objectively awaiting an observer. Would you be willing to make the claim that, just because an observer doesn't exist, that the relationship between these figures and measurements also doesn't exist?

Which, let's please think on, would mean that, if all capable species went extinct, that the relationship would no longer be what it is now, until such time as another capable species arose to make the measurements and do the analyzing. That is simply untrue, and is, quite frankly, preposterous.

It is there, awaiting discovery, at all times... and always has been, and will be there, waiting still when all of us are gone, and it awaits another capable mind. It is still there.

No, there are actual humans who can't do it. Thus it is dependent on brains. Learn some science about cognition.

Let us compare a cat and a fact. You can with your external sensory and body parts interact with the cat. Now do that with a fact as a fact. You can't, because it is cognitive as a process in your brain.
Here are the following relevant definitions of objective:
Definition of OBJECTIVE
Read them all and notice something. They all involve brains as relevant to this debate. You are doing the philosophy one: having reality independent of the mind.
But nothing can be known without a mind.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Before trying to refute someone, try to understand what they say.

I agreed with you. Read that post again.

Cheers.

I edited it, because one key piece was missing:

My point being that "philosohpy" (proper), requires an observer. It is in the definition: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. But this fact I have raised does not require an observer to remain fact.

You claimed it was "philosophy". I don't believe it is. The fact itself is not "philosophy" and is objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Very good. Analysis requires a brain.

But even if you dont have a brain, objective truths will remain objective truths. Its not subjective just because you dont have a brain.

A triangle being not a square will always remain an analytical fact even if all creatures with brains are killed.

Would you please hold a truth like say a stone. You are doing ontological idealism.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, look at you quoting the Bible, and here I thought you don't like it whenever Bible verses are used in other people's posts. Either you've had a sudden change of heart about citing the Bible as a reference, or else you're being hypocritical for quoting the Bible after mocking me for quoting the Bible in my post earlier in this thread. If you quote the Bible as a reference, then why would you mock me for doing the exact same thing? If you can quote the Bible, then it should be alright with you when someone else quotes it too.

I was not mocking you or anything you said, it was just how 'I was feeling' at the time, and it was probably inappropriate since you could not have known that.

To be clearer, there are a lot of Bible verses I like and I do quote them at times, even though I have 'issues' with the Bible, more so the Old Testament than the New Testament.

 

[Bathos Logos]

No, there are actual humans who can't do it. Thus it is dependent on brains. Learn some science about cognition.

This doesn't matter in the slightest. A stone can't "do it" either. So what? The fact still remains. It is, again, there, and cannot be denied or infringed upon - even by inanimate objects given an array of all time and space to produce infinite combinations of shape and form. This fact simply still remains.

Let us compare a cat and a fact. You can with your external sensory and body parts interact with the cat. Now do that with a fact as a fact. You can't, because it is cognitive as a process in your brain.

But again, the sanctity of the relationships exists, regardless if any brain exists. And I can prove this with a simple thought exercise and question:

• All creatures capable of processing thoughts about this triangle/angle/circle relationship are gone.
• Does the relationship between inner angles of a triangle and full compliment of "angle" of a circle change? Is it no longer true until the next species capable of observing it comes along?
• No. if you are at all rational, or care anything for logic, you must answer "no". It is still as true with no one around as it was when minds were actively using the concept.

Here are the following relevant definitions of objective:
Definition of OBJECTIVE
Read them all and notice something. They all involve brains as relevant to this debate. You are doing the philosophy one: having reality independent of the mind.
But nothing can be known without a mind.

You're proving yourself borderline delusional here, or at the very least completely in conflict with yourself. One of the definitions clearly states explicitly:

having reality independent of the mind

See that word "independently"? That single-handedly negates your claim that a mind must be involved.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

having reality independent of the mind

See that word "independently"? That single-handedly negates your claim that a mind must be involved.

Negates requires a mind as it is a process in a brain. So your claim is dependent on a mind.
See all the bold words. They require a mind. You have made a thought in your mind that minds are not need to say that mind are not needed. Can you see the self-referring contradiction in that?

 

[firedragon]

I edited it, because one key piece was missing:

My point being that "philosohpy" (proper), requires an observer. It is in the definition: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. But this fact I have raised does not require an observer to remain fact.

You claimed it was "philosophy". I don't believe it is. The fact itself, is not "philosophy" and is objective.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think human life has extreme value because we are spiritual beings with eternal souls. If we were just beasts, it would have little value.

IOW, "I think we are worthless, but I place great value on the invisible, magical creatures I think inhabit our bodies."

Again: tell me you think human life has no inherent value without telling me you think human life has no inherent value.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Negates requires a mind as it is a process in a brain. So your claim is dependent on a mind.
See all the bold words. They require a mind. You have made a thought in your mind that minds are not need to say that mind are not needed. Can you see the self-referring contradiction in that?

When did I ever even hint that "minds are not needed to say that minds are not needed"??

Those straws you're grasping for... did you actually get ahold of any?

 

[Bathos Logos]

...

Did you mean to post nothing as a reply?