Fundamental laws of logic have no rule over faith-based cognitions, the prime example being transferring the being of some supernatural necessity from phenomenal to ideal.
— Mww

Yeah, you could've stopped at, "Fundamental laws of logic have no rule over faith-based cognitions". No example necessary. I completely get it. Faith has no restrictions and can permit absurdity. It's the worst possible way to approach the stuff of philosophy. It is anathema to it. — S

I agree almost completely with this. Faith based beliefs are not philosophy and I have never, or at least never intentionally portrayed them as such.

I like Bertrand Russell's quote:


All definite knowledge - so I should contend - belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology. But between theology and science there is a No Man's Land, exposed to attack by both sides; this No Man's Land is philosophy.

Whether A is different from B is a logical judgement. — Metaphysician Undercover

No it's not. You don't know what logic is. Learn 101 level stuff like that first.

The ones doing true science, the ones who are actually constantly in search of real answers are the ones never happy with the answers they get, but also, they do not take things with questionable logic as answers to anything. Just because scientists don't know something, doesn't mean they accept wild fantasies before finding the true answers. — Christoffer

Agree - I am not asking for any scientific acceptance of God at all if that is what the last sentence is saying.

It's also wrong to say that science is wrong all the time and build on correction. Answers in science that are proven theories are proven theories and they build new theories on top of them. This is why the unification theory is so hard since you can't erase the proven theories of either side, you need to find a theory that combines them all. — Christoffer

Granted, and maybe I liked the metaphor too much, but be careful what you accept as proven theories. As an example nothing can move faster than the speed of light, well maybe there is ?

This requires there to be proof in the first place. Questionable logic that is based on assumptions and fallacies does not count and all arguments so far, for any supernatural beings, have failed to reach that level of deduction. — Christoffer

The rock thing was pure metaphor.

but be careful what you accept as proven theories. — Rank Amateur

Also, be careful using this as a counter-argument to arguments that use science as a basis for its conclusion. I've seen lots of counter-arguments from people that use this to counter anything science-based, however solid its foundation is, in order to put the argument into the notion that its a fallacy and by that create the notion that their own counter-argument is more or equally valid.

The rock thing was pure metaphor. — Rank Amateur

For proof?

for the noseeum argument against the existence of God.

You don't know what logic is. Learn 101 level stuff like that first. — Terrapin Station

I'm not interested in your unrealistic definition "logic". Any instance of reasoning is using logic. So answer the question, if it's not a logical judgement then what is it?

for the noseeum argument against the existence of God. — Rank Amateur

I'm more for keeping burden of proof towards any argument for God.
Otherwise there be teapots in space

The point is that "different" has a definite meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover

I’m not sure it has a meaning. Or at least a cogent one. Different is a relational condition. We never describe “different”; we describe a relational discrepancy and label it a difference. The logical inference is the purview of judgement, true, an act of reason, but all that does is quantify the discrepancy by deducing that the properties for A are not the same as the properties for B. And THAT is all we can say about “difference”.

Maybe we think words need definitions or meanings just because we use them to communicate consistently.

I’m not sure it has a meaning. Or at least a cogent one. Different is a relational condition. We never describe “different”; we describe a relational discrepancy and label it a difference. The logical inference is the preview of judgement, true, an act of reason, but all that does is quantify the discrepancy by deducing that the properties for A are not the same as the properties for B. And THAT is all we can say about “difference”. — Mww

You don't think "different" has a cogent meaning? How would you judge that A is different from B if "different" did not have a cogent meaning? That the meaning of "different" is relational is irrelevant. Isn't all meaning relational? Let's say it means "not the same". The judgement that A and B are not the same is a logical judgement. Even if "that is all we can say about 'difference'", I think that this is saying something logical.

I, as a matter of faith, believe God is. — Rank Amateur

And I believe this expression of faith as faith, though it leaves unexplained/undefined the word "is," is unassailable. Of course those who hold unassailable faith pay a price, that they not mix or conflate their unassailable with things assailable, the penalty being confronted with the assailability of their faith. Pig in the parlor, pastor in the pigpen. Neither works, though both fine in themselves, for themselves, as themselves, by themselves.

don’t think I make such an error. I understand the basis of my beliefs. And no issue with those with the courage to believe otherwise. Just pity the bystanders standing on the outside throwing rocks at those who actually roll up their sleeves, pick a side and enter the fray.

I’m saying I don’t even need the word “different” to understand relational dissimilarities; it’s just an instance where language mitigates confusion. When I’m working stuff out in my head “difference” is never brought to my attention, even while I’m busy cognizing relative judgements. Still, in a dialogue, the word “different” and it’s variations is used in order to show the participants understand there is in fact some relational disparity between them.

I made a mistake by insinuating properties into the A and B duality in this conversation, when A and B are really logical syllogisms whose premises are grounded in A by self-imposed definitions, and in B by existential circumstance, neither of which have actual properties. My bad, and all that.

AJJ constructed his syllogism based on the definitions intrinsic to a favored discipline, and even if the form of the logical argument is valid in the holding to its definitions, the premises are not known to be true, which makes the conclusion unsound (the Universe exists necessarily because a timeless eternal thing created it).

TS, on the other hand, has constructed a logically valid syllogism where the major premise is indeed true, and from which the conclusion is sound (the Universe exists necessarily because we’re in it).

You say (pg15) logic is what makes this timeless eternal thing necessary and if one skips the logic, the principle of necessity is negated in both A and B. I disagree, insofar as it is merely the definitions grounding the logical argument A, re: “posited to exist timelessly and eternally”, which make the thing ipso facto necessary, and that is henceforth incorporated into the argument, and in B it is the absolute impossibility otherwise which grounds the principle of necessity.

On the other hand, because the human cognitive system is predicated on a priori rules from which the principles of logical thinking follow, deleting logical thought does negate the principle of necessity. But only in thought, which immediately falsifies all our judgements about the world, but says nothing about the facts of the world.

See the.......er.....difference?

I’m saying I don’t even need the word “different” to understand relational dissimilarities; it’s just an instance where language mitigates confusion. When I’m working stuff out in my head “difference” is never brought to my attention, even while I’m busy cognizing relative judgements. Still, in a dialogue, the word “different” and it’s variations is used in order to show the participants understand there is in fact some relational disparity between them. — Mww

Yes, but the point is that if you were seeing in your head, some relational dissimilarities between A and B, and you were not seeing A and B as different, then you would not say that A and B are different. You would only say that they are different if you were seeing them as different (unless you're lying).

AJJ constructed his syllogism based on the definitions intrinsic to a favored discipline, and even if the form of the logical argument is valid in the holding to its definitions, the premises are not known to be true, which makes the conclusion unsound (the Universe exists necessarily because a timeless eternal thing created it).

TS, on the other hand, has constructed a logically valid syllogism where the major premise is indeed true, and from which the conclusion is sound (the Universe exists necessarily because we’re in it). — Mww

TS proceeded from the premise "there are human experiences" to the conclusion that "there is a universe". Another premise is required to necessitate the conclusion. That "other" premise is not sound, as Descartes demonstrated. And now we have multiverse speculations, which if true would indicate that there is not "a universe". TS's conclusion is not sound.

You say (pg15) logic is what makes this timeless eternal thing necessary and if one skips the logic, the principle of necessity is negated in both A and B. I disagree, insofar as it is merely the definitions grounding the logical argument A, re: “posited to exist timelessly and eternally”, which make the thing ipso facto necessary, and that is henceforth incorporated into the argument, and in B it is the absolute impossibility otherwise which grounds the principle of necessity. — Mww

No, that's not the case, deficiencies in human capacities deny the possibility of such absolute certainty (principle from Descartes).

See the.......er.....difference? — Mww

No, I don't see the difference. The claimed difference is based in an untrue principle, that the human being has absolute certainty about one's experience. I will however admit, that since AJJ's premise is TS's conclusion, there is a higher degree of certainty in TS's premise than AJJ's.

You would only say that they are different if you were seeing them as different. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. I would only say they are different if I cognize them as different. We do not think simultaneous thoughts. Instantaneous in succession, yes, simultaneous, no. Then, it is correct to say I judge each object presented to understanding as each representation appears to it. There is no method to compare sequential objects to each other until they are cognized, and then only when reason calls for a determination. Only then will I say whether the cognitions are similar or not. Of course, the system works so fast, it seems like it is perception doing all the work, when in actuality, it isn’t doing much of anything except deliver the goods. And, in the empirical world we live in, this is why philosophy is so ill-received. Philosopbabble, doncha know.

I’ve gone as far as I care to go in speaking for others. People weren’t talking to me directly on this so I wasn’t paying that much attention, and I’ve already got myself in deeper than I have the right to be. Still, I’m interested in what you think TS’s argument actually is, and why you think it is unsound.

So in the interest of this discussion, what is the missing premise, and what does ol’ René have to do with it? You must be aware that he proved conclusively that absolute certainty is possible, right? And if a thing is possible, and the principles grounding it are followed, other certainty is also given. To wit: the reality of external experience is every bit as undeniable as our internal experience and is necessary for it.

“....Problematical idealism which makes no such assertion, but only alleges our incapacity to prove the existence of anything besides ourselves by means of immediate experience, is a theory rational and evidencing a thorough and philosophical mode of thinking, for it observes the rule not to form a decisive judgement before sufficient proof be shown. The desired proof must therefore demonstrate that we have experience of external things, and not mere fancies. For this purpose, we must prove, that our internal and, to Descartes, indubitable experience is itself possible only under the previous assumption of external experience....”

As a 36 year veteran of a subjective existence the only thing, at this precise and exact moment in time, that i know for a fact is conciousness (my conciousness) is everything!
So to the question (which is a hypothetical one) "if there was an objective meaning of/to life, what is it" ...... probably everything ever done, said, created, destroyed etc etc....
For me it is quite simply gaining a higher conciousness. If we are in fact gods then i will do everything my conciousness allows to be a better god than the ones we all have been taught about.

By definition, yes; what I believe is irrelevant. — Mww

But the universe wasn't defined that way in the argument. Do you think that it's implied somewhere that the universe is natural? What definition are you going by?

B.) And that if it doesn't exist in the universe, then it must not exist at all?
.......No. B does not follow from A necessarily. Complete knowledge of the Universe as effect does not give any conception of its cause. — Mww

If the universe is natural, and God is supernatural, and what exists can only exist in the universe, then God can't exist. That's a valid argument.

C.) And if it's not a fact, then we can't rightly say that anything conflicts with it as a fact?
.........That which is not a fact can be conflicted, but only by another fact. That which is not a fact cannot be conflicted by a faith-based proposition. To whit: that I am having breakfast tomorrow is not a fact, and you cannot conflict with that by supposing I am going to when tomorrow gets here. But you sure can after tomorrow gets here and I do or do not get my breakfast. — Mww

We disagree on the semantics here. I think that it's understandable to call that a conflict of a sort. That faith would conflict with what's reasonable to believe. There's a conflict - a confrontation - when the two proposals "meet" (and they can "meet" through a simple comparison) because they're found to be incompatible, i.e. lead to a contradiction.

Absolfreakin’lutely. You’d make a fine Kantian, I must say.

“......I cannot even make the assumption (...) of God (...) if I do not deprive speculative reason of its pretensions to transcendent insight. For to arrive at these, it must make use of principles which, in fact, extend only to the objects of possible experience, and which cannot be applied to objects beyond this sphere without converting them into phenomena, and thus rendering the practical extension of pure reason impossible. I must, therefore, abolish knowledge, to make room for belief....” — Mww

Hmm. Kant is perhaps the biggest philosophical challenge I've encountered. :chin:

scientific fact says no such thing. Scientific fact says they do not know. What is the consensus scientific view, is the universe is finite and had a beginning. — Rank Amateur

Do you even know what claim you're disputing? Apparently not. What I said was that scientific fact says there's no basis, per the science, for belief, and the belief that I was referring to was obviously not that the universe is finite and had a beginning, but rather the belief of theists, as per your argument, namely that there is some form of supernatural being or entity. Even if the former is true, it is certainly not a sufficient basis (which is what I meant) for the latter by any reasonable standard.

The A, B, and C, in the comment were in response to your request for what I thought, in general. I took that to mean over and above whatever is included in the conversations on these pages. Nevertheless, with respect to B, yes, it may very well be a logical argument, but it is not one for which I would volunteer; I do not acknowledge the necessity of the supernatural, therefore arguments with respect to it are superfluous.

faith would conflict with what's reasonable to believe — S

What’s reasonable to believe is at the sole discetion of the subject. I don’t think I’d consider a mere difference in understanding to be a confrontation, the word carrying the implication of alternative value it doesn’t deserve. It’s no different than this logical argument snafu: you can’t blame a guy for coming to a conclusion from his premises any more than you can blame a guy for coming to a faith from his understandings. Now, if you and a faith kinda guy were in a house fire and you had a water hose and he had faith in a thunderstorm.....well, that might be a confrontation.

You mention Nietzsche the other day. You didn’t find him all that difficult?

And jerks like me keep offering up "rocks" with God written on it, and you pick it up, look at it, turn it around and then throw it away... — Rank Amateur

No, I throw rocks at you because I'm a bigger jerk then you'll ever be. :razz:

(And I take everything literally because I'm King of the Aspies).

ha

...the noseeum argument against the existence of God. — Rank Amateur

I'm more on your side, at least in a sense, than the strong atheist on that one, provided the existence of God is at least a possibility. But the "noseeum" argument factors into an argument about what's reasonable to believe about the existence of God, and it works against the belief that God exists.

agree - that was the intent. As far as I know there are really only 2 good arguments against the existence of God. The argument from Evil, and a host of noseeum arguments - basically we have looked around and we don't see any evidence of God, so no God. most things are just a variation of those - and there are the all the God paradox ones that really don't merit an elevation to argument.

Objectivism by Ayn Rand provides an objective meaning to life.

Objectivism by Ayn Rand provides an objective meaning to life. — AppLeo

:lol:

.

Explain.

Is it important that there be an objective meaning to life? — emancipate

The metaphysics, in itself, is insignificant. It's our knowledge that matters. Or at least matters more.

.

What would the implications be if life did have objective meaning? — emancipate

There wouldn't be any of significance, as I've just suggested. I made a distinction between what is or isn't the case, and what we know. A big discovery like that would change the way that some people think, feel, and behave. It simply being the case does nothing whatsoever without there being a connection to anyone.

Yeah.. let's laugh instead of providing arguments. Laughing at positions we disagree with is for the most philosophically and intellecutally inclined. We appear smart without making any effort.

Explain — Mww

Well Objectivism is called Objectivism because it's supposed to be objective.

The metaphysics of Objectivism is that reality is what it is. The world exists independently of man's consciousness. A = A. Fact are facts. Wishing for reality to be different won't make it different.

Epistemologically, Objectivism holds that the only way for a consciousness to know reality or a truth is with reason in accordance with logic. You cannot know something based on how you feel. You cannot magically know the right answer because God told you. There must be evidence and reasoning for you to actually know something.

Ethically (and this is where it answers this threads questions: the objective meaning to life). Life's purpose is to live, to flourish, and to be happy. Everything has its own nature and it must do what is good for its nature. Plants need sunlight to eat. Animals need to hunt and gather to eat.

In order for man to live he must first choose life. Do you want to live or not? Most people say yes. And then of course he must hold reason as his absolute so he can deal with reality properly. If you go about life without seeing reality for what is it, you're basically committing suicide. How do you find the food you need without reason? You can't magically know where food is. You can't magically wish for food to appear in front of you. But the mystics and faith believers will tell you otherwise because reality is subjective. And interpreting reality is subjective. Life doesn't have to be life. Life doesn't need food to live. You don't need to know how to find food. Food can appear in front of you if you wish it. If you die from starvation, it won't matter because there's an afterlife anyway. If you resist death, you may fail God's test of having faith. And a bunch of other nonsense. This doesn't have to be with finding food, it could be any problem you have with your life. The question is, will you deal with it realistically, orr will you make something up?

I need to learn more about philosophy and read about other philosophers in depth, but what I know so far, every other philosopher denies that there is an objective reality. Except maybe Aristotle and maybe Aquinas to some degree. Especially ever since Immanuel Kant came about – he said that we cannot actually perceive reality. That reason and logic fail because our senses distort reality. So basically we're subjective. Any conclusion of reality cannot be of actual reality. So there is no objectivity. Obviously Ayn Rand disagrees.

Every other philosopher after Kant – Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidaggar is all similar in the sense that reason is faulty. They build off Kant in their own subjective way. Hegel says that Aristotelian logic and the individual is not good. It's okay to have contradictions in your thinking. The collective is more important than the individual. Marx just says the same thing. Kierkegaard says that you need a non-rational way to know the truth. Nietzsche just says this thing about the will to power. You just feel what is right with the use of instinct. And that using your mind and logic is for people who are afraid of an irrational reality.

Obviously people can decide for themselves about what is objective because I guess there is no objective, but it seems clear to me that there's an objective purpose to life if you care about life and happiness.