151. Comment #87164 by epeeist on November 11, 2007 at 11:21 am

Comment #87158 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Let me think a little how to put in writing what I think about this important issue. Meanwhile, if you wish, it would be interesting if you explained what you mean by "truth".

Oh, I think to say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true just about covers it.

Alternatively one could say:

S is true iff p

where p can be replaced by any sentence for which truth is being defined and 'S' is to be replaced by the name of the sentence which replaces p

For example 'Rabbits eat grass' is true iff rabbits eat grass.

Other Comments by epeeist

152. Comment #87165 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 11:21 am

Well, the fact that scientific research today has become much more complex than it was even in the recent past, and that (on average) in order to excel today scientists must single-mindedly work their craft is I think common knowledge.

All that means is that they have to specialise in terms of science. It gives no indication of their knowledge of other areas, be it art, philosophy, cricket...

Scientists' general disdain for philosophy is also well-known I think.

Is it? I just don't know.

Now my claim is that the existence of God is the better explanation for the whole of our experience of life, and therefore I predict that humanity as a whole will move towards that realization in the future.

But that is the problem, isn't it? You can claim all you like, but we really do need evidence for claims. Simply stating the same thing again and again, no matter how sincerely you believe it achieves nothing.

I am afraid you have not done well in trying to convince us of this. All the claims you have made in attempting to show that the existence of God is a better explanation have been refuted - if not to your satisfaction, then at least to the satisfaction of most people here. You have made claims about complexity that have been refuted. You have tried to use personal opinions about absurdity and obviousness as justifications for truth. You have tried to use the existence of consciousness as evidence for theism, even though it has been shown that even some of the most prominent dualists don't accept that view.... I could go on and on.

I understand that a belief in the existence of God may supply a huge emotional support for someone, but that is no indication of it being true. And I think humanity, if it is to mature and survive, needs to face truth. Part of facing truth is realising than one can be deluded, and one has to discuss and 'compare notes' with others to find out what is really going on. I think this is where you approach fails worst. What Dianelos believes is absurd or obvious is no better guide to reality than what Steve believes is absurd or obvious. I have the honesty to realise that. Do you?

Indeed I find it probable that modern atheism will play a positive role by helping bring religion's many flaws to the surface which will force religious people to deal with them and clean up their house as it were.

I honestly hope so.

And new atheism's visibility will motivate scientific research about and I think falsification of some of its principal claims, namely that religious belief is conducive to immoral behavior and/or that atheism is conducive to moral behavior. We shall to wait and see.

I think we have an urgent problem, which means we can't wait. This is religious people actually undertaking immoral behaviour right now, and threatening worse. We have riots and assaults because of cartoons. We have support for mutilation of young girls because of religious belief. We have people dying of AIDS because a major world religion proclaims condoms immoral.

This is why we simply can't allow personal religious beliefs to be the basis of any public policies - it is too dangerous. We have to base our societies on rationality based on discussion and evidence. For example, your 'objective good' differs from many others 'objective good', so the only way to progress is to negotate what 'good' should mean.

Other Comments by steve99

153. Comment #87167 by phasmagigas on November 11, 2007 at 11:24 am

Indeed I find it probable that modern atheism will play a positive role by helping bring religion's many flaws to the surface which will force religious people to deal with them and clean up their house as it were

im not sure that would happen

imagine a deist god unambiguously made its prescence known to the whole planet (sky turned green, amputees all healed simultaneosly and all your old battered toys in the closet were suddenly brand spanking new, better than anything on ebay) , it says 'the atheists are wrong, i am here and set the universe in motion, however the creationists are wrong too, I didnt even know if life would start i just set the constants and sat back for 15 billion of your years and watched things unfurl, im very happy with my experiment and I made some wonderful creatures but alas humans are not special, they do think more than most other creatures so i felt it was time to reveal all as arguments over me cause much misery'

anyway you get the idea. the atheists would most likey say 'incredible, tell us what we dont know' (thats what i'd say), the creationists would say 'nonsense, you are not our god, or this is a trick, we did not come from monkeys.......wheres our bibles'.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

154. Comment #87170 by epeeist on November 11, 2007 at 11:30 am

Comment #87165 by steve99

All that means is that they have to specialise in terms of science. It gives no indication of their knowledge of other areas, be it art, philosophy, cricket...

No, please no - don't let DG loose on cricket

Other Comments by epeeist

155. Comment #87173 by phasmagigas on November 11, 2007 at 11:33 am

No, please no - don't let DG loose on cricket

eepeist, what do you care, looks to me you are a golfer :)

Other Comments by phasmagigas

156. Comment #87174 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 11:37 am

No, please no - don't let DG loose on cricket

I guess it should have been football. Perhaps he could come up with an idealist theistic explanation for the offside rule.

eepeist, what do you care, looks to me you are a golfer :)

He is FAR more dangerous than that...

Wikipedia:

"The épée ('ep.eɪ) is the modern derivative of the original duelling sword, the rapier, used in sport fencing. Épée is French for "sword"."

Other Comments by steve99

157. Comment #87179 by phasmagigas on November 11, 2007 at 11:48 am

ah, thats what they are , i thought they were golfing clubs....must be my ontological reality thing going on :) i think the jumper made me think golf for some reason...sorry, haha.



Other Comments by phasmagigas

158. Comment #87181 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 11:51 am

Benway: Try this: pretend that we're all talking about the phenomenal world.

Dianelos: :-) It's kind of difficult to pretend that. After all when Dawkins in TGD claims that there is no God he is not making a claim about phenomenal reality, but about reality...

It's as easy as falling off an idealistic horse, which, strangely, is just as easy as falling off a materialistic horse. Go on, give it a go for one week. A little experiment in mental flexibility won't kill ya.

Think this thought: Dawkins claims there almost certainly is no God. No phenomenal God.

You might be tempted to ask, "Is Dawkins claiming there is no God in the deeper reality that creates our phenomenal world?" But you must stop yourself from venturing into such speculations. Imagine Dawkins is entirely agnostic about the machinery of deeper reality. Dawkins is talking specifically and exclusively about the phenomenal world.

As you read this board over the next week, remember that steve99, epeeist, myself, and others, are all talking only about the phenomenal world.

Now, go have a phenomenal cuppa and enjoy the phenomenal sunshine before it's phenomenally gone.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

159. Comment #87196 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 11, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Steve99 (post 129 or #87016):

If one accepts that objective reality is intrinsically ethical

I might, if you provided evidence. Please do so.

We have already discussed this issue to death, see this post about this. Incidentally, I think you are under the mistaken impression that my goal here is to convince you of my position.

Let's see: I have previously mentioned the ethical precept P="To help somebody in need is better than to instead torture them". Now we both agree that P is true. Our difference is that I believe that P is objectively true, in other words that it is not true just because of my personal opinion or because I was taught this or because of social convention or because the laws of the country so proclaim it. So I believe that P is objectively true. You, on the contrary, believe that it's only a matter of subjective opinion to believe that it's better to help somebody in need instead of torturing them. That there is nothing intrinsically wrong, wrong in itself, in torturing instead of helping a person in need. Dr Benway in another post put it concisely: Ethical precepts only refer to facts about how people think and nothing more. Fine. I can hardly imagine how one can really think this way, but then again everybody is free to believe what they like.

Even more I think one adopts a theistic worldview, because the concept of ethics makes no sense at the absence of conscious subject

You see, this is an argument for ethics not being objective. They can't be if they require a conscious subject - by definition, that means they are subjective.

Yes, but God is not just any conscious person that is part of reality; God is the whole of reality, and reality is what represents what is objective independently from your or mine opinion. But it's interesting you brought this up. God is both a person and the whole of reality. It sometimes seems to me that the Western monotheistic religions put more emphasis on the former, and the Eastern non-theistic religions more emphasis on the latter.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

160. Comment #87197 by Goldy on November 11, 2007 at 12:47 pm

That the moral Zeitgeist is improving is not specifically my claim; it is one of the basic claims of New Atheism with which I happen to agree.

DG, this is just the Western one, I take it. I did say before thare doesn't seem to be an overall improvemnt - indeed, the growth of piety appears to be pushing morality back into the box. Saying athiests said it doesn't make it any more correct - even if it was new athiests (who are all older than me and I don't think I'm a new one!).
Why do you agree with this statement?

Other Comments by Goldy

161. Comment #87201 by Goldy on November 11, 2007 at 12:54 pm

God is the whole of reality, and reality is what represents what is objective independently from your or mine opinion. But it's interesting you brought this up. God is both a person and the whole of reality. It sometimes seems to me that the Western monotheistic religions put more emphasis on the former, and the Eastern non-theistic religions more emphasis on the latter.

If God is the whole of reality, then why the differences? Why does God want discord and war? Fighting, death, maiming, etc? At least life without doesn't make claims of love. All these things happen for rathional/irrational reasons.

Other Comments by Goldy

162. Comment #87202 by epeeist on November 11, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Comment #87196 by Dianelos Georgoudis

So I believe that P is objectively true.

Peter Pan: There oughta be a fairy for every girl and boy.
Wendy: Oughta be? Isn't there?
Peter Pan: Oh, no. Children know such a lot now. Soon they don't believe. And every time a child says "I don't believe in fairies", there's a fairy someplace that falls down dead.

Other Comments by epeeist

163. Comment #87203 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 1:06 pm

I think you are under the mistaken impression that my goal here is to convince you of my position.

After having debated with you for months, I am now convinced that this is precisely your goal. I believe you feel your position is fragile (and I am not surprised). Unless you can convince your most active critic that your opinion has validity, or at least can somehow evade criticism, this threatens your worldview, to which you have a huge emotional investment.

You, on the contrary, believe that it's only a matter of subjective opinion to believe that it's better to help somebody in need instead of torturing them.

No, I don't believe that. I believe that there is something intermediate between subjective and absolutely objective. It is called honesty. It means we just don't know, and we have to work together to find out what is the best way forward. You need more honesty.

Yes, but God is not just any conscious person that is part of reality; God is the whole of reality, and reality is what represents what is objective independently from your or mine opinion.

That doesn't work. A person is subjective, and has subjective opinions. You can either choose a Personal God, or you can choose a Spinozan God, who is nothing more than the instantiation of the laws of the universe.

If you choose the former, then God's opinions are subjective, and subject to debate. If you choose the latter, then God has no opinion, and you have to find some other justification for 'objective ethics'. Which do you choose?

Other Comments by steve99

164. Comment #87205 by Diacanu on November 11, 2007 at 1:08 pm

DG-

My understanding of truth is completely pragmatical.

Yes, I know, I've refuted the insanity of this position before.

Basicly, there's nothing stopping a beneficial lie from being viewed as the truth.

And there's nothing really stopping "beneficial", from being "I ended up with granny's purse, and got away with it, yay!".

Which oddly enough, is the morality theists accuse us atheists of having.

No wonder you theists are so suspicious; if you embrace this "pragmatic truth", then you really do need the invisible man in the sky to keep you in check.

Other Comments by Diacanu

165. Comment #87207 by Diacanu on November 11, 2007 at 1:30 pm

Hey, I think I just found the paradox to the whole thing!

Adherents to a "pragmatic", outlook on "truth", need an invisible man to keep them from seeing as "beneficial", being well, a sociopath.

But they need to be kept in check by the invisible man, because they embraced "pragmatic truth", to justify belief in the invisible man in the first place.

If they would just have respect for themselves, and their own moral compass, and human solidarity, there'd be no need for these tortured self-deceptions.

But, they won't do it.
The self punishment must continue.
They just can't bear the responsibility of being the authors of themselves.
Sad.

Other Comments by Diacanu

166. Comment #87211 by Bonzai on November 11, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Basically DG is just playing word game. What the hell does it mean by "God is the whole of reality"? If that is the case why don't we just talk about "the whole of reality" instead and how does it follow that "the whole of reality" has a personal interest in us?

The "whole of reality" is trivially conscious and have intention because we have, and we are a part of reality. But I don't see how that realization resolves any deep question about how reality works and what "non naturalistic" alternative it offers to knowing.

Other Comments by Bonzai

167. Comment #87242 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Dianelos: That there is nothing intrinsically wrong, wrong in itself, in torturing instead of helping a person in need. Dr Benway in another post put it concisely: Ethical precepts only refer to facts about how people think and nothing more. Fine. I can hardly imagine how one can really think this way, but then again everybody is free to believe what they like.

Did you ask the person being tortured for his opinion? Did you ask the torturer? Did you ask me? Was agreement upon the rules established anywhere?

Dianelos might think that he discovers right and wrong by going into his bedroom and pondering deep questions. But in fact, ethical rules are established by agreement. Somebody other than Dianelos needs to be involved in the process.

Bit like sex: takes at least two. If there's only one, it's not sex.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

168. Comment #87247 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Dianelos might think that he discovers right and wrong by going into his bedroom and pondering deep questions. But in fact, ethical rules are established by agreement. Somebody other than Dianelos needs to be involved in the process.

I think you need to extend things further than that.

One person pondering deep questions can lead to a single fanatic. Several people pondering deep questions and coming to the same conclusion can lead to 9/11.

It think sanity requires more than just 'somebody other'.

Other Comments by steve99

169. Comment #87258 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 3:27 pm

Several people pondering deep questions and coming to the same conclusion can lead to 9/11.

All parties involved would include the 19 martyrs plus 3000 New Yorkers, passengers on 3 planes, all the Pentagon employees, me, Afghanistan, etc.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

170. Comment #87260 by steve99 on November 11, 2007 at 3:33 pm

All parties involved would include the 19 martyrs plus 3000 New Yorkers, passengers on 3 planes, all the Pentagon employees, me, Afghanistan, etc.

Indeed, which is why 'somebody other' needs to be qualified.

Other Comments by steve99

171. Comment #87266 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 3:47 pm

steve99: Indeed, which is why 'somebody other' needs to be qualified.

Extra credit for you for reading a chapter ahead.

But let us take a moment to savor my earlier point: Dianelos alone cannot determine what is right and what is wrong. No matter how it feels like when Dianelos thinks about it, he cannot establish behavioral rules for the human beings all by himself.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

172. Comment #87270 by tommcc on November 11, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Atheism is self-refuting because it asserts that everything in the universe, including the atheist's own reasoning, came about as a result of non-rational forces. If that is indeed the case....

But this isn't the case. " Non-rational forces " is a red herring. Isn't atheism simply a rejection of theism and supernatural forces, as an explaination of the existance of the universe?
This being the case, we can proceed to explain the power of reason in evolutionary terms ( i will leave that to mr RD).

Other Comments by tommcc

173. Comment #87271 by Goldy on November 11, 2007 at 3:53 pm

Isn't atheism simply a rejection of theism and supernatural forces, as an explaination of the existance of the universe?

No, it's just not believing in gods. I believe physics is used in the universal explanation - that's a subject in a family of subjects called science (from Latin scio - to know).

Other Comments by Goldy

174. Comment #87274 by BAEOZ on November 11, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Pedant alert:
scio = I know
scire = to know :P
scientia = knowledge/wisdom

Other Comments by BAEOZ

175. Comment #87276 by tommcc on November 11, 2007 at 4:15 pm

I am with you on that 100% goldy, I was just trying to rebutt in a concise way, as requested ( as if this were to be used in a debate).
And I didn't use 'I believe' because that gives mr theist another chance to go off on a tangent.
I used the question mark purely for this site, looking for flesh to add to the bone.

Other Comments by tommcc

176. Comment #87278 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 11, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Epeeist (post 131 or #87019):

With the advent of the three theories I named things have actually become more coherent, we can explain reality in a much more satisfying way than previously.

Feel free to continue conflating phenomenal and objective reality, but let me point out that even famous naturalist philosopher Bertrand Russell taught that it's important not to conflate them. In his "The Problems of Philosophy" (page 29 of the Oxford University Press paperback edition) he wrote: "When it is said that light is waves, what is really meant is that waves are the physical cause of our sensations of light. But light itself, the thing which seeing people experience and blind people do not, is not supposed by science to form any part of the world that is independent of us and our senses". So "light itself", which is there in the phenomenal reality we observe, must not be confused with the waves which (according to scientific naturalism) produce our sensation of light. Light itself does not form any part of the objective world which is independent of us and our sense. Russell goes on to say that colors, sounds, and in general any other elements of phenomenal reality, are also absent from the scientific world of matter (i.e. are absent from objective reality as understood by scientific naturalism).

As I have said the theories are incomplete (and as always contingent), but a theory that can predict phenomena to 1 part in 10^11 as QFT can (with 1 part in 10^14 apparently possible for GR) must be on the right track.

Sure, but these are all successes of scientific models of phenomenal reality, and both scientific naturalism and idealistic theism agree with phenomenal reality and the scientific models of it (obviously all ontological hypotheses must agree with phenomenal reality). Incidentally I thought GR is by far not validated to such precision; can you give me any sources for your 1 part in 10^14 figure?

Oh, and go to bed tonight with this thought it mind. Just because the sun rose this morning doesn't prove it will rise tomorrow. All we have is strong corroboration that it will do so.

Sure, and that's why it's so naive to ask people for "proof".

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

177. Comment #87281 by phil rimmer on November 11, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Bit like sex: takes at least two. If there's only one, it's not sex.

But you do get your own way....

Other Comments by phil rimmer

178. Comment #87282 by Diacanu on November 11, 2007 at 4:43 pm

DG-

Still trying to stuff God into the gaps eh?

Other Comments by Diacanu

179. Comment #87284 by Vinelectric on November 11, 2007 at 4:48 pm

The distinction between those two types of reality comes across as superfluous to me.

Or it could just be that the example of Light vs waves is confusing. The bottom line is that that form of energy is demonstrably real as long as one accepts that different observers will perceive it differently.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

180. Comment #87285 by Diacanu on November 11, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Here's every DG post.

God of the gaps.

Noble lie.

God of the gaps.

Noble lie.

God of the gaps.

Noble lie.

....etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,....

Wash, rinse, repeat, reboot for the next thread as if no one said anything.

Other Comments by Diacanu

181. Comment #87290 by Dr Benway on November 11, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Dianelos: Feel free to continue conflating phenomenal and objective reality...

I don't recommend conflation. Pretend we're concerned with phenomenal reality as you describe it. Pretend we're not asserting anything about a deeper reality, as you describe it.

...but let me point out that even famous naturalist philosopher Bertrand Russell taught that it's important not to conflate them. In his "The Problems of Philosophy" (page 29 of the Oxford University Press paperback edition) he wrote: "When it is said that light is waves, what is really meant is that waves are the physical cause of our sensations of light. But light itself, the thing which seeing people experience and blind people do not, is not supposed by science to form any part of the world that is independent of us and our senses".

Just to clarify: the wave property of light we observe with our instruments is, according to you, also phenomenal.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

182. Comment #87293 by BMMcArdle on November 11, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Dianelos,
Thank you for your reply. I have a some other questions, if you don't mind.
How old were you when you were baptised?
What faith were you baptised into?
Do you follow the creeds, and take part in the rituals of that faith?
Thanks, and my apologies for any unfriendly previous posts.
Brian

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

183. Comment #87294 by Goldy on November 11, 2007 at 5:16 pm

BAEOZ, scio! scio! I should have checked - the wee voice in my head (God?) was telling me to! Still, last Latin lesson was in 1985... :-)

Other Comments by Goldy

184. Comment #87357 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 1:11 am

Sure, and that's why it's so naive to ask people for "proof".

Not when religious views have consequences, such as the mutilation of women.

Other Comments by steve99

185. Comment #87367 by Goldy on November 12, 2007 at 1:43 am

Or indeed any other form of abuse, Steve. From t'other topic, here we are asked to accept these as better and truer than what we believe at the moment. We're not really being asked for proof - just acceptance...

Dr Bari believes Britain would benefit from a little more morality: "Religion has principles that can help society … Sex before marriage is unacceptable in Islam … On adultery and living together we should try to go back to the religiously informed style of life that helps society"

Abortion should also be made more difficult. "By the time a foetus is 12 weeks old our religion says that the child has got a spirit." Homosexuality is "unacceptable from the religious point of view".

Also seems to show this imroved moral zeitgeist is only an observational fact - something not observed by all, just the observer that believes it to be so...

Other Comments by Goldy

186. Comment #87378 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 2:06 am

both scientific naturalism and idealistic theism agree with phenomenal reality

Not according to you. You claim that phenomenal reality includes the resurrection of Jesus.

Other Comments by steve99

187. Comment #87379 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 12, 2007 at 2:11 am

Steve99 (post 132 or #87020):

A worldview that posits that fundamentally reality is physical has to explain how a physical system produces consciousness; but obviously a worldview that posits that fundamentally reality is conscious does not have this particular problem. I am not sure why you have trouble understanding this, and I don't know how better to explain it.

It does have a problem. I could just as easily say (as David Chalmers does) that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality in our physical universe. You therefore have no basis on which to use this as an argument for idealistic theism.

Please read again what I wrote above. I was discussing worldviews that posit that fundamental reality is physical, which is not what Chalmers is proposing. Rather he is proposing a dualistic ontology in which both physical matter and conscious experience are fundamental. So that's a different case.

Prove then the objective existence of the moon. Or of the Statue of Liberty if you prefer.

When I talk to other people, I get consistent reports of what those objects are and where they are.

And what other people say is the proof of what's objective? But what other people say is the very antithesis of objectivity: something is supposed to be objectively true independently of peoples' opinion. There was a time that everybody saw that the Earth is in the middle of the universe, and surely that was not proof for that. Also suppose you found yourself alone on an island with no possibility to speak with other people: Would that state of affairs make it impossible for you to think about objective truth? Finally what proof do you have that other people objectively exist in the first place?

You see? It's not as simple as that. If it were as simple as what you say philosophers would not be breaking their heads arguing about ontology. And indeed very very bright people from Plato to Kant to Berkeley were idealists and believed that what we see around us does not objectively exists. Some very smart modern naturalist philosophers have their doubts too. For example Oxford's Nick Bostrom (if you want to judge how smart he is have a look at his latest book about the anthropic principle) actually uses the premises of scientific naturalism to estimate with which probability we live in a computer simulation in which case, again, what we see around us does not objectively exists (see www.simulation-argument.com ). There is nothing that comes close to proving that the moon objectively exists Steve. There isn't even a good probabilistic argument that the moon objectively exists. But I can understand that people who take their philosophy from reading TGD are unaware of that.

Dr Benway is suggesting a path you might want to consider: Stop worrying about objective reality and limit your beliefs to propositions about phenomenal reality. In the context of phenomenal reality naturalism clearly makes eminent sense.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

188. Comment #87391 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 2:41 am

I was discussing worldviews that posit that fundamental reality is physical, which is not what Chalmers is proposing. Rather he is proposing a dualistic ontology in which both physical matter and conscious experience are fundamental. So that's a different case.

I know it is a different case. That is my point. You are trying to show flaws in a naturalistic viewpoint in order to justify a theistic viewpoint. As you have pointed out, there is at least one more possibility: a dualist viewpoint with no God. Therefore, claiming that consciousness is a problem for a naturalistic model of the world is clearly no justification for a God. It is not enough. You need specific evidence for the God bit.

And what other people say is the proof of what's objective?

No, it is evidence for what's objective.

But what other people say is the very antithesis of objectivity: something is supposed to be objectively true independently of peoples' opinion.

Indeed. And we get hints about what is objective by finding out what people say that is consistent, so indicating what is independent of viewpoint. It isn't proof - it is evidence.

There was a time that everybody saw that the Earth is in the middle of the universe, and surely that was not proof for that.

No proof, but lots of evidence.... all that flatness...

Also suppose you found yourself alone on an island with no possibility to speak with other people: Would that state of affairs make it impossible for you to think about objective truth?

Gosh no. One can think about anything.

Remember that one can also get to objective truth through formal logic. So one could come up with a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem in isolation. That is very much the way Andrew Wiles acheived it.

Also remember that you aren't claiming the use of any such process in your justification of objective ethics. You simply say 'it is obvious'. That is neither proof, nor evidence.

Finally what proof do you have that other people objectively exist in the first place?

All these questions! But you are the one making the claims, not me. You claim that God exists, is perfectly good and so on.

Are you SERIOUSLY saying that you should be allowed to get away with claiming that, without having to provide evidence, because 'we can't prove anything'?

This is really resorting to playground logic...

"God exists"
"Show me"
"I don't need to because you can't prove anything ... Nyahh!"

There is nothing that comes close to proving that the moon objectively exists Steve. There isn't even a good probabilistic argument that the moon objectively exists. But I can understand that people who take their philosophy from reading TGD are unaware of that.

Sorry, this doesn't work in your favour. If you claim that there is a problem with knowing what objectively exists, then you are in no position to claim that objective ethics exists.

You do keep shooting yourself in the foot with your attempts at logic.

Also, you need to stop being so bitchy about what you believe is in TGD, as you have clearly shown you have misread it. As in the examples of claiming that Dawkins is against all ideas of a Creator (only unevolved ones), and claiming that complex things can't "just be" (they can, but that is no evidence for a more complex creator).

Dr Benway is suggesting a path you might want to consider: Stop worrying about objective reality and limit your beliefs to propositions about phenomenal reality. In the context of phenomenal reality naturalism clearly makes eminent sense.

Not to you, as you claim phenomenal reality includes the resurrection of Jesus.

If you were simply an idealistic theist, I might have some slight sympathy for your views. The problem is, you have to add all that extra magic.

Other Comments by steve99

189. Comment #87392 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 12, 2007 at 2:42 am

Steve99 (post 136 or #87028):

I am not sure what your prediction actually predicts

It predicts that the orbits of planets can be calculated only using current theories of gravity, and no additional fact will need to be invoked, such as the supernatural.

Yes and, as I said already, by the same measure idealistic theism too predicts that the orbits of planets can be calculated only using current theories of gravity, and no additional fact will need to be invoked, such as the objective existence of gravity, or of the physical universe for that matter.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

190. Comment #87393 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 2:45 am

Yes and, as I said already, by the same measure idealistic theism too predicts that the orbits of planets can be calculated only using current theories of gravity, and no additional fact will need to be invoked, such as the objective existence of gravity, or of the physical universe for that matter.

Great. So this proves my point. There is no evidence that distinguishes idealistic theism from scientific naturalism. So in that case, I go for the simpler solution. The one without added 'God'.

Thank you!

Other Comments by steve99

191. Comment #87410 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 3:42 am

Extra credit for you for reading a chapter ahead.

Apologies for my pushiness.

Other Comments by steve99

192. Comment #87439 by phasmagigas on November 12, 2007 at 6:11 am

Great. So this proves my point. There is no evidence that distinguishes idealistic theism from scientific naturalism. So in that case, I go for the simpler solution. The one without added 'God'.

steve99, remember though that the theistic universe isnt the same as the naturalistic one with god just 'added', its something totally different!!! sorry, i felt i need remind you of that before somebody else does :)

Other Comments by phasmagigas

193. Comment #87444 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 6:32 am

steve99, remember though that the theistic universe isnt the same as the naturalistic one with god just 'added', its something totally different!!! sorry, i felt i need remind you of that before somebody else does :)

Ah... but now I am REALLY confused :)

Just I minute, I think I have it: they are different, but the same, as you can't distinguish between them by experiment.

No... lost it.

Other Comments by steve99

194. Comment #87458 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 12, 2007 at 7:25 am

Dr Benway (post 138 or #87072):

Neither can you corroborate scientific propositions such as that all metals melt at some temperature.

You've said this a few times. It seems a simple thing, establishing the melting point of some metal.

Yes, but above I was speaking of *all* metals not just some particular metal. That all metals melt at some temperature is clearly a meaningful (not to mention an almost certainly true) scientific proposition which cannot be corroborated or falsified by experiment. (A metal can be any alloy, and there is an unlimited number of different alloys which sometimes have wildly different properties, and that's why this proposition cannot be falsified even though it's clearly scientific.) Incidentally, that's not an example I thought of myself. I read it in a paper written by a naturalist philosopher discussing the problems of naturalism.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

195. Comment #87462 by steve99 on November 12, 2007 at 7:40 am

A metal can be any alloy

No, a metal is an element. An alloy is an alloy.

That all metals melt at some temperature is clearly a meaningful (not to mention an almost certainly true) scientific proposition which cannot be corroborated or falsified by experiment.

Yes, it can be. We know the maximum strength of the bonds between elements. We know that above a certain temperature all elements will exist not just a gas, but a plasma. The melting temperature is less than that.

I read it in a paper written by a naturalist philosopher discussing the problems of naturalism.

Well this is not one of those problems.

Other Comments by steve99

196. Comment #87465 by epeeist on November 12, 2007 at 7:43 am

Comment #87458 by Dianelos Georgoudis

(A metal can be any alloy, and there is an unlimited number of different alloys which sometimes have wildly different properties, and that's why this proposition cannot be falsified even though it's clearly scientific.)

A distinct case of equivocation. You said "metal" not "alloy" or "metallic alloy".

While the latter two are not falsifiable, the former is.

While I may not working in this area any more my lady wife teaches chemistry, is actually an examiner for the subject and sits on the English and Welsh syllabus panels. I don't think she would be amused by your philosopher's dabbling in something he obviously doesn't have too much clue about.

Other Comments by epeeist

197. Comment #87476 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 12, 2007 at 8:25 am

Steve99 (post 140 or #87099):

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that mathematical objects (such as numbers) exist objectively, but without any substance (either physical or supernatural). So, I wonder, where exactly in the universe are these objects?

They don't exist anywhere in the universe. That is what 'abstract' means. Things don't have to exist anywhere in the universe to be objectively true.

If that's what you believe then you disagree with scientific naturalism. You see, scientific naturalism claims that everything that objectively exists, exists in the physical universe that (according to scientific naturalism) science studies. So if you think that some things exist objectively but beyond the physical universe and beyond the reach of scientific investigation then you are negating scientific naturalism and affirming some transcendental reality. Of course you can use the adjective "abstract" or any other adjective you like to characterize some things that objectively exist but do not belong to the physical universe and are therefore beyond the reach of science. Theists often use the adjective "spiritual".

Further, some mathematical objects are very complex, and according to Dawkins in TGD it's not good enough to say "they just are"; rather one must give a simple explanation for them.

No, that is not what Dawkins says at all. He does not say that complex things can't "just be". What he says is that it is unreasonable to explain the existence of complex things using more complex things.

But if complex things can "just be" then why should one explain them? They "just are". That's what theists claim about God and that's what Dawkins disallows.

Actually I think you are misrepresenting Dawkins's position. In his debate with Lennox, when Lennox uses the argument that the explanation for two simple scratches found in a cave may be the very complex thesis that people who knew of Chinese ideograms made them, Dawkins responds that his point is not that you can't explain simple things with complex explanations, but rather that complex things cannot be presumed to "just be". One must explain them (and further that the ultimate explanation must be simple).

Incidentally, Dawkins does not really give any evidence for his belief that complex things that objectively exist can't "just be", nor for his belief that the ultimate explanation is simple: I suppose for him it's just obvious that these two propositions are true ;-)

If you have some method of determining good and evil that is equivalent to the formula for calculating Pi, you would make philosophical history.

True, but I never claimed that such equivalent methods exist. Different types of objective things (e.g. some existing inside the physical universe and amenable to experimental verification, some existing outside of the physical universe and not amenable to experimental verification) obviously require different methodologies of investigation.

And by the way, you still owe me an experimental prediction of idealistic theism.

I already gave you one: that you can explain all physical phenomena using scientific theory and without assuming that the physical universe objectively exists.

And evidence for objective ethics.

Ah, but you recall that I have already conceded that I believe in some propositions because I find them obvious. It's you who claim that you have evidence for all propositions you believe in. So I challenge you to substantiate this impressively sounding claim and present your evidence that all ethics is subjective.

And how I find the universal right-and-wrong meter that will reveal that God is perfectly good.

Oh, let's start with a much simpler task. You have still not offered your evidence that the moon (or even simpler: the Statue of Liberty) objectively exists. And, according to what you yourself have been teaching in this forum, what one happens to find obvious or what other people say does never count as sufficient evidence for objective truth.

You see my point Steve? Popular naturalism has gone overboard and placed the standards of evidence for objective existence so high, that naturalism itself fails to meet them for even the most trivial naturalistic propositions. So, first find an epistemology that naturalism can satisfy, and then demand theism to satisfy the same.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

198. Comment #87478 by epeeist on November 12, 2007 at 8:33 am

Comment #87476 by Dianelos Georgoudis

If that's what you believe then you disagree with scientific naturalism. You see, scientific naturalism claims that everything that objectively exists, exists in the physical universe that (according to scientific naturalism) science studies.

REIFICATION

Other Comments by epeeist

199. Comment #87483 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 12, 2007 at 8:49 am

Epeeist (post 142 or #87104):

So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that mathematical objects (such as numbers) exist objectively, but without any substance (either physical or supernatural). So, I wonder, where exactly in the universe are these objects?

As I said, you can consider them as Platonic ideals.

If you believe that Platonic ideals objectively exist then you are already rejecting scientific naturalism and affirming some kind of transcendental reality. A basic premise of scientific naturalism is that the physical universe exhausts all objective reality. I will agree that scientific naturalism is not at all viable; and I found it interesting that Hitchens in his debate with D'Souza at some point says that the world is transcendental, but, unfortunately, D'Souza did not follow up on this point.

"Naturalism" is a flexible concept; the weakest possible version of it simply claims: "everything goes, except God". According to that version of naturalism one can affirm that reality is transcendental but without God. Which I think is still false, but at least is a step away from scientific naturalism and in the right direction. Of course, as far as I am concerned, anything that comes one step closer to idealistic theism is a step in the right direction ;-)

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

200. Comment #87484 by irate_atheist on November 12, 2007 at 8:51 am

197. Comment #87476 by Dianelos Georgoudis -

You have still not offered your evidence that the moon (or even simpler: the Statue of Liberty) objectively exists.

OK, we'll stand by and watch as you jump off the top of the statue. Objectively speaking, it's reasonable to assume that we'll walk away, once again having witnessed the effects of gravity in action, and you won't walk away at all.

Would that be objective enough proof for you? It would certainly satisfy me.

Other Comments by irate_atheist