Londoner wrote: ↑Wed Aug 09, 2017 1:43 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:14 pm
...you only mean your own view.
But of course! Why would anyone advocate a view they simply didn't believe at all?
Oh, absolutely. I marvel that it took us so long to establish that. Yes, have always been assuming that, and make no apology for it.
It would have been established sooner if instead of '
theists' you had written
'I' and '
me'.
But I wasn't saying "me." I was saying what rational Theists are bound to believe if they wish to remain rational. I also have been pointing out what rational Atheists are obligated to believe, if they wish to be rational with their Atheism. So I was speaking of what groups must believe, given the premises upon which their worldview is built. That is why I wrote:
Non sequitur. I'm speaking of the proposition that God exists, which if true, will be true for everyone -- even Atheists -- regardless of my personal beliefs.
And can you prove that is the case?
It doesn't even need further proof than you already have. If you use the word "proof," you must believe there is a common reality held by you and by me, in which proof is either available or lacking. Availability of it would be inductively compelling to you, and lack would be probabilistically compelling. That's what you're already implying, whether you realized it or not.
So you also believe that something that "exists" in reality will "exist" for all persons, regardless of their beliefs about it. And so does every sensible person.
No, that would only be true if I posited a God as merely material. Material entities have specific location, extension and so forth: entities with metaphysical properties do not.
'Merely material' ? Does that mean that God is 'partly material'?
No. It means that God is capable of producing evidences in the material world, because he is not
less real than the reality we have; He is far
more. Of course, that has to be true if He's the
Creator of reality. He must be a sufficient Cause for reality. Thus He must be bigger than it.
Our reality is temporary; His is the permanent truth, from which the present, transient reality is merely derived.
How do you know 'God says so'? You say theists can get the objective facts wrong, so why can't you?
it's my inductive judgment, based on the evidence I have in hand, rational, empirical and experiential. But am I certain to the exclusion of any error margin? Of course not. Nobody ever is. That's why faith is essential to all human knowing.
The secular Jewish physicist Michael Polanyi made this case brilliantly back in the 1960s. I refer you to his work, if you want to see the arguments for that fleshed out. But that insight is far from exclusive to Theists.
For example, one of the fundamental confessions in Judaism (and in Islam) is that of their being one God. That means that either the Polytheists are right, or the Jews are right, or if God didn't exist, both would be wrong. But one thing we can know for certain: it is logically absurd to say that they are both right. That's logically impossible, by the Law of Non-Contradiction.
I do not see where that gets you. The Law of Non-Contradiction applies if two propositions are "mutually exclusive" and "
jointly exhaustive". The examples you gave are not jointly exhaustive, since there are further possibilities, for example that God does not exist at all.
Of course. There is a "trilemma" in the possibilities. But you were only asking about the conflicts among Theists. However, I'm quite happy to include Atheism, and you'll find that the Law of Non-Contradiction still applies. See here...
If there are no Gods, Theism and Polytheism are untrue.
If there are many gods, then Monotheism and Atheism are untrue.
If there is one God, then Polytheism and Atheism are untrue.
However you slice it, 2/3 are always untrue. You don't even have to know which is THE truth to see that it's impossible for more than one to be true at a time.
So are you saying the fact that people agree, or disagree, is significant or not?
It is significant of the fact that they CAN agree, but not of the question of whether or not when they agree they've got the truth. That's a different question. I was simply debunking your claim that we're all unique in perspective, not promising you a road to the truth through their agreement. That would be Bandwagon Fallacy.
Non-sequitur. There are non-physical, objective facts. For example, "Child abuse is wrong," is a value judgment, but I hope we both believe it's objectively true.
The way you phrase it of course begs the question, since to call it 'abuse' already includes a value judgement. If we understand English we will understand that 'abuse' means 'treat badly' - but we might not agree what forms of treatment should be called 'abuse'.
Then change the term. Just say, "paedophelia." Paedophiles think they're right, and you and I think they are hideously wrong. But both sides use the term without the "begging" element of "abuse."
But in point of fact, I rested nothing on the word "abuse." I did not intend it to convince you. I was merely pointing out that there are actions that you and I both think are morally repugnant...and I hope I was right. Call them what you will.
But let us concentrate on the 'objective' bit...You could start with your objective evidence that God exists.
This has been done repeatedly and in print, audio and video, so I'll summarize. There are logical, analytic, empirical, experiential, revelatory and moral arguments for the existence of God. These you can easy research online, if you really care. Start with things like the Kalaam, then work toward the Moral Argument, perhaps.
But the experiential is also an important argument for me, though my experience cannot be conveyed to you. You could, however, have your own experience with God. Whether you do or don't will be your own decision, not mine.
So is that the nature of your objective evidence?
No. See above.
So when you say your own beliefs provide you with a basis for an objective morality, that basis is your belief. That something is moral - because you think it is moral.
No. Morality is what
God says is moral. It depends on revelation of the moral facts, not on my personal disposition. That's a prejudice of our modern world: everybody thinks that the only thing morality can mean is "whatever I personally believe it is." Christians do not believe that. Nor does any genuinely moral person. But moral Atheists cannot explain rationally why they believe that.
OK, but I do not see how the fact that you think a particular way is evidence that people who think differently to you are wrong.
Law of Non-Contradiction. If it is categorically wrong to be a paedophile, then it cannot be categorically right to be one. If it's wrong to tell a lie in circumstance Z, then it cannot be right to tell a lie in circumstance Z. If it is always wrong to kill babies, then killing these babies cannot be right...
Note that we
don't even have to say which side of those claims you personally prefer!.
If you wanted to kill babies, to lie, or to be a paedophile, you'd still have to believe the same thing: that the other side was wrong. It's simply a matter of understanding logic. Both
cannot be right. It's impossible. Aristotle's Law.