Comments by "MC116" (@angelmendez-rivera351) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
10
-
4
-
1. Suppose God is omniscient.
2. Because God is omniscient, God knows all false statements, all true statements, and all absurd statements.
3. Because God knows which statements are true and are not, this implies God knows why they are true. Better said, God understands the criteria that a statement must meet in order to be assigned the propositional value "True".
4. Suppose the set of such criteria can be signified by K, and it has multiple elements K(1), K(2), ..., K(N).
5A. If there cannot be no such criteria, then the assignation of the values "T, F, A," are arbitrary, ergo truth and/or knowledge are subjective.
5B. If there are such criteria, then God must know them, because God is omniscient by premise #1.
6. This implies God knows that "Any proposition P(0) that meets the set of criteria K is true" is in itself a true proposition. We call this proposition P(1).
7. If P(1) is true, then it meets K.
8. Therefore, P(2)="P(1) is true because it meets K" must itself meet K.
9. Therefore, P(3)="P(2) meets K" is also true, which implies P(3) meets K.
10. By induction, P(X)="P(X-1) meets K" also meets K for any X.
11. This induction implies that for any statement to be true, the statement must be true because it meets a criteria, and this conclusion must be valid because it is known to be true, and as such it meets the criteria which make it true, and the above must also be true...
12. Premise 11 is an infinite regression.
13. Infinite regression is a logical fallacy, Argument Ad Infinitum.
14. Therefore, conclusion of premise 11 is invalid.
15. Premise 11 is invalid because premise 5B must necessarily yield an argument ad Infinitum.
16. Therefore, 5B is invalid.
17. Therefore, 5A is true because there either is a set of criteria or there is not, it is a Boolean conditional.
18. Therefore, truth is arbitrary and subjective.
19. If truth is subjective, then any statement cannot be known to be true, false or absurd.
20. Because no statement can be known, God cannot be omniscient.
C: Therefore, God is not omniscient.
Q.E.D.
4
-
The idea that the existence of God is a proper axiom to sustain objective morality is flawed.
Suppose God really was omniscient, which it could not be, both because omniscience is logically impossible and because the Bible presents some instances where God is portrayed as omniscient.
If that were the case, that would mean God does know right from wrong.
However, why does that matter? God can say whatever it wants without regard for that knowledge. Yes, maybe God does know right from wrong, but when God tells us, “Thou shalt not kill,” how know we that God isn't lying to us about this being a moral obligation? How know we that God actually does know morality? The only possible way to connect the premise to its conclusion is be proposing that God is infinitely good, but this is impossible since omniscience is not compatible with ultra benevolence. Hence, morality, as it is dictated by God, is not objective. It fails to the Euthyphro dilemma.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
IngRand'lo Russell I never claimed P(1) is true independent of the other propositions. It does require proposition P(2) to be true, and P(2) requires P(3), ...P(N) requires P(N+1), ad infinitum. So it is an infinite regress.
"What is truth?"
That question can't be answered precisely because of the infinite regress. If the answer is objective, that means that there exists an objective determinant that operates by objective standards to define truth, and when the definition is met by a proposition, that proposition is necessarily true. However, accepting this necessarily yields premise 11 as a consequence. Thus truth cannot be objective. Instead, we must say "Truth is X, Y, Z." and we must declare this definition to be true a priori: it's an axiom. It cannot be argued a posteriori because of infinite regress. But because the question of what is truth can only be answered a priori, it is subjective. So truth can literally actually be anything. That's the problem: that's why omniscience can't exist, because axioms are a necessary logical consequence and axioms make omniscience impossible.
Yes, the statement "Truth is subjective" must necessarily be subjective, which means that in some inconmensurable domain of axioms, Truth is objective, and perhaps God is in fact omniscient and does exist, but this domain of axioms is not logical: that is to say, infinite regress and contradictions aren't assumed to be logical fallacies. However, that isn't how we operate and the reasons are very intuitive, tautological by definition.
2
-
2
-
2
-
demoeder That isn't a problem, given that semantical and grammatical rules are subjective. Thus, whether a sentence is semantically correct and grammatically correct is subjective.
In any case, that is irrelevant, because the semantic structure and grammatical structure does not make the sentence true. One can construct the proposition "I am in Mars.", and this proposition is both grammatically correct and semantically valid (no oxymorons), but by no means is it true. The truth value of a sentence is clearly not determined by its grammatical structure, the content itself goes beyond grammar. The sentence “an electron has negative charge” cannot be determined to be true or false based on grammar, and the semantics of the term "electron" is extremely debatable and non objective. We humans assign names to objects, so it's subjective, they don't have inherent names or definitions. So there is no liars paradox here. And there is no problem with proving common assumptions wrong. Science does that on a daily basis (Humans don't have 5 senses, but more).
2
-
2
-
2
-
IngRand'lo Russell You've not replied to my question, but I'll proceed with my explanation anyway, since a specific answer given by you is actually not necessary.
You made the proposition P(0)="Truth is Objective", and you claim P(0) is true. What makes P(0) true though? Why is your claim justified within the domain of logic? You can claim "P(0) is T BECAUSE it satisfies K". Okay. But then my following question is, what makes this last claim, P(1) true? And this question is in fact relevant. If satisfying K does NOT imply being true, then satisfying K is irrelevant, which means that P(0) remains an unjustified claim and thus dismissible. P(0) can only be true if P(1) is true. But that's a conditional. So the question is what makes P(1) true. Now you get a composition of propositions, because the answer would then again be "P(1) is true because it satisfies K". Now, you fail to understand why this is a problem. It begs the question, what makes this new proposition, P(2), true? Once again, P(1) is only justified if P(2) is. What you're failing to understand is that, I'm postulating the definition P(N) is T <=> P(N) satisfies K, but this definition is arbitrary and by no means is it necessarily true. So I must justify [P(N) is T <=> P(N) satisfies K]:=P(N+1) by saying P(N+1) is T <=> P(N+1) satisfies K. But then this itself needs to be justified. Postulating that two things are equal doesn't make it true. "P is true because it is true" can't be concluded from "P is true because it satisfies K" like you think: it fails because the conclusion requires the premise to be proven true. Remember: any claims about the nature of truth are themselves presumed to be a truth. If I say "Truth is subjective", then this very statement must necessarily be a subjective truth. Similarly, when you provide any standard for justifying a claim as true, the claim that the relationship of a claim to such a standard makes the claim true is itself another claim that must be true, which means the very relationship we evaluate to determine that P(0) is true must itself be true before we conclude P(0) actually is true.
2
-
IngRand'lo Russell What you're failing to understand is that every claim needs justification. Arbitrary claims are dismissible and this is why arguments with no logic in them are regarded as invalid. But giving a justification, while it is enough in practice, it is for all logical purposes never enough. See, if you make the claim, "The sun is yellow" and you justify it by saying "science", most people will accept this justification because people a priori assume science is true. But that a priori assumption is still just an assumption, it isn't justified. Why should we actually assume science is indeed true and it works? You can try to justify that by saying "well our senses", or whatever justification you want to give it. But the justification is in itself a claim that requires justification... a.k.a, it is indeed an infinite regress. In practice, we never take it that extent because it is impractical to be unnervingly skeptic, but that by no means does it mean objectivity actually exists on a fundamental reality. This is exactly what premise 11 meant to say, but of course I wrote as a formal logic proof so it wasn't obvious. But now I explained in layperson terms and this what it comes down to: any justification to a claim is in itself a claim that requires justification. This is why objectivity can't exist, and this is why knowledge doesn't exist in the way we think it does. Thus that's why omniscience isn't possible. We're used to thinking of knowledge as just storing facts in our mind and relating them, and distinguishing them from fiction and falsehood. But that's not how it works: in order to determine whether something is true or not, you need a reference frame, a set of axioms to assume. Depending on the set of axioms, the statement will either be true or not. It works very much in the same way one can't simply say a distance is long without referring to a scale, an instrument of measurement, and the conditions at which the measurements are made. It's not so counterintuitive: it is already known absolute time doesn't exist either and that reference frames in physics are relative. But physics is merely mathematics mixed with observations to fix variables and elements, and mathematics are merely a branch of logic. So relativity in physics, which is proven, can only really work out if logical proofs are themselves relative to the assumed set of axioms, and this conjecture was what I proved more formally above.
And yes, such a proof is itself relative to the axioms of logic I assumed, but that isn't a problem and it does not make the proof dismissible, because the axioms I assumed are the so-called common axioms that are pretty much universally assumed (although also universally misunderstood).
2
-
IngRand'lo Russell IngRand'lo Russell You have the guts to try to pull a Philosophy 101 argument when I'm a philosophy major, HA! Pathetic.
Listen. Let me make this as clear as I can.
The statement "Truth is ___." cannot be completed. Do you want to know why it can't be? Attempt it yourself. Complete the statement "Truth is ___." yourself, it seems to be so important to you. Once you complete it, I'll explain why it can't be completed.
Saying "Believing X is absurd" isn't an argument Ingrad. Now it's my turn to retort Philosophy 101. Why is believing that truth is subjective absurd? Why is the belief in God not absurd? What is your criteria for saying that a proposition is absurd?
No, you keep misunderstanding the truth argument. The proposition ("Truth is objective" satisfies K) is assumed a priori, but by no means is this what I was challenging. Yes, P(0) satisfies K. But why does that make P(0) true? Why is K the set operator that makes P(0) true and not a different criteria L or M or N? See, it doesn't matter whether ("Truth is objective" meets K) is true or not, and it doesn't matter whether it is true a priori or a posteriori. What does matter is that meeting K is what makes "Truth is objective" a true statement, according to you, but such a claim is not justified. The claim (Meeting K makes "Truth is objective" true) must and is itself being claimed to be objectively true. But this implies the claim itself must both meet K and be converted to a true statement by virtue of meeting K. Now, meeting K is arbitrary and can be assumed a priori, but you must still prove that [Meeting K makes (Meeting K makes "Truth is objective." true.) true.]. And now you get a circularity, because this new proposition can once again be assumed a priori to meet K, but it'll beg the question about whether meeting K makes it true because that is what you were trying to justify in the first place. We're not trying to justify it meets K, we're trying to justify that meeting K makes a claim true. And yes: it needs to be justified. It can't be true a priori because if L, M, and N all exist, I can just claim that P(0) meets M and make it a priori, but then I still must also justify that meeting M makes P(0) true. Otherwise, by allowing a priori assumptions, you get arbitrariness, contradictions and subjectivity. Because that means that whether meeting K makes true or meeting L makes true is arbitrary and can be chosen. No, in order for objectivity to hold, one must PROVE (a.k.a a posteriori) that meeting K is what makes something true as opposed to meeting L or M. And trying to prove that is what leads to infinite regress. I was never trying to dispute that P(0) meets K: in fact, assuming a priori that P(0) meets K is necessary in order for my argument to proceed, and I did assume it all along.
2
-
IngRand'lo Russell And that's exactly why "Truth is __." CANNOT be completed. Because saying "Truth is X" is a truth claim itself that therefore must be justified by saying ("Truth is X" is X), and this therefore by [("Truth is X" is X) is X], but this again will need be justified, because if it isn't, then by no means can we ever conclude that ("Truth is X" is X) to be true, and since this must be true and justified, but it isn't, we can't conclude "Truth is X" is itself true.
Think of a real life example. Let's visualize rape. Why is rape wrong. Instead of dealing with truth, let's deal with wrong. "Why is rape wrong?" Well, rape is wrong because it is an action that meets criteria K. But why does meeting criteria K make rape wrong? I mean, yes, in the K-ist current of ethic thought, rape is wrong, but not in the M-ist current of ethic thought. So then you must justify choosing K over M. So you say "K is not wrong and justified whereas M is in that K meets K and M does not". Okay, K meets K, but why does that make it true? See, it's impossible to properly answer "Why does meeting K make P(N) true?" without engaging in infinite regress. See, you said "Truth is objective" is true because believing "Truth is subjective" absurd. But what makes the statement "Believing 'Truth is subjective' is absurd" itself true? Therein lies the problem. Every justification needs a justification, but the question isn't how do I justify it, the question is why does this justify it as opposed to that other thing. Of course, there is one way to prevent this regress from happening. And that is to make "Meeting K makes P(0) true" an axiom. In other words, you must say that P(1) is true because I declare it to be true a priori. But that is equivalent to subjectivity because K is arbitrary, so you can axiomatize absolutely any definition you want and choose for completing the statement "Truth is ___", and that is exactly what subjectivity is. A priori truths aren't much different from opinions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
IngRand'lo Russell 1. No, being a philosophy major does not imply I have it all figured out, but your retort was condescending so it deserved the typical response of declaring credentials. You can pretend you understand philosophy better than I do, but that is irrelevant if you're incapable of posing simple argument.
2. What is truth subjective to? Well, I already answered this. It is subjective the set of axioms you assume and the circumstances under which you assume those axioms.
3. 2+2=4 is not an a priori truth, so your argument is not even sensical. I can prove 2+2=4 starting by assuming the Peano axioms, which are very intuitive to assume.
4. "Truth is knowledge of the things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come." Truth and knowledge are synonymous? That's just as bold of a claim, and most people would disagree, obviously. Anyhow, that statement already fails to the argument I've been posing. For the claim to be true, it must satisfy the criteria that assign it the truth value. You have given no such criteria, actually, because the concept of things "being as they are" is already subjective and it depends on whether you subscribe to solipsism, Platonism, empiricism, realism, etc. So that is already a claim saying that truth is subjective. Had you made a claim that appeared more objective, you'd've more of an argument. But here is the issue.
5. Let's assume you did give such criteria K for saying the claim you made was true. We could verify that your claim did satisfy K, but then we would need to show that meeting K made the claim true by also subjecting such a relationship to K and proving that would make the relationship true, but then this even larger relationship... and you get the point.
6. You misunderstood claim 6. I'm not questioning why the claim is true per se. I'm instead pointing out the fact that if God knows that P(0) meets K, and if God knows that K is supposed to exist as objective determinant, then the relationship "P(0) true because K" must itself be true. God knows it is true. But whether he knows it or not is not particularly relevant. P(1) being true is a logical consequence of the biconditional requiring that P(1) itself meet K. In other words, God's knowledge of P(0) being true is independent of God's knowledge of P(1) being true, but the act of P(0) being true is not independent of P(1) being true. And similarly, P(1) being true is directly dependent upon P(2) being true, etc. See, God knows that such a sequence of P(N) is true all the way to infinity, so that's not the issue. The issue is the existence of such a sequence in the first place. In order for it to be logically valid, it can't be infinite, but if it isn't infinite, then at some point one must merely declare any arbitrary P(N) to simply be true without justification, to simply say "Let P(N) be true" a priori and make it an axiom on its own account. And then K would have to also be determined arbitrarily, at the discretion of the subject making the claim. So it is either subjective, or an objective infinite regress, but an infinite regress isn't a valid option so the only option is subjective.
7. You declared that saying that Truth is subjective is equivalent to claiming Truth does not exist. That is only true if you assume a priori truth must necessarily be objective and should not be otherwise, an assertion which is itself arbitrary and not really justified. And here is the problem: "Truth exists not" can only prevent self-contradiction if the claim itself is not a truth. Yet if it is not a truth, then it is either absurd or false. So, not much of an argument, because the axioms we assume with logic do not really allow it to be an argument.
2
-
2
-
IngRand'lo Russell "Let me ask you..." (I'm just stopping the elipsis here because I'm addressing the entire paragraph)
That's clearly not how justification works. Not because I'm incapable of providing a justification for a random claim does it mean EVERY justification does not require a justification of its own: that's VERY non sequitur on several levels. See, science is in itself an assumed set of axioms, and one can very much "choose" to not choose them. Of course, people do choose them because it's practical and instinctual and it appears counterintuitive to humans to assume other axioms. Scientists ADMIT this: they know science is based on a bunch of assumptions that can't ultimately be proven at all. They understand that for any logical framework to arise, axioms must be assumed. This is also true of mathematicians: most of them understand mathematics is a human construct that works by axiomatization. There are literally thousands of papers based on this. How do we know natural numbers can be added together to form other natural numbers? By the Peano AXIOMS. And can you choose to reject such axioms? Of course you can! Entire fields of mathematics are based on this, and even they have practical applications. Is "Division by 0 is undefined" an objectively true statement simply because it is mathematical? No. It's true subjective to the Peano axioms. There is a different set of axioms you can assume where division by 0 is allowed, and the resulting structure is called a Wheel. This is called wheel Algebra. And even amateurs of mathematics know of wheels existing.
So, your point about my inability to justify science is moot, because in practice we don't try to justify science, we assume it a priori. However, objectivity does require justification, because objectivity requires that there's a way by which all claims can be concluded a posteriori. So the infinite regress argument holds.
I already explained what it means for truth to be subjective in the paragraph above.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Shea O'Donnell the Bible contradicts itself though. There are several chapters in which God lies.
That said, perfection and omniscience are both logically impossible, so such an argument is wrong anyway.
Additionally, even if God were truly perfect, that would not mean that whatever God says is not an opinion. If morality is determined God, then it is arbitrary, hence an opinion. If God determines morality based on knowledge about the universe, then objective morality can only come from the universe itself, not from God. Hence, either way, it still fails.
Just accept it, damn it. It isn't logically possible for God to be the basis of objective morality. There isn't anything wrong with that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Paul Elpers The problem with that argument is that the choice of God as an objective determinant is completely arbitrary, hence subjective itself, because there is no objective standard that allows us to choose between the morality of God as presented in Islam or of God as presented in Christianity, or of God as presented in Judaism. Additionally, God does change his morality quite a few times before reaching the current one, according to the Bible. Objective morality under Christian theism really just means the opinion of God dictates morality, which once again falls under the objective category. The problem is that objectivity cannot stem from any entity whose existence entails a form of consciousness, because by definition if it does, it becomes subjective. That is just what the definition of objectivity and subjectivity are. God would need to not be a consciousness, but rather some sort of force, except that contradicts the properties of God as presented in the Bible.
2
-
Paul Elpers The reason why infinite knowledge won't imply objective morality nor authority is not related to knowledge, but rather to the self-contradicting nature of objectivity itself. The problem is that Dennis is posing the argument with a question of epistemology (a.k.a, How do you know murder is wrong), but in reality the correct question to ask is, "Why is it wrong?" What makes murder wrong, what characteristic of the act of murdering makes it a wrong moral action? We can see it as a spectrum: one side of the spectrum dictates that actions that meet the standard corresponding to such side are wrong, and the ones on the other side are correct. I can appeal to the axioms I assume and my instincts to justify my knowledge of morality, but I can't justify saying that something is wrong without first answering, "What makes it wrong?" What does it mean for something to be wrong? No matter what answer U give or God gives, not because of knowledge, but because of the fact that objectivity fails to be possible. So you see now why infinite knowledge is irrelevant.
See, the issue here is, no matter what justification you give to the answer of that question, the justification will itself always require justification. This problem arises from the nature of objectivity itself and how truth operates. The burden of proof and the nature objectivity require that justification exists and that there is no arbitrariness. But this then inevitably leads to an infinite regress, which s a logical fallacy. Which is why objectivity isn't a thing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
Allow me to rephrase what I've said. A priori propositions are not opinions, but if they must be assumed axiomatically, and if they are arbitrary, then they are subjective, because such a choice as true or false is dependent upon the subject claiming the proposition. The fact that you assume that "Truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come" to be true a priori, arbitrarily, and axiomatically, implies it is a subjective claim, and it is subjective to the stream of epistemological thought that one subscribes to. The fact that God knows that K implies a truth-value assignment for P(0) and P(1) we assume a priori, but any attempt to justify renders infinite regress, and axiomatizing this renders subjectivity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mackdmara Such an accusation is invalid for the reason that your description of my argument is inaccurate. My argument concerns not the reliability of science and math and whether they are real or not, my argument concerns the axiomatic nature of every set of premises and the impossibility of complete a posteriori justification, which is very different. Reality is itself a construct, because the definition of reality already depends itself on the assumed set of axioms. That cannot be taken lightly. That implies not that by any means, anything can be true if you assume it to be true. The process of choosing which axioms to assume is a very difficult, precise, and sophisticated one, and we base it on practicality. Skeptics care not about practicality and challenge all axiom sets equally. I am not challenging all axiom sets equally, I am merely postulating such axiom sets do exist, but must be assumed a priori according to arbitrary standards. However, I do base my choice of axioms on efficiency and practicality. That is why my argument is not skepticism. My argument postulates that any claim about truth is in itself a truth claim, and that is the only reason there is an infinite regress, this is not a matter of whether science and mathematics are reliable constructs. Mathematics and science simply cannot be concluded from an objective standpoint and must be assumed axiomatically, but from a pragmatic worldview this is entirely valid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
mackdmara No, you're still misunderstanding.
You claim that, according to my logical worldview, no conclusion can be true, and because I'm claiming such a circumstance to be true, my argument is self-defeating. This isn't true, and I already addressed this a dozen of comments ago. I clarified that nothing is meaningful UNLESS you allow axiomatization. There's nothing wrong with axiomatization: most philosophers accept it. But the one thing some of these philosophers need to accept is that axiomatization is equivalent to subjectivity. You haven't been able to accept subjectivity because you ignore the existence of axiomatization. My proof is axiomatized: it's not objective, but it's still meaningful because I've admitted I had to assume a set of axioms, called logic, and I've admitted everyone else in this thread, except for you and kws is assuming that set of axioms. So that's fine.
No, God doesn't need to be omniscient in order to exist. See, the omniscience of God is a logically derived property, not a definitional one. Jewish theology states that the definition of God is that God exists by logical necessity: virtue of God's own nature. All other properties can be derived from this, but they're not part of the definition and thus unnecessary. The idea that God must be omniscient stems from the intuition that existing supernaturally should logically allow omniscience, but it doesn't imply it by necessity.
Now, if you do wish to assume axiomatically that God must be omniscient, then yes, I would in that case be claiming God can't exist. Why? Because the infinite regress exists by logical necessity, regardless of whether God can logically be omniscient or not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
mackdmara I never claimed subjectivity is practical outside of philosophical circles, but that by no means implies subjectivity is false. And no, if I'm right, it does not mean I'm not right, it merely means I'm right because of the axioms everyone has chosen, and choosing other axioms is impractical. Again, if you don't understand the argument, it's best to not critique, you made a wise decision of stepping out of a discussion you admitted having little credentials for, and it would do you good to keep things that way, unless you prefer to make a fool of yourself. I already explained why my argument is consistent. Logic renders my argument correct. You can assume a set of axioms different than logic to make my argument false, but realistically speaking no will do that. So, no, it isn't absurd.
Also, I already explained why the statement "existing before time" is self-defeating.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Maximilian Kircher I think you misunderstood the proof.
Truth is a quality of a proposition. But what does that quality represent is subjective. Why? Because you can have different standards and there isn't anyway to choose any of them objective.
K: corresponds to physical reality - empiricism
M: corresponds to mental reality - anti-empiricism, or Cartesian rationalism
I provided two standards of truth as examples, there are many more though. But the point would still apply.
Let's say that a statement is true if physically observable via evidence or directly. So,
P(0) is True IFF P satisfies K.
But you realize this definition itself needs to be proven true, because, how do we know empirical adequacy implies truth? If we merely decide that as a convention, such is subjective. So we actually do need a justification for our choice, no matter how intuitive that choice is. Otherwise, it just becomes logically inconsistent. So the notion of empirical adequacy implying truth must itself be true in order for the above definition to be correct. Therefore:
[P(0) is True IFF P(0) satisfies K] is True, which by logical necessity implies [P(0) is True IFF P(0) satisfies K] satisfies K... but this is circular reasoning. It is circular reasoning because in order for satisfying K to imply truth, the latter needs to itself meet K AND imply truth as a consequence. And undoing the circularity yields infinite regress, because the proposition given above becomes
[P(1) is True IFF P(1) satisfies K]=P(2)
Where P(1)=[P(0) is True IFF P(0) satisfies K].
So we see that the only way P(0) can be assessed as either true or false (rather than as indeterminate or unknown) if P(1) is already known to be true, but P(1) can only be true if P(2) is true, but P(2) can only be true if P(3) is true.... P(N) can only be true if P(N+1) is true... ad infinitum.
Hence infinite regress. There is nothing anchored in P(0) as you state
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
William Brown They aren't false dichotomies though, you haven't proven they, and what is worse, you can't prove they are.
Lack of free will DOES imply lack of moral sense. It is already implicit in the definition of morality itself, so that statement actually is true by definition.
Also, if it is part of your character to act a certain why, then that also by definition implies lack of free will. I think you lack understanding of how free will operates. If God is choosing an act, then there is a justification behind the choice, and because there is a justification, that means it was not by any means influenced by any personal characteristics. That is how choice simply is defined, it isn't even really a debatable idea.
Omniscience means all knowledge. But knowledge implies absolute certainty, lack of certainty implies belief and not knowledge. However, both by the Occam razor and the burden of proof, every claim requires a justification. This is because if a claim is true, that means the claim satisfies all the properties of truth that are determined by the definition of truth itself, but that definition of truth can't be proven, because proving it implies a demonstration of it being true. And demonstrating that the definition of truth is itself a truth requires circular reasoning. One can only undo the circular reasoning by using an infinite chain of justification. Justify the definition with a claim, but that claim itself will require justification, and that justification also needs justification, ad infinitum. Hence an infinite regress.
To give an example:
2+2=4 is true.
Well, why? What makes any true statement true? Well, they meet a definition. That definition is, the conclusion can be implied from the premises. So, 2+2=4 is true iff it follows from the premises AND if following from the premises makes any statement true. But this last part cannot be proven. Proving the definition of truth is impossible.
1
-
William Brown William Brown William Brown William Brown William Brown William Brown William Brown William Brown William Brown William Brown William Brown William Brown William Brown William Brown "You are the one making the claim omniscience requires infinite regress, so explain."
I already did. I'm not sure you're even trying to read my comments or that you understand them then.
"It seems to assume past events have occurred in order for it to be an infinite regression."
No, that isn't what an infinite regression is. Take a course on logic. I already explained it, an infinite chain of justification.
"Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong behavior."
Not a valid definition, as it is circular and hence a fallacy. You must define morality in terms that aren't itself.
"Free will isn't necessary. If someone cannot carry out an action, it doesn't meant they can't comprehend that it would be."
Actually, it does mean that, yes. Empirically shown. That is why... parenting is a thing, you know. And it is impossible to derive a non-arbitrary correct assertion about an action hasn't been experienced by the actor.
"Free will is the act of choosing, acting and thinking voluntarily."
Exactly. But if your choice is driven by a personal characteristic, it isn't voluntary, by definition. It follows from the definition of both voluntary and of driven.
"Where do you get justification is opposed to personal characteristics?..."
See above.
"So if God makes a choice to take a life or not take a life, it's no longer a choice no?"
I never claimed that. Stop using straw men fallacies, and stop twisting my words. What I did say is that if actions are driven by a personal characteristic or property, they're not a choice, it has nothing to do with the action itself. You need to learn how to read and/or be intellectually honest in a debate.
"You're assuming falsely that you need a justification for your justification."
No, that isn't a false assumption, it's a basic law of logic. It's called the burden of proof. If a claim has no justification, then the claim is arbitrary and as such is dismissed as a non-sequitur fallacy.
"Something doesn't need to satisfy your opinion in order to be true."
Straw man fallacy AND red herring fallacy. I never claimed this. This is intellectual dishonesty, and it shows you have no grounds to support your position. Sad.
"You defeat your entire position if you claim the definition of truth requires circular reasoning."
No, it doesn't. It defeats your argument, because you argue truth is objective. I'm not arguing that. It is only self-defeating for an objectivist position.
"Where is your justification."
Above: the burden of proof.
"Where is the justification for the justification."
The Occam razor. Although, in all technicality, I'm not required to have one, because I'm not assuming logic is objective, so I can just assume the burden of proof to be true and then match on.
"Truth: that which is true in accordance to fact or reality."
...a circular definition. Those are valid linguistically, but not semantically nor epistemologically. A definition that references itself is a circular statement, which is a fallacy. Philosophical definitions don't make self-reference for that reason, but then it follows by the burden of proof that they necessitate a justification.
"Axioms exist, both logically and mathematically."
1. Mathematics is a discipline of logic.
2. Axioms yield objectivity as false, which would destroy the idea of omniscience.
"They are things that don't require justification because they are self evident."
Quite ironically, that isn't the definition of an axiom. I can show this with a very simple example: Euclidean geometry vs non-Euclidean geometry. Both are true because both use axioms, yet both axioms are mutually exclusive. Which means one of them isn't self evident. But that isn't a problem, because:
1. Objectivity is false.
2. That isn't the definition of an axiom.
"I don't need to prove my existence, it's an axiom."
...in your worldview. However, many other world views have non-existence as an axiom.
Two notes:
1. Self-evidence isn't real. If the burden of proof is self-evident, then there is a contradiction. Plus, self-evident assessments are subjective.
3. The idea that something is self evident is not only itself not self evident, but the idea that self-evidence means anything is also not self evident. You're on several layers of self-contradiction here.
To clarify, axioms are a sign of subjectivity. Subjectivity renders omniscience impossible by the simple virtue that omniscience obviously implies objectivity.
"This fails to honestly tackle the contradiction between omniscience and perfection."
I never claimed there was a contradiction between the two. More straw manning, more word twisting, more intellectual dishonesty. You honestly don't understand what contradiction means. Listen mate: a claim is contradictory if it contradicts itself, but two claims are mutually exclusive if they contradict one another. I never claimed they're mutually exclusive. In fact, I literally can quote myself saying "Perfection is impossible BECAUSE omniscience is impossible." I literally wrote that in one of my previous responses. I'm tired of your dishonesty. If you can't debate me honestly, then don't: admit defeat. But you're wasting both of our times here with this word twisting.
...and I already showed why omniscience is impossible. SMH.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
William Brown "To be honest I was typing the response as I was reading. Its obvious that I read your comments and explained my objection as to how they are flawed."
You clearly failed at it, in any case.
"Circular? The statement doesn't even use the word "morality" to describe itself."
No, but it does reference right and wrong, whose definitions indirectly reference morality, eventually, or at least in the case of the definitions relevant to ethics.
"I guess Meriam Webster, Cambridge, and Oxford are just dullards then because they all practically use the same words to describe morality."
They're indeed dullards. Check out the Merriam Webster's definition of the word happiness.
"We both now that is false as you can know whats moral and not without actually committing the act itself or be capable of it. A wheelchair bound person can know its an immoral act to kick someone in the face for no good reason by just being told. They don't even have to see someone kick another person, they can see the action of kicking and derive, "It wouldn't be good to do that too a person".
My argument was concerned with comprehending a moral act, although I somehow deviated from that. Regardless, I will concede to this. However, there still is an impossibility in being moral without free will. Why? Because free will is tied to consciousness. Notice, for example, that organisms whom we have discovered to have a consciousness have the capacity to actually make legitimate choices in various circumstances. The higher the order of consciousness, the higher the order of choice. This is an empirical observation, but the concept of consciousness, if generalized to ontology along with its correspondent aspect of free will, then we can reach similar conclusions, which many if not most philosophers do. Total lack of free will stems from total lack of consciousness, which means absolutely one choice, and this is because if only one choice is possible, then there is a causal relationship between the cause and effect, and there is no choice, and causal relationships are blind. This implies, because they're guaranteed, there is either no cognition of any external circumstances or no concern for them. This is different from your examples, in which one is unable to do on particular action, but still able to do many other.
"All choices are driven by characteristics,"
Only in a deterministic universe.
"...but we still choose which to exhibit and when. If God could choose between showing justice or showing mercy, both which are good things, why does that then not count as a free will choice? Hes not forced to choose one or the other."
Funny that you speak of God as being male. Regardless, this argument is flawed. Both may be good, but God is maximally good, a.k.a benevolent, in theological terms. God won't merely make a good choice, but actually necessarily make the best choice, simply by the nature God is characterized by. Now, if showing mercy and showing justice in terms of a simple quality are both the maximally best actions, then both would need to be executed because this would imply they are both elements of a composite action that would represent the absolute maximal good. This is an argument similar to the reason why only one perfect entity can exist at once. Moreover, the two qualities cannot exist in a situation such that separately they're both maximally good but combined not because this would imply mutual opposition or exclusivity, in which case both could not be maximally good to start with.
"You seem to be taking free will as, "acting outside of your nature" which has never been the definition of free will, yet seems to be what you are implying (note I said implying in case you try to accuse me again of something I didn't do)."
Not at all. God can only necessarily make one action simply by the nature of benevolence, so this actual does mean lack of free will.
" I never said you said that I'm using an example so calm yourself down. If I was setting up a straw man, I would claim what you believe and tearing it down."
Then it wouldn't be a straw man. Tsk.
"I'm asking a question, which obviously wasn't a statement of what you believed. But instead of looking at it honestly you get all angry and throw around insults."
1
-
William Brown I can show that you were straw manning, but it is a waste of time to do so since it is irrelevant. But I will say that the fact that you claim I threw insults at you even though I literally never did does prove my point to begin with. And yes, I did not insult you. Just read my comment again. And yes, you did claim I insulted you. The claim is right in the quotation marks.
"I'm showing an example. The actual definition of free will doesn't lessen if its, "driven by personal characteristics" If you have no choice but to do one action out of a myriad of others, then you don't have free will. Lets go by the actual definition."
1. We're going by the actual definition.
2. You're committing the fallacy of assuming that every true assumption about a particular concept stems from the arbitrary dictionary definitions of the word representing the concepts. Even if you can't see or aren't willing to admit it, your arguments are phrased in such a way.
"I didn't say anything about a claim having NO justification, I'm talking about a justification FOR a justification."
Yes. I know. What you fail to understand is that justifications themselves are claims.
"If we go along that line of reasoning we get an infinite regress. If something is faulty, then it has no justification to begin with."
Or it does have a justification, which is in itself faulty, but those who accept aren't aware of it until later. Which showcases my point about justifications being claims. They are.
"You don't need a burden of proof for your proof and so on, thats all i'm saying."
Except you do. That literally is his both inductive arguments and deductive arguments operate.
"Even if I constantly said, "Where is your justification for that?" The burden of proof ends SOMEWHERE..."
Really? Where is the proof for that? No, I'm serious. So there is a certain point at which I'm no longer required to justify my claims? Then show me where, it'd be very helpful at ending several debates I'm involved in, including this one.
"Unless now you want to argue how your whole premise is not objective."
I do want to argue this, and there is nothing wrong with that.
"Are you not being the least bit introspective and apply the same standard to yourself?"
I am.
1
-
William Brown Truth is objective otherwise the entirety of your arguments could be false."
They could be false, but if you assume the basic axioms of logic, then they're true. And sure, you could reject the basic axioms of logic, but according to you they're self evident so I think you and I would both understand the problem with that. So I'm not concerned.
"You assume both Occam's razor and burden of proof are objective standards to define truth yet argue against objective truth."
No, I'm not assuming they're objective. They're subjective alright. But if we're going to use any axioms to try to build logic and our entire framework of knowledge, then those axioms will've to be the ones of basic logic. For our purposes in particular (not necessarily for any other purposes, certainly not for all purposes), they're the best axioms to use. A.k.a, in relation to our purpose, accepting them as true is the best choice.
"Its entirely nonsensical. Its like using logic to prove logic doesn't exist."
False equivalence. Claiming logic is subjective is not even close to the idea of declaring logic to be false. I'm claiming logic to be subjective, but I still assume it a priori to be true.
"Again, I guess Oxford and Webster don't know what they are talking about when they describe what an axiom is?"
1. They disagree on the definitions in some aspects, which means: even if they do know what they're talking about to some extent, each of them is wrong about something.
2. They're English language dictionaries, not philosophy dictionaries, so for all we know, their definitions could be completely irrelevant.
"Webster: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : "
Yes, a statement ACCEPTED as true. Not because something is accepted as true does it mean it is objectively true on an ontological, metaphysical sense. Axioms are different from any other claim in that we assume them to be true a priori, a.k.a they're definitions constructed by us, also known as analytic statements. Any other claim requires justification and must be a posteriori true, these are also known as synthetic claims by epistemologists. So, that definition only helps my argument. Because this is the very thing I was arguing.
"...postulate 1 one of the axioms of the theory of evolution 2: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth cites the axiom “no one gives what he does not have” "
Self-evident is subjective. The fact that there are no claims on which exactly 100% of the population agrees with goes to support this. Although it isn't much of a support.
" 3: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit the axioms of wisdom"
Same as for #1. These axioms do have intrinsic merit, and that intrinsic merit relies in that they are natural to us because we construct their truth based on our instincts and what appears obvious due to our mechanisms of survival. That doesn't make them true on an ontological aspect though.
Oxford: "A statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true."
Yes. This actually helps my arguments. Axioms are precisely statements that we establish to be true. We decide that they're true. But they can't be proven to be true or false. We can choose whether they're true or not. A.k.a: subjectivity holds. That is what subjectivity fundamentally is.
"But all make a distinction between a mathematical axiom and a philosophical axiom."
Mathematical axioms are special forms of philosophical axioms, but they're underlying nature and how they operate within mathematical systems is essentially the same with some differences corresponding to the sub-field itself.
"So I made a mistake when assuming a logical axiom is the same as a mathematical axiom, my bad."
You actually assumed the opposite in a way, or so did your claims imply. But that wouldn't have been a mistake, in any case.
"The axioms i'm referring are indeed self-evident,even the translation from the greek word is, "that which commends itself as evident" "
1. This only means they were self-evident to the Greeks specifically, not universally or ontologically.
2. The etymology of the word is irrelevant. The word logic comes from the Greek work logos which literally translates to speech. Yet this is clearly not what logic today is. The word physics comes from the word physis in Greek, which means nature. But that isn't what the word refers to today, that isn't even the definition you'll find in most dictionaries. This is a fallacy.
1
-
William Brown "So 1. Objectivity is not false (otherwise you couldn't say is it false without it being objectively true. So that statement defeats itself)"
It doesn't defeat itself. It isn't objectively true, but that doesn't detract from my argument because the argument follows from the laws of logic as I mentioned above, which once again I'm assuming to be true. And that isn't a problem, because you agree that these laws are self-evident and thus the more "correct" or more natural to accept as true.
" "...in your worldview. However, many other world views have non-existence as an axiom. " Then that worldview logically fails if non-existence was an axiom, they wouldn't be there to ponder the question. "
Not at all. These worldviews have already come up with ways to debunk this rebuttal. See, there is a flaw in assuming that existence is a requirement in order to be able to ponder. In fact, it is even fallacious to actually pretend the action of pondering behaves anything like it does in our worldviews.
"1. Self-evidence is real. Otherwise you would have no argument to make."
I never self-evidence is real, I said it is subjective, which makes it totally meaningless and irrelevant.
" We all make our arguments..atleast logical ones..on self evident truths."
Correction: on OUR self-evident truths. See, to some people, the idea that the Earth is round is self-evident. To many others, however, it isn't. Same with the existence of God.
"Even you disagreeing with me, you don't go by anything that is an "irreducible primary"?"
I assume the basic laws of logic, but I don't claim they're necessarily true by virtue of themselves.
"Because by that logical you could be wrong and have no argument to stand on."
So could all claims be. This isn't a rebuttal of anything and I'm not sure it contributes to your argument at all. I COULD be wrong, but I've yet to be proven so, and since I'm assuming the axioms of logic, people either need to show to me that the axioms objectively are false or that my argument doesn't follow from the axioms of logic.
"Axioms, by philosophical definition are not subjective, you only contradict yourself by trying to contradict an axiom."
They literally are though. And you haven't provided proof your claim: the dictionary definitions you provided actually help my argument LOL.
"Just try using your line of reasoning on your own arguments, you will hopefully see how it easily falls apart."
No, I've used my line of reasoning on my own arguments for years, in hundreds, perhaps thousands of debates. It's not for nothing I'm arguing this.
"Did you not say this: (unless you go and edit your own post), "Perfection is impossible because omniscience is impossible" ..."
Yes. I did claim this. And the word BECAUSE is NOT A CONTRADICTION, it is a causal-justification relationship. I hope that was merely a brain fart, because this really is a stupid claim you make here.
"You hinged one upon the other, so why not stop presuming straw men, apply your same "logical" reasoning to yourself, and stop lying on me?"
I'm not lying on you. I'm not the one who claimed I'm being insulted when I'm not.
1
-
Ananta Sesa das 1. I never claimed individuals have no free will, I merely claimed they would not in the hypothetical case of an omniscient god existing, which is logically impossible, implying this is not the actual case.
2. Adequacy is different from perfection. Individuals misuse the term perfection to mean adequacy. Perfection is, once again, a concept of objectivity.
3. Omnipotence is impossible because it is self-inconsistent, hence, a contradiction which can be dismissed as a fallacy and thus an impossibility.
4. Omniscience is also self-inconsistent, so omniscience is impossible regardless of the impossibility or possibility of omnipotence.
Omnipotence is impossible because an entity cannot choose to be able to choose to be omnipotent due to the logical necessity of being able to choose to be omnipotent in order for the property of omnipotence to be satisfied.
Omniscience is impossible because it can be proven that within any randomly given collection of propositions, at least one of these must necessarily be unprovable due to infinite regress, and I explained by showing that truth requires a subjective definition. Because such claims are not provable, there is no certainty in asserting their truth, thus there is no knowledge but belief, with shows that at least one proposition must be believed by the omniscient entity, showing the entity is in fact not omniscient. This is obviously a contradiction, so omniscience is impossible.
Thus demonstrated (Q.E.D).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"That is not what the record shows."
This is evidently false. I have looked at the record, and you provide no evidence of your claim, precisely because it is false.
"There were many people that came up with a counter that you used jargon to answer."
No, no one did. Show me 1 single quote of someone besides yourself who did more than once and I will concede. Of course, you won't find one.
"Also many of these people did not understand you either. Hence them not pressing their case."
No, they understood me, and this is evident because everyone offered a counter argument at least twice before giving up. They stop pressing their case because I showed they were wrong, not because they did not understand. They would not have tried counter-arguing had they not understood.
"Also many of those that did press it you deflected with jargon, until someone who Knew the jargon disproved you handily. Did you concede? Nope."
Show me the quote in which someone disproved and I will concede. But i have read the conversation time and again, and I know for a fact no one has disproved me. Again, here is your chance to show me the quote where I was disproved and I will gladly become Christian again.
"Once that happened you engaged me directly even though I had made no comment."
Not true. I engaged with you because you responded to my argument. The evidence is right in the thread, actually. Stop lying.
"You just wanted to fight."
First ad hominem.
"It is not about what is right or logic or spreading reason."
For me, it is. For you, it isn't, because you demonstrate you don't care about logic or reasoning all that much. You're not willing to let go of your faith and open your mind to facts. But this has been about logic all along. My argument literally is based on formal logic.
"Your just trying to prove to yourself that you are the intellectual superior to those around you."
Second ad hominem.
"Your just trying to prove to yourself that you are the intellectual superior to those around you."
Third ad hominem.
"In summation, I told you why I do not want to argue with you,..."
...you did, and your reasoning is wrong and full of feces. Simple.
"...you do not respect me."
...because you do not respect me either, nor do you respect anyone commenting on this thread. I have freedom of speech. By telling me to not respond to your comments, you infringe on my freedom of expression, hence disrespecting me. So I have no need or obligation to respect you.
"I then offer to cordially debate, you basically call me deficient, you do not respect me."
I didn't call you anything. You made that lie up. All I said is that it isn't my fault you didn't understand my argument, and you accused of not speaking on plain English even though I literally am speaking plain English. On top of that, you blatantly lie about "what the record says" and deny that you started this. Also, fourth ad hominem.
"It is called ad hominem & it is your favorite fallacy."
You've used more ad hominems within this one comment and the previous than I've used within my last few responses to you. If anything, it is your favorite fallacy. In fact, declaring that it is my favorite fallacy is both an ad hominem of itself and a straw man as well.
"You are not entering into this with good faith...."
Sixth ad hominem, or maybe seventh. Also, I did enter here with good faith. Hence why I engaged with everyone here. You're the one who refuses to engage with me. So, I think it may be you who came in good faith, but it is not my position to declare this.
"You are not entering into this in an intellectually honest way."
Neither are you.
"You are educated, but it has not given you wisdom."
Eighth or ninth ad hominem. Also, irrelevant. You don't have any more wisdom than I do. Wisdom isn't real.
"You claim seventeen years of faithful service to God, is that one to seventeen years old?"
I claim seventeen years of faithful service to God. i was a pastor. The age range here is irrelevant though. Straw man.
"What part of writing to you is productive?"
All of it, because I listen to people. Maybe you're not willing to listen, but personally, I am.
"All you have to offer me is hate & all I have for you is pity"
I have no hate to offer. I don't hate anyone. I just want to teach you the reasoning behind why omniscience is impossible, but you refuse to listen either out of fear or for some reason you hide from me. Trying to teach you something doesn't make me hateful. Nor does it make you hateful either.
1
-
"I looked over it. You are wrong & it is all there if you want to read it."
I read it all, and I know I'm not wrong.
"Odd that you missed the part where I did not want to argue with you because, I am not a philosophy major."
You only chose to stop arguing after you failed to persuade me with your flawed arguments, but rather than admitting this was the reason, you claimed you lacked sufficient scholarly education in philosophy to argue with me. Which is okay, but it is not an excuse. Most people commenting in YouTube are not scholars in philosophy either. So your point is lame.
"I do not want to argue with you but you insist on doing so."
If you truly wanted to not argue with me, you'd have stopped engaging and responding a long time ago. You've not chosen to stop though.
"This is proof that your last two posts to me, after I told you I do not want to argue with you, are at least against my wishes if not with intent to harm."
Ad hominem. I also have no intent of harming anyone. You can stop creating false assumptions.
"If that was true, would you not seek people that can understand what you said or make it accessible to any reader by teaching the principle?"
This is precisely what I've done. Once again, everyone in this comment section has understood everything I've said, and my arguments are fairly accessible. Perhaps you can't understand them, but it is irrelevant whether you understand or not: if everyone else understands, then this is proof it is accessible.
"Instead you choose to come after someone who told you they cannot understand that level of philosophical discussion."
No, I came at you because you actually told me to shut up and stop responding to your comments, which you have no right to do.
"Then you claimed the thread as yours."
I did not.
"Saying I could not comment to anyone on it (not verbatim) without engaging you."
Not what I said, and the fact that you refuse to provide verbatim quotes for the sake of twisting my words makes you dishonest. You're a real hypocrite, and yes this is an ad hominem, but still a true claim.
"This is the thread started by SirBagicious, not you."
It wasn't started by you either. I came to this comment section before you were here, and you responded to me and to the entire thread even though no one was talking to you.You use double standards.
"Make your own comment thread, then you might have a claim."
Make your own comment thread, then you might have the right to not engage with everyone at once.
"Otherwise it is clear who I was speaking to, & that is not you."
No, you were talking to EVERYONE including me. That is literally how comment sections work. Everyone has a right to respond. It's called free speech. Maybe that doesn't exist in your country, but it exists in mine. Learn to respect that.
"Let me state this plainly, your a bully. Your need to seek out a clearly weaker target in your area of expertise. This shows your inability to compete within it or a perceived inadequacy within yourself to your peers in your field."
And this claim shows you're an idiot who likes to make personal assumptions about people without any logical justification only so that you can feel better about yourself. I'd give you respect if you respected me, but you clearly fail to do so. But regardless, I do have the capacity to compete within my own field of expertise, and I do so everyday.
"If you did, you would choose to make what you said accessible or you would only speak with similarly skilled individuals who could fully appreciate your endeavors."
I made it accessible. It isn't my fault you didn't understand it if everyone else did.
"For your own good seek help of a certified clinician."
You are a person who hallucinates with a man in the sky who does not exist, and who somehow has magic powers and has infinite knowledge, all of which can be proven to be impossible, and whom by the way you have never seen or heard because he literally is immaterial. You're essentially comparable to a moderate schizophrenic. You need the clinician much more than I do.
Have a nice day .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"morality's subjective nature has an objective qualitative factor, (i.e.
reality). In other words, human behavior (objective reality) sets the
tone for morality."
There is no objective qualitative factor in morality. There is universal moral agreement which is practical, hence allowing us to ignore the subjectivity of morality, because humans only adopt the pragmatic set of assumptions which make morality practical for our anthropocentric purposes of survival. However, this still is arbitrary and subjective to our own discretion.
"I think the notion that "one has to know they're omniscient in order to
be omniscient" is problematic when applying it to a eternal being."
No, it isn't problematic, because being eternal and being omniscient are completely unrelated and irrelevant to one another.
"That being we call God has a rational mind, and we know this in part
given our understanding of our material environment or creation."
1. Humans define rationality.
2. It is impossible to conclude any properties about an immaterial being based on an immaterial world. Non sequitur fallacy.
"But from a purely creative material standpoint, God knows everything relative to that."
This argument suffers from a flaw, since it assumes that God created the material universe, which is false. God could not have possibly created the universe because due to the very nature of the universe itself, it can't have a cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Intelligence - the kind were displaying in this mere discussion - is the product of an another intelligent agent(s)"
Intelligence is the product of coding, which can be done simply by storing chemical and thermal information on particles and waves. Life is not a requirement for intelligence to begin to exist, and by extension neither is intelligence itself. We know this from the Stanley Miller experiment.
"We can't apply these material attributes to a being, I believe, is immaterial and eternal."
It is special pleading because both the immaterial claim and the eternal claim are unjustified. In fact, it may be possible to argue that both are actually impossible, but I have yet to verify this with an argument myself.
"Unfortunately we have no way of pinpointing or measuring when such a phenomena may occur."
Then there is no reason to believe such a God exists, nor is there reason to think God is the cause of anything. You're not making much sense here.
"We can't anthropomorphize the universe."
Claiming the universe is everything that is not an anthropomorphization of the universe, it's an ontological claim, and a semantic one. It's true by definition.
"By contrast human civilization ties God with ethical constructs."
This is ad hoc and unjustified. There is no reason to think God is moral.
"Thus we conclude God is a being with a mind. "
No, in that case we define God as having a mind. Words are labels. If something doesn't have a mind then it possibly cannot be God. That's part of the definition of the label itself.
"It can't be predetermined if humans exercise accountability."
If humans exercise accountability, then God is not omniscient.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Dennis summation of opinionated desirability / undesirability is correct."
We agree on this much.
"His point is that, if the proposition is true, it is merely a emotional appeal w/ out any real inherit substance and or moral force to apply or agree upon."
Not true. Be careful. While it is true that this would imply it is an emotional appeal, it does not imply there is no real substance to it. We do have reason to agree on a set of collective morality. The only implication stemming from emotional appeal is that this collective morality is not objective and therefore highly arbitrary and non-deductive. It says nothing about whether it is meaningful or not.
"Also, this isn't how the real world operates."
It need not be. Objectivity has nothing to do with practicality. Something can be established subjectively while remaining practical. Please review the definition of objectivity: nowhere in it is there mention of practicality.
"Nobody in their right mind believes there isn't something inherently objectively wrong in certain human behaviors."
This is true, but a straw-man argument. Humans are animals, which means that we have an instinct to survive and use our abilities for this purpose. Hence, we have an inherent bias into believing that certain things are simply moral imperatives, but only because these things serve our own purposes, and purpose is also subjective. If we had been robots instead who hadn't an instinct for biological survival, but instead had some other purpose, then our moral biases would still be very different. Which goes to show that morality is still subjective, and this isn't negated by the fact that we have inherent biases towards moralities of survival.
"We need not hold to an unconscious unintelligent standard - a ludicrous standard IMO - when applied to rational autonomous agents."
I agree. We need no objective morality in order to operate on a functional society. We are rational beings, so we are intelligent enough to agree on subjective moral standards to serve our purposes, which is completely fine. However, keep in mind that by no means does this imply morality is objective. You seem to think it does.
"Logically only conscious / intelligent beings can set the objective standards for conscious / intelligent beings behavior."
False by definition. Revise what objectivity is. Keep in mind that objectivity and practicality are very much unrelated. I'm claiming morality is completely subjective, and that it does indeed boil down to a debate of what is desirable versus what isn't. However, this has nothing to do with the fact that, despite morality being subjective, there are multiple arbitrary, subjective, yet practical and intuitive reasons to lean towards our moral biases and instincts and socially agree that murder is immoral. You keep confusing practicality with objectivity, which are not at all equal.
"History has shown that societies can conclude the murdering of others can be highly desirable regardless of the dangers and or rationale."
I agree. This isn't relevant though.
"Individuals or societal conclusions opting for moral behavior being nothing other than opinionated desirability has no business declaring anything on anyone."
It does have a business, actually, because the lack of objectivity debunks the notion that God must necessarily exist, which is super relevant for society. It is relevant because whether God exists or not is incredibly important and our futures literally depend on figuring it out.
"The objectivity you speak of isn't going to happen."
I know. It is impossible by definition. Objectivity is self-contradicting. Again, I never said it was going to happen. You keep going on tangents and making comments that are either irrelevant or that make me think you are confused as to what this debate is even about.
"Morality set by our creator and or God would still be insufficient for you in establishing objectivity? Incredible."
Yes, because by definition, it LITERALLY cannot be objective. It isn't difficult to understand and I'm tired of repeating. Any morality established by God must by definition serve God's own purposes, REGARDLESS of whether God is omniscient and eternal, or not (and God is in fact NOT omniscient nor eternal, both of these are self-contradicting and therefore impossible, and I already discussed this). It isn't incredible: it's called logic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is just all jumbo not supported by evidence. Historically, authoritative parents have never been successful and have never been considered an ideal type of parent by well-informed psychologists. This so called “expert” provided an example with a teacher, and providing an example is fine and all, but the problem is that what actually happens in real life shows that authoritative teachers are not successful. Children are not really supposed to simply obey everything and period. This is not how raising children works, and children do not like authority. Children are curious. Historically, children of authoritative parents are actually not obedient at all, but their parents are unaware because they’re also secretive about it on top of that. It just completely destroys the parenting. Children want explanations. You have to provide these explanations to them for then to learn and understand and comply to an order. If they get argumentative and are able to pick apart your explanations, then that means your explanations are objectively bad and you’re a bad parent. That’s what it comes down to. If you tell them “because I said so”, that isn’t going to convince them at all. Sure, it may instill fear in them, and some children will react to fear by applying an obedient stance. But most of the other children won’t. If they’re not convinced and you tell them that, they’ll simply lose your trust and keep disobeying your orders, but in secret. And you know what we call it when we use fear as method of governing and ruling? Terrorism. Think about this for a second.
Also, you act as though obedient children are rare in this generation, and as though children are intrinsically little devils that need quarantine, but neither of these claims has evidence to support it. Children have always been disobedient.
1